91视频

What would you say if someone told you that 鈥淥regon needs an effective program to increase the supply of聽affordable housing choices, measurably reduce racial and economic segregation, avoid the air pollution that is changing the climate, save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by avoiding wasteful spending, conserve precious water and wildlife, save the magnificent Oregon Coast鈥檚 public beaches, and protect the incredibly beautiful and productive ranch and farmlands that provide rural jobs as well as food and fiber.鈥�

You might say, 鈥淥regon already has an incredible land conservation and development program, and no state has anything close to it.鈥�

It has taken 50 years of constant updates, refinement, and political blood, sweat and tears from governors from both parties as well as thousands of average citizens across the state to build this program. It is why Oregon does not look like New Jersey or California. But that program has slowly been eroded by incremental Oregon legislative action.

The erosion began with efforts of those wishing to allow placement of uses unrelated to farm or forest purposes on cheaper resource lands to bypass rules for the preservation of those lands by adding them to a list of permitted non-resource uses. That list had grown from fewer than 10 (including rural churches and schools) in 1973 to more than 50 today, including such 鈥渘ecessary鈥� uses as water bottling plants, certain aerial fireworks display businesses, 鈥渆quine and equine-affiliated therapeutic and counseling activities,鈥� and propagation of insect species.

Some urban legislators hold that, while the overall system is a good one, everything would be better if we just made a few changes. They want to allow rural wineries, breweries and cider houses to become rural restaurants and add stores to sell products unrelated to those raised or grown on the land to be sold there. And they argue that if Hillsboro were to just get 1,700 more acres of farmland inside the regional urban growth boundary (UGB), then economic development would fall from the skies, and everyone would be happy and prosperous. Some cities say they can鈥檛 wait to go through a detailed process to justify UGB additions.

One can hardly blame Hillsboro. Since the state Legislature intervened in 2011 following the defeat of Hillsboro鈥檚 efforts to expand the regional UGB, the instant result of that legislation created the precedent of inviting the Legislature to become the state planning commission. Any property owner desiring to overcome the inconvenience of waiting and the uncertainty of an outcome was welcome to use their lobbyist and local legislators. Efforts to overcome existing UGB amendment processes were accomplished recently by Dallas, Bend and Roseburg. You don鈥檛 have to justify anything 鈥� all you need is enough votes. That same combination of money, pork barrel influence and cleverness was what led to the passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973.

Our program was sold to Oregonians based on public participation. But now the Legislature seeks to exclude the public from notice or participation in local land use decisions, or to make further review of those decisions either difficult or impossible. The wholesale elimination of design or tree regulations, which avoids Soviet-style monotony in housing, or waving off the needs of cities in accommodating transportation or public facility concerns over the Legislature鈥檚 latest favorite are results the state will live to regret. Local zoning regulations are indeed part of our housing deficit; however, simply removing them will not affect materials and construction costs or bring interest rates down and is unlikely to move the housing needle significantly.

The Oregon Legislature, led by Democrats, is pulling our enviable land use program apart piece by piece.聽Licking their chops are the land speculators, right-wing extremists, rich reactionaries who want Oregon to be their second vacation home, and the real estate agents and developers (not all of them, fortunately)聽who will make fortunes by dismantling what others took decades to build.

The phony sophisticates who claim the law is outdated are either ignorant or lying about the hundreds and hundreds (yes hundreds) of pages of amendments to our land conservation and development program that have been adopted, changes made every year, to keep it fresh and relevant, including amendments relevant to housing needs, climate change and food security.聽But further reforms aren鈥檛 what appeal to these interests, but rather exemptions and exclusion of the public from land use changes.

Passing exemptions to the law to enrich certain landowners,聽without even pretending to hear from the state agency staff with the expertise and the responsibility to administer the law, undermines the rule of law and opens the door to political corruption.聽Exclusion of the public will lead to the loss of credibility and support for its planning program. In this, the Democratic leadership is following the path being blazed by MAGA.聽They should be ashamed of themselves.

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.