News

Stories about land use and planning from local and national sources. Ideas and events that affect livable urban and rural communities.

Archived

Work yet to be done on land use law

November 12, 2007

By David Steves
The Register - Guard

SALEM — Don’t think voters’ decision last Tuesday to replace the Measure 37 property rights law with Measure 49’s property-rights-lite means Oregonians are done fighting over their elaborate land use planning system.

If anything, the vote has stirred up more talk about what to do with the system that sharply restricts development on farmland and forests, and draws sprawl-limiting boundaries around cities.

The results were still being tabulated in Tuesday night’s election results when the governor, top lawmakers and land use watchdog groups all said the next step should be to revive Oregon’s “Big Look” commission that’s charged with reviewing Oregon’s land use laws and recommending legislative actions.

“The outcome of the vote said that Oregonians absolutely want to continue to discuss land use issues and how land use issues are being handled in Oregon,” said House Minority Leader Bruce Hanna, a Roseburg Republican whose district includes east Lane County.

Speaking for his majority caucus, House Democratic Leader Dave Hunt said the Big Look committee should be brought back to finish its work.

“We are all in favor of restoring funding back,” the Gladstone lawmaker said.

The nine-member commission was created by the 2005 Legislature with Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s support. It was halfway through its four-year life span when the 2007 Legislature appropriated less than half of what Kulongoski had requested for the Big Look work. Lawmakers also included language in an appropriations bill directing the Department of Land Conservation and Development to provide “minimal staff support” for its Big Look activities.

Since then, the commission has met just once, in July. No additional meetings have been scheduled.

Kulongoski said in a letter to Big Look task force members last June that he was disappointed with the Legislature’s actions and pledged to restore its funding and ability to fulfill its mission to produce a final report for the 2009 legislative session.

He also cited some of the possible reasons the Big Look was shut down.

“Some suggest it was a result of dissatisfaction with the direction that your task force was taking. Others express concern that your planned efforts and public discussion over the next several months would have been clouded or shortchanged by what is expected to be a vigorous debate over the legislative referral of (Measure 49),” he wrote.

Last Tuesday, while joining other celebrants at the “Yes on 49” campaign’s election night party, Kulongoski said he was ready to make good on last summer’s pledge to restore funding by taking the issue to the February session of the Legislature.

“Measure 49 has set the stage for a more productive review of our land use system through the efforts of the Big Look task force.”

Top lawmakers of both parties — although quick to dispute who was responsible for and aware of the cut to Big Look’s budget — all said after Tuesday’s election that they shared that goal.

Dave Hunnicutt, president of the property rights group Oregonians in Action, said the passage of Measure 49 made Big Look more critical than ever when it comes to addressing concerns among his group’s membership.

Hunnicutt opposed Measure 49 and wanted to keep Measure 37 in place.

Hunnicutt said the biggest gripe about Oregon’s land use planning system has gone unheeded since its inception in the 1970s: that it unfairly imposes a rigid regime in a state with diverse landscape — and disparate levels of interest in rural development — that includes rich farming valleys, coastal communities and vast intermountain lands.

Hunnicutt cited the election results for Measure 49. The north and central coast, Willamette Valley, Columbia Gorge and Central Oregon counties approved the measure, while Southern and Eastern Oregon voted against it.

The only way to recognize those regional differences, Hunnicutt said, is “by giving more authority to local governments or a regional group.”

Spokesman Eric Stachon said his group, 1000 Friends of Oregon, is ready for Big Look to finish its work. But his organization, which strongly advocates for statewide planning, has different hopes for what it might recommend: incentives for small farmers to produce locally grown food for nearby communities and a recognition of the role planning can play in curbing greenhouse gases produced by long-distance commuters.

Still, he said it was possible Big Look could produce recommendations for all sides to support.

“I don’t think I would entirely rule out that there may be areas of common agreement,” Stachon said.

TAKE ACTION

Get Involved with 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Support

Action Items

Volunteer