Demonizing Land Use Planning
Russell Sadler
Kevin Mannix, a Republican Candidate for governor, told a cheering political rally he will use the power of the governor’s office to withhold money from the Land Conservation and Development Commission to dramatically weaken what Mannix called the “dictatorship” of Oregon’s land use planning program.
This is pure political bluster. What Mannix promises to do is beyond the authority of the Oregon Governor’s office.
Mannix came in third in the Republican’s Dorchester Conference straw poll. He is trying to attract more votes in the Republican primary.
Mannix is part of a deliberate attempt to demonize Oregon’s land use laws passed more than 30 years ago. It is a orchestrated effort to create a climate of public opinion that that will force the Legislature to make the laws more friendly to developers.
In fact, it was just such a developer-friendly climate that led to the passing of Oregon’s landmark land use laws in the first place.
The problem began in the wake of Oregon’s explosive growth following World War II. The state’s population doubled between 1945-1970. Sprawl and new housing was taxing roads and highways, public schools, police and fire departments. Overwhelmed, cities and counties responded with a hodgepodge of local zoning regulations or none at all.
In the midst of these local efforts to manage growth, a Clackamas County dairy farmer, Sid Gasser, formed an organization that got an initiative petition on the ballot repealing Clackamas County’s entire zoning ordinance in 1968.
Shortly after he led the repeal effort, Gasser learned that a private garbage hauler in Clackamas County planned to open a landfill in a ravine on private property adjacent to Gasser’s dairy farm. Gasser thundered down to the Courthouse and demanded the commissioners do something to “stop the dump.” The county commissioners wryly replied that Gasser has just eliminated any authority they had to help him.
Fearing more local initiatives repealing zoning ordinances would create a crazy quilt of ineffective regulation pitting one city or county against another to permit uses a neighboring county would not, the 1969 Legislature a measure declaring land use regulation a matter of statewide concern, not subject to local initiatives. It also required every Oregon city and county to produce a comprehensive land use plan in four years.
That turned out to be a much more difficult job than anyone thought. By the deadline, fewer than half Oregon’s cities and counties had produced the required plans.
The 1973 Legislature passed Senate Bill 100 creating the Land Conservation and Development Commission to create statewide goals and guideline for local governments to follow as they produced their comprehensive plans.
The goals and guidelines contained three principles that Oregon adopted before anyone else.
The Urban Growth Boundary -- a space around each city that was to contain a 20-year supply of undeveloped land. The boundary ended the practice of leapfrog development -- building large subdivisions in the middle of agricultural land then claiming all the land in between for urban development, forcing cities to provide budget-busting services and infrastructure prematurely.
Resource Lands -- to protect two of Oregon’s largest industries, timber and agriculture, priority was given to these business outside the urban growth boundaries and incompatible uses were prohibited without going through a deliberately difficult “exceptions” process. This put a damper of real estate speculation.
Public Participation -- Prior to the 1970s, the first the neighbors often learned of a zone change was the day the bulldozers started moving dirt. Land use laws require extensive public participation in the development of comprehensive plans and timely notice for zone changes. Local officials must hear evidence in public and explain their reasons for their land use decisions in public meets and on a written record so the courts can review them.
These land use laws are far from a “dictatorship.” They have generally, if imperfectly, encouraged development where lawmakers of 30 years ago wanted it encouraged, discouraged it where they didn’t want it and assured public participation in the process.
Opponents of the present process are an obstinate cheering core of people who opposed land use controls back in the 1970s and never accepted them. There is also opposition from a new generation of landowners outside the urban growth boundaries who want to cash in now on rising land values. Some find the idea that neighbors and the public have any say in how a landowners uses private land “ridiculous.”
Demographers predict Oregon’s population will double again by 2025. History suggests the public will demand more land use regulation, not less, to deal sprawl and its costly consequences. It is time Oregonians demanded a concrete list of changes sought by the opponents of the current land use laws -- before we go blithely back to “the good old days.” Or we just might wind up like Sid Gasser.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 2, '06
Mannix is a nutjob.
Witness this - in the first gubernatorial 'debates' he stated [paraphrased] that were are human first, Americans second, and Oregonians last. Uh-uh. No. Not in the Oregon I grew up in. While my personal worldview leads me to doubt Mr. Mannix's humanity, in the Oregon I grew up in we were, are, Oregonians first.
I remember a time when Oregonians were Independent thinkers, not subscribing to fat-cat east-coast talking points. What happened?
I will applaud Mr. Mannix's crawl back into whatever sewer it is it crawled out of.
4:16 p.m.
Apr 2, '06
I particularly like the story about Gasser repealing the zoning laws and then telling people to do their job. Personally I have to wonder in the wake of Measure 37 if we won't hear more stories like this.
Apr 2, '06
Russell:
I have been saying this on this blog for some time now: There are many of us Democrats who voted for Measure 37, because nobody would fix the problems with Oregon land use planning system.
All of you that love this system so much have never had to work in it. Measure 37 passed with 60+%, that wasn't just a bunch of righties.
The problem is that the system had and has flaws, progressives should be progressive -- and fix problems. This "Tom McCall passed a perfect bill in 1973" belief ignores progress, changing times, and changing attitudes.
If you look, the system works for big-box developers and strip-mallers, but not for a working-class family. That is not planning.... and Republicans get to play the "fairness" card, how stupid are we?
Please, please, please be more flexible on your blind love of the land use system. It really is broken for many of us. We can fix it without letting the Republicans destroy it, but not if we always defend the broken system.
Apr 2, '06
So, if we question OIA's grasp of the details we have "blind love" for the land use system?
There is a difference between saying there need to be changes in procedure and totally junking the whole system. I hope there are neighbors of a Meas. 37 claim who file a claim of their own. Has there not already been a proposed gravel pit or motocross or something near the home of an OIA member?
There is red tape in all sorts of organizations. Anyone who thinks only LCDC has red tape problems has never been a veteran seeking benefits (apparently the origin of the term red tape) or a corporate employee battling computerized payroll, or a teacher dealing with TSPC during certificate renewal.
But when a subdivision is built near a farm and then the new residents complain about the noise and smell of a working farm, I don't think that is LCDC's fault. Some people blame agencies for their own lack of thinking things thru.
Can we agree that a) LCDC has red tape problems b) declaring 37 unconstitutional did not address such implementation issues as neighbor complaint rights and transferability?
I say if transferability was not in the original Meas. 37 wording it should not be part of the implementation, because measure authors should be held responsible for the wording of their measures.
I also believe that if there is a regulation in place before Measure 37 which says anyone who changes land from Exclusive Farm Use Zone to a higher profit/ higher tax zoning, they are responsible for the higher tax rate. That is, unless it really says in Measure 37 "changing the zone does not change the tax structure". I don't think it says that.
Apr 2, '06
"""This "Tom McCall passed a perfect bill in 1973" belief ignores progress, changing times, and changing attitudes."""
And it ignores the full spectrum of housing choices, including low density residential, which SB100 and McCall sought to preserve and provide. SB100 and McCall were hijacked by those who insist we must narrow our choices and live as they choose.
It continues with full drama today as planners insist that North Bethany and Damascus be limited to large swaths and open spaces and high density mixed use development with the winners and losers being picked by Metro, their favorite activists, and influential property owners who make sure 'their' land is buildable.
The play that M37 abandoned all zoning, environmental protections and fairness was and is a farce. To put it kindly.
Looking at the 428, to date, Washington County M37 claims, http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/measure37/
it's hard to ANY of the farce.
Where the impending destruction, pig farms, smelters and paved over vineyards?
What can be found on the list is many of the Oregonians who had been punished by the irrational and blind mislabeling of their land. The utter harmlessness of these claims is proof the M37 opponents don't want either fairness or reasonable remedies. They want a reversal of M37 and all those who are being freed from the constraints of excessive restriction to shut up and take it.
One of the funnier comments by Sadler is his characterization of the UGB.
"""The Urban Growth Boundary -- a space around each city that was to contain a 20-year supply of undeveloped land. """"" As with SB100 planners and activists have hijacked the UGB as well by expanding the boundary while leaving in place other constraints which rendered the so called "20 year supply" useless in most cases.
Nearly all of the 2002 UGB expansion remains unbuildable, much to the liking of anti-growthers, while perpetrating a pretense of expansion and growth accommodation and driving land costs through roof.
On "public participation"? We got the real deal when the public was allowed to vote on M37.
Thank you very much Oregonians In Action.
Apr 2, '06
LT:
OIA's agenda aside and I not about to go and join those guys. However, there have been 1000's of bills (opportunities) to amend, change, throw-out, and make common sense changes to the land use system over the past 15 years,,,,yet 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters send me e-mails saying every bill is "gutting" Oregon's beloved land use planning system. That's ridiculous.
The McMinnville News Register in my area has been one of the strongest allies for 1000 Friends over the past decade, look what they wrote just last year. They see Measure 37 for what it is, a blow at obstructionists.
The progressive movement is being hurt by not being progressive, but owned by obstructionists. The puritans on this issue are hurting our cause.
I don't want to debate the merits of Measure 37, and you shouldn't rationize the reason Measure 37 passed. Millions were spent fighting both Measure 7 and Measure 37, and the citizens knew what they were ging to get and said "so what?"
10:23 p.m.
Apr 2, '06
The problem is that the system had and has flaws, progressives should be progressive -- and fix problems. This "Tom McCall passed a perfect bill in 1973" belief ignores progress, changing times, and changing attitudes.
Hi Bob,
Although I think that Russell has offered up, in his distinctly insightful way, an important piece of history with regard to Oregon's land-use laws. I also tend to agree with your comments, and those of the News-Register, that over-reaching and obstructionism helped play a role in Measure 37 and previous initiatives that were passed by Oregon voters.
The LCDC and our legislature had a responsibility to the citizens of this state to let off some of the pressure with regard to land use. Had they done so, I believe that Oregonians would have never been saddled with Measure 37, which is nothing if not a response to some of the inequities of Oregon's land use system -- many of which were instituted years after SB 1000 was passed.
I have some ideas on what good public policy might look like in light of Measure 37. As the 2006 campaign roles on, I hope to share those ideas with folks in my district, and with all Oregonians who have an interest in taking part in a conversation about our land-use laws.
And Bob, I'm Sal Peralta. I'm running for the Oregon legislature in Yamhill County excluding Newberg and Sheridan. I believe that you live in my district. If you'd like to sit down and have a conversation about Measure 37, I'd love to meet with you.
Apr 2, '06
Bob, Sal has a good attitude. I hope you will talk specifics with him.
If you don't like 1000 Friends or OLCV emails, you can delete them or (dep. on your email service) possibly report them as spam.
About this: However, there have been 1000's of bills (opportunities) to amend, change, throw-out, and make common sense changes to the land use system over the past 15 years,,,, Perhaps you can enlighten us with bill numbers or other identifying data so we who read this blog can research the ideas and decide for ourselves if the ammendments, changes, or throwing out things were as common sense as you claim.
Apr 3, '06
LT:
I get the OLCV e-mails forwarded to me from a friend because I appreciate the information on all types of environmental issues. However, when they have some land use news from the capitol and it sounds reactionary (and I mean that in a right-wing, closed minded, derogatory way).
The problems with LCDC are not some small red-tape problems.... rather it is the problems of a system that protects big developers ability to build whatever they want (can you say Walmart), while stopping average families from living on a piece of property.
And is this system really protecting our livability? Try driving out to Yamhill County and then tell me that Oregon has good land use planning.
Look at prime farmland in 1973 and you will find it under concrete today, but I am sure we are all glad LCDC stuck it to that mill-worker, union member family in Baker City (where they can't grow anything but rocks). Good job.
Do you know that our LCDC actually developed a rule that said you have to make like $40,000 or even $80,000 of farm income to build a home on a piece of ground? Who was that regressive rule aimed at; low-income working class people, immigrants, and union Democrats.
If the Republicans came up with this income-based, fat-cat protection, gated neighborhood type rule I would believe it, but a Democrat Governor and agency? Only rich people can live in the country?
Intel and Nike can build on some great farmland, but I can't build a home for my family on my own land (by the way, our land is pretty crummy - I wish I had farmland like the land under Intel)?
But heck, “we made that decision in the glorious year of 1973 and we ain't changing because Oregon's system is the envy of the whole country (dripping sarcasm) and 1973 was the most perfect year in Oregon history and I wish we could relive that year every day of our whole lives (more sarcasm). I wish today was 1973……….
Sal: I appreciate your attitude to talk, but come on, you Yamhill Democrats have made it sport to attack Measure 37. And you do this without one statement on how the land use system is broken or how you would fix it. Believe me when I tell you that I am not the only Democrat that feels this way, but if Democrats are not going to get that message from a 60-40 vote on M37 then the party will never understand.
Sorry, I just needed to vent tonight.
Apr 3, '06
BTW: When I invite you out to see our great land use planning in Yamhill County I mean the hours you will sit in traffic trying to get out here. You will see the wonderfully planned traffic jams in Tigard, King City, Sherwood, Newberg and downtown Dundee. A monkey throwing darts could have done a better job of road planning in this state.
Russell: On the OIA thing, maybe they were crazy at one time 20 years ago, but for the past decade they have realized that they can take their message directly to the people. Just 20 years ago the 1000 Friends were viewed as the good guys who were the smart ones, now it is OIA.
Sorry, I just had to take those last parting shots.
3:47 a.m.
Apr 3, '06
Do you know that our LCDC actually developed a rule that said you have to make like $40,000 or even $80,000 of farm income to build a home on a piece of ground?
I'm no land-use attorney or planner, but I'm pretty sure that the rule you're talking about is related to building homes in Exclusive Farm Use areas. Yeah, "exclusive farm use". That means it has to be a farm -- not a suburban McMansion. Not even one with cute horsies.
6:00 a.m.
Apr 3, '06
I appreciate your attitude to talk, but come on, you Yamhill Democrats have made it sport to attack Measure 37.
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "you Yamhill County Democrats". The Yamhill County Democrats never took a position on measure 37, and the position of the folks that I know who are active in the party was split on 37.
My own opinion, and I've made this statement publicly on more than one occasion, is this: I believe that people knew exactly what they were doing when they voted for Measure 37. I don't think it's great policy, but I understand the underlying frustration that led to it, and I agree with several of the arguments of folks who voted for it.
We need to protect people's investments. We need to respect the rights of a family who wants to subdivide their land so that their kids can have a house of their own. The 2-year $80,000 requirement on small acreage before you can build on that acreage is onerus and was not part of SB 100.
But I also believe that having commissioners rubber-stamp every development claim without regard to how those claims will impact the value of properties of surrounding farmers, and which could impinge on their ability to farm is equally unfair and is bad policy. I believe that putting large subdivisions or strip malls on prime farmland outside of the UGB is bad policy. Having a commssion that refuses to allow county staff to assess the value of property on any claim made under 37 is bad policy.
Uncertainty with respect to the law benefits no one. A patchwork of laws that are subject to the whim of local commissioners, and which can change with the composition of those commissioners benefits no one.
Again, if you'd like to sit down and have a conversation about it, I'll be glad to do so.
Yeah, "exclusive farm use". That means it has to be a farm -- not a suburban McMansion. Not even one with cute horsies.
With all due respect, Kari, that statement is not even a little helpful, and ignores the very real frustrations that many of your fellow Oregonians have who are grappling with this law in a much more personal way than you are.
I spoke yesterday with a farmer who grows pears and apples. From what he tells me, the economics of his industry are such that he simply cannot earn $80,000 per year doing agriculture on his property. He could do it 20 years ago, but not today.
As much as I appreciate your desire to preserve Oregon's land-use laws, until you've talked to farmers who are grappling with the impact of these laws and made some kind of effort to walk a mile in their shoes you should keep assumptions that every person who wants to build on 80-acres is looking to gentrify to yourself. It may be true in some cases, but in many others, it's flat-out wrong.
Apr 3, '06
kari, you do not know of what you speak. almost every piece of land outside city limits is zoned either exclusive farm or exclusive forest use. it really is like 95% or even more of all the rural areas of our state are in those two zones. that is actually what bob's problem is. it is likley that his land was incorrectly zoned and you can not fix problems inside the system. so when you say what you did above, it reconfirms his point, that you don't know very much about the system you support, and yet you blindly support it. bob is stuck like a lot of rural people in a zone that is restricted like it is prime farmland, but it is just not. even if his land was prime farmland it still doesn't justify a regressive income test. just fyi
Apr 3, '06
I think the farm income rule gets to the heart of one of the problems:
Agricultural and forestry zones were originally created as economic tools to preserve the farming and logging base of the economy at the time. Since then, they have often morphed into open-space preservation tools, only modestly connected to growing crops, raising livestock, and cutting trees.
Take, for example, the Stafford Triangle. There are lots of good reasons to protect this area from development. Very few of those reasons have much to do with protecting the viability of working farms, and have lots to do with protecting open space, rural views, and a "country feel."
At the same time, the same effort to preserve the viability of agriculture results in restrictions on non-farm income. For example, the farmer/rancher who wants to operate a bed and breakfast in the farmhouse usually can, but often can't add other services like catered lunches or dinners, in an effort to prevent the farm from becoming a restaurant.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think recongizing that tools designed to promote our economy circa 1970 aren't adequate to preserving open and natural spaces in the 21st century would be a good first step.
Apr 3, '06
I support landuse planning and dislike M37 intensely, but passage of something like it was made inevitable by the inflexibility of the system. When I ran for the legislature, I suggested that environmental groups be more accommodating of people who want to live in the country. I thought the gross income requirement was too tight. The response I got was that any change would lead to an explosion of rich folks setting up hobby farms.
That was an understandable concern. So is the issue of fire suppression in forests in order to protect homes. So is the issue of new residents complaining about farm practices. All these are reasons to not allow willy-nilly home construction outside UGB boundaries, but not good reasons to stifle almost all rural home building.
So, we now have M37, a developer's wet dream.
Apr 3, '06
So, we now have M37, a developer's wet dream.
Ok, I am confused...opponents of M37 say it is bad because developers can buy up land and build acres of homes. But wouldnt more available homes lower housing costs? (and which is better, a "McMansion" in Dundee that is paying property taxes, or a million $$ apartment in the tax-abated Pearl District in downtown Portland??) I mean seriously, you cannot farm land anymore. Not in Oregon. If they arent taking your water, they are taking your land thru condemnation to build shopping centers. And lets be honest, most of the produce in our grocery stores is coming from south of the border anyway. I havent seen a "product of the USA" label in a produce dept. in a long time.
So the developers win anyway. I guess it just depends on which developer is lining whose pockets in Salem. And it isnt all the GOP folks.
Apr 3, '06
I'm not sure why we should have income triggers to allow development anyway? Why not a simple "minimum lot size" to prevent property subdivision below a certain size. Keep all parcels in exclusive agricultural zones large enough to support a viable commercial farming operation whether or not they are currently in use for farming. Then allow no more than one quarter of one percent of the property to be covered with any impermeable surface, either structures or paving.
So if you want to set up a bed & breakfast inn, or a country estate, or a hobby farm, or just keep a couple of horses there and let the land go fallow, go right ahead. Just make sure that you don't impair the land's value as farmland for a future owner -- which means you don't build over it or pave it. If the next owner wants to set up an orchard, or raise ostriches, or plant strawberries, or grow Christmas trees, she should be able to do so.
Forest land should be kept in forest use. Period. No structures.
11:00 a.m.
Apr 3, '06
I mean seriously, you cannot farm land anymore. Not in Oregon. Not in Oregon. If they arent taking your water, they are taking your land thru condemnation to build shopping centers.
Every one of those statements is flat-out untrue.
There is not 1 single case in Oregon where farmland has been condemned so that a private developer can build a shopping center. Not one.
Oregon is the only state in America that has seen an increase in family farms during this decade. The United States has had an annual decline of 40,000 family farms per year. In Oregon the number of family farms increased by 14 percent during 2003 -- the year for which we have most recent census data.
In Yamhill County, most of the biggest industries are agricultural and businesses that support agriculture -- orchards, vineyards, nurseries, berries, and the like contribute a great deal to the local economy.
I havent seen a "product of the USA" label in a produce dept. in a long time.
Try your local farmer's market. There are hundreds of them in this state -- all with inexpensive, high-quality local produce.
Apr 3, '06
If everyone would calm down and take a couple of steps back for perspective you'll see that the system is working pretty well. The bureaucrats created some inflexible and oppressive rules, the people revolted with M37, a judge (who must have fallen asleep in con law class) tried to throw it out and got slammed by the supremes. Now we're back around square one and this time hopefully people have learned some lessons about flexibility, balancing priorities and respecting the rights of others. If not we'll repeat the cycle again.
Apr 3, '06
Mannix is the same guy who said he would appoint OIA members to that board... Pretty revealing.
Apr 3, '06
Bob, How long have you been following this issue? I can remember the days when OIA (before the Dave Hunnicut days) was trying to promote development on "secondary lands". You said, And is this system really protecting our livability? Try driving out to Yamhill County and then tell me that Oregon has good land use planning.
We did a lot of driving in Yamhill County when my niece was a student at Linfield.
There is a joke about "secondary lands" you may or may not have heard:
"Do you know what they call secondary lands in Yamhill County? Vinyards."
I happen to think AF is correct to say, The bureaucrats created some inflexible and oppressive rules
Who in 1000 Friends was one of those bureaucrats? Are they still working in that position?
Seems to me that we need to calm down, discuss specifics, and not hurl charges at one another. On both sides. Whatever you think of Judge James' decision, the appropriate response was the Supreme Court overturning her decision, not an attempted recall. But then I believe constructive problem solving is better than free floating anger.
And a friend of mine thinks much of Blue Oregon is more about raising blood pressure than about actually solving problems.
Apr 3, '06
There are many of us Democrats who voted for Measure 37, because nobody would fix the problems with Oregon land use planning system.</I.
Thats the same reasoning the Willamette Week gave when it urged people to support Measure 5. The idea that you pass bad initiatives to goad politicians has never worked very well.
When I invite you out to see our great land use planning in Yamhill County I mean the hours you will sit in traffic trying to get out here. You will see the wonderfully planned traffic jams in Tigard, King City, Sherwood, Newberg and downtown Dundee. A monkey throwing darts could have done a better job of road planning in this state.
Bob meet Sid Gasser. Because the traffic jams in Yamhill county are only going to get worse.
But wouldnt more available homes lower housing costs?
The question isn't more houses, its where they are going to be located and the cost of providing services to the people so people can live in them. Witness the complaints about traffic in Yamhill county which we are about to throw a bunch of money at to little or no effect.
Do you know that our LCDC actually developed a rule that said you have to make like $40,000 or even $80,000 of farm income to build a home on a piece of ground?
Yes. And I think this is a good example of "rigid" rules that is actually too flexible. Its purpose is to limit homes built on prime farmland to farmers. One purpose of Oregon's land use law was to protect commercial agriculture. There are dozens of reasons for not letting residential development happen right next to commercial agriculture. The income requirements are way too low to actually prevent some wealthy people from building rural estates. They simple put in orchards and sell apple cider - to one another. Its not really commercial agriculture. But that flaw would require raising the income requirement which would leave some legitimate farmers struggling to produce enough income to qualify as commercial farming operations.
It ought to be obvious from the discussions here that Oregon's land use system is very complicated, most of us don't really understand it. And that is really its fatal flaw. It is too complex to see the importance of a detail to the the big picture. So people see a lot of things happening that they can't see the sense in.
I think we need to realize the Oregon land use system now includes Measure 37. But there is nothing in Measure 37 that would indicate that if someone subdivides their land and then sells them off the new owners somehow inherit the Measure 37 exemption from regulation. But there does need to be some way to deal with whatever development an owner does while exempt. This is not a question of what current law is, but what it ought to be. How do you best integrate Measure 37 into the land use and zoning process.
The fatal mistake 1000 Friends made was relying on litigation rather than public education. As the law became increasingly complex only land-use junkies and lawyers really understood it. The danger is that the response to Measure 37 will be to litigate current law rather than to legislate new law that creates an understandable set of regulations that has public support. The polls now seem to show that Oregonians overwhelmingly support Oregon's land use laws, but they voted for Measure 37. They may not have understood Measure 37, but they don't really understand the land use laws either. And in the long run that is untenable.
Apr 3, '06
ross & lt, what do you not understand about bob's probelm? with all the land in rural area zoned the same, there is no "prime" farmland zone. everything is zoned farm and forest, that is the problem. it is the fact that the land is incorrectly zoned that is frustrating people. if i remember right, lcdc and governor roberts had secondary lands bills that were killed by 1000 friends, but that was years ago, like fifteen. some kind of zoning bill is the only way to fix the problem. hope this was helpful.
Apr 4, '06
what do you not understand about bob's probelm?
Bob's "problem" apparently is that he wants to build a house in rural Oregon on land outside an urban area. The land use laws were designed to prevent him from doing so. If you want to argue that is a bad idea, fine. But don't pretend it is a "problem" by definition. And Measure 37 won't solve that "problem" anyway unless he is one of the lucky few who can claim to be exempt from regulations.
it is the fact that the land is incorrectly zoned that is frustrating people.
No. It isn't. There are plenty of frustrated people who own prime farmland who want to subdivide their land and make a lot of money. It has nothing to do with whether the zoning is correct or not.
And it is simply inaccurate to suggest that no land outside the UGB can be built on. Here is a link to 1000 Friends that explains how non-productive land outside the UGB is regulated. The same link also includes explanations of the farm income test. Again you can argue we should allow urban development in farming areas. But I don't think you can sustain an agricultural industry in an urbanized area. That's why most cities prohibit keeping livestock.
<hr/>