91视频

When it comes to land use planning in Oregon, everybody seems to worship at the altar of public participation, except when they don鈥檛. Planners, public officials, nonprofit advocates, and trade organizations project, at least officially, that public participation is the lifeblood of planning and land use regulation and part of our secular public religion. But when the pesky public intrudes on its own special interests, the enthusiasm wanes and exceptions are found.

Oregon enshrines public participation as its first of 19 planning goals. Goal 1 is called 鈥渃itizen involvement;鈥� however, the more accepted view recently is that involvement is not limited to those with citizenship 鈥� hence the change of nomenclature. While it is first among the goals, the impact of this goal (unlike others that protect resources or deal with urban infrastructure, for example) is minimal. Unlike most other goals, there are no administrative rules to detail specific means to implement its broad aspirations. And unlike other goals, it vies with the Energy Goal (Goal 13) in terms of its ineffectiveness.

During the recent session of the Oregon Legislature, the Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association (which represents professional planners and supporters of planning), put forward a legislative proposal to overhaul Goal 1 and made a concerted effort to support that bill, so that it passed out of its substantive House Committee. However, the legislative revenue projections caused the Ways and Means Joint Committee to let that bill, and many others, go into 鈥渄eep freeze.鈥� Perhaps there will be work during the interim and another overhaul will be proposed in the future, but the legislative will just is not there now. The noble aspiration gives way to other priorities and silence prevails.

Not so silent, however, are the protestations from both blue-collar and white-collar communities over the siting of group homes, homeless shelters, and respite housing. Some of these uses are protected by federal and state legislation. For the most part, for example, group homes for recovering addicts or those with mental disabilities cannot be denied (although that hasn鈥檛 stopped some from trying). Response to the housing crisis brings the perception that 鈥渢he government鈥� just isn鈥檛 listening to public needs or public opinion.

Oregon鈥檚 governor and Portland鈥檚 mayor advocate a system that prioritizes homeless shelters to meet a need so that they are often allowed over the objections of neighbors. These objections recall those of rural Oregonians against the adoption of minimum lot size and other requirements for farm and forest lands for a long-range objective of resource protection. These folks also thought that they hadn鈥檛 been heard.

These are difficult policy decisions that have far-reaching consequences. In a democracy, the legislature and locally elected bodies speak for all of us, even when their decisions make rural landowners in Umatilla County or residential neighborhoods in Washington County unhappy. The trick for the legislature and local governing bodies is to involve the public in policy formulation and the need for temporary intervention to balance local support of planning with occasional, but justifiable, intrusion into locally administered land use regulations. It would also help to undertake a post-intrusion review to determine whether that intervention was justified and whether mitigation through good neighbor agreements were offered or useful. When the legislature is perceived as the tool of an ideology or interest group and issues edicts from on high without post-intervention review, support of planning breaks down.

Just as urban majoritarianism to tighten rural land use regulations brought forward the passage of Measure 37 under the clever ballot title to provide 鈥渏ust compensation鈥� for land use regulation and the subsequent political and legal difficulties, so also are repeated failure to consider and deal with the difficult facts on the ground in accommodating the homeless. Many group homes鈥� officials have found ways to listen to, and meet, neighbors鈥� concerns. Local elected officials and their staffs are convinced of the righteousness of sheltering the homeless and are also less able to deal effectively with those concerns. In the long term, these actions without an affirmative effort to hear, address and hold providers accountable undermine public support for planning.

Another potential concern that also might undermine support for planning resides in the efforts of the governor to boost the number of available housing units. The governor has proposed legislation that would cut the public out of participation in some land use decisions. In 2024, the legislature allowed for up to 10 鈥渁djustments鈥� (variances) of certain land use regulations to accommodate housing for such things as height, yards, and landscaping. The applicant could appeal a local decision, but no one else. In the current session, the right to a hearing in certain quasi-judicial (permit) decisions, as well as the right to appeal, are excluded.

In many of these cases, it would likely be consistent with state housing policy to grant the adjustments or approve the decisions excluded from review. However, granting an applicant the power to affect a discretionary process by making a backroom deal with the planning staff or asserting the power to overcome objections by the staff and neighbors brings distrust. Continuing to exclude the public from decision-making or appeals creates skepticism in that process, not to mention further efforts by other interest groups to undertake similar exclusions.

The governor鈥檚 housing program has hardly been a success, given its lofty production goals for new housing units. And changing the rules 鈥渏ust this once鈥� in lieu of assuring the system itself is efficient, while at the same time participatory, is a remedy for performative motion in lieu of substantive reform.

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.