91视频

The Oregon planning system has been around for over 50 years and served the people of our state well. The system features mandatory planning under state standards, implementation of those plans in the land use regulations and actions at all levels of government, and an urban growth boundary (UGB) that separates urban and rural lands. Lands outside that boundary are largely planned and zoned for resource uses, as well as accommodating built and committed uses (such as rural residential uses approved before the application of the goals) and uses allowed through an exceptions process. On the other hand, urban uses are located within UGBs, which must be sufficient to accommodate 20 years of growth, and expand when new uses are needed.

The danger of a planning system like Oregon鈥檚 is that it relies on legislative restraint or self-denial of attempts to game the system. The latest attempt comes from legislation passed in 2023, known as SB 4, which would allow the governor to change urban growth boundaries to allow tech manufacturing uses outside UGBs to be eligible for federal funds under the CHIPS Act. The area proposed for expansion is near Hillsboro, but outside the regional UGB, which was revised only recently and deemed to accommodate all uses needed for that 20-year period.

Some observers contend that the possibility of a high-tech plant and federal monies are good reasons to expand the UGB 鈥� an opportunity that the region should not let pass by. That argument is reminiscent of one involving the siting of a supercollider in 1987, when state leaders rolled out the red carpet for such a facility and the legislature enacted a process to waive state planning laws to land that putative golden goose. Well, the goose never arrived, and the super siting law never amounted to anything. Closer to home was the proposal in 1985 to site a regional solid waste facility at Bacona Road in northwest Washington County (where the regional opposition in terms of numbers was weakest). That proposal also went nowhere. These were two examples of foolish efforts to game the planning system to get a certain result, notwithstanding subsequent consequences. And while it is said the land would return to rural status if the project weren鈥檛 realized, that outcome is not realistic once the land gets that urban designation and expectations of development are generated.

Using the existing Oregon planning system, one would have to look at available lands already inside the UGB before considering lands outside. Has there been any real effort to determine whether urban lands are currently available? Hillsboro has been able to use its own planning and urban renewal powers to acquire lands for its existing premiere technical and industrial uses for decades and it is not clear why it could not do the same again.

Alternatively, Metro could have used its significant planning and regulatory powers to consider lands inside and outside the current UGB using a regional planning process. Instead, the shortsighted and incomplete 鈥渟olution鈥� of SB 4 was chosen, even though the issue of locating additional high-tech uses was well-known before the 2023 session began. Resorting to quick fixes like this will encourage similar efforts to bypass the detailed consideration of land needs, alternatives, consideration of impacts, and protection of surrounding resource lands. However, the governor鈥檚 active support for quick fixes like this demonstrates a cavalier regard for the hard work, citizen outreach and multiple considerations that must accompany large-scale industrial siting.

This USB expansion is solely for industrial development without any contemplation of necessary supportive uses. Employees for this use will require homes, supportive services like restaurants and stores, and if these necessities are not adjacent to the UGB expansion area, will create significant transportation demands that have not been considered. An evaluation of impacts would have been dealt with under the existing UGB process. That process could have required hearings, deadlines, and appeal opportunities, instead of a single hearing to allow the public to let off steam before a single person makes the final, and unappealable, decision. This is not the kind of procedure that Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 1 envisioned for citizen involvement.

In addition to the concerns that such a large UGB expansion as contemplated here should only be done after a complete planning process (described above), there are also concerns for the residents with the lowest incomes in the region. One of the missions of the state planning program is to address land use policies to allow for affordable housing development, and a corollary of that mission is that land use choices that result in a greater burden on those with the lowest incomes must be avoided. Examples of who we mean include, but are not limited to, janitorial workers and other service staff to the tech industry who will be shouldering the added transportation cost burden (both financial and time) of longer commutes to this artificial expansion of the urban growth boundary. Intentionality is needed in our state鈥檚 urban planning process to accommodate such workers who already face hourslong commutes.

Oregon has for 50 years relied upon a planning process that is predictable, comprehensive, and not beholden to single-issue politics. It would be far better to encourage Hillsboro and Metro to initiate a meaningful analysis and process to plan to accommodate additional high-tech employment, rather than sell out that program not for the golden goose but for the mess of pottage of short-term gain.

Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience. Contact him at [email protected].

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.