All the land use news that's fit to print
Carla Axtman
There's a crap ton of stuff going on in Oregon right now around land use. In the interest of trying to wrangle it together and put it all in one place, I'll post here what I know. I suspect that there those among our readership that know more. I'd love for you to please add your knowledge in comments, if you can.
I'm putting this here for one, simple reason: there's a lot of pressure to change the law or do end-runs around it. And this is the opportune moment. A lot of leeway is being given to lousy legislation and policy in the name of "jobs".
In the Oregon State Legislature:
HB 2181HB 2182 HB2610: These three pieces modify the petitioning process for filing with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. All three are designed to make it more restrictive for organizations and citizens to file. They've all been sent to committee.
HB2700:allows zoning on land without landowners permission. There's a question as to whether this legislation would allow the siting of LNG pipeline. The bill has passed the House.
HB 3408: This bill allow irrigation reservoirs without local government land use processes. Which fits in with the theme of two other bills that would allow special dispensation to two destination resorts for Central Oregon without going Oregon's land use process.
In Washington County:
On March 29, the Washington County Commission will, as far as I can tell, vote on a new urban and rural reserve map. The previous one was remanded by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This one was cooked up by Andy Duyck and Tom Hughes--once again without any real public input or process.Unless you count taking testimony from citizens after the decision has already been made.
In Yamhill County:
Commissioners seem to have made quite a mess around the issue of allowing a new, large quarry on Grand Island. In July, two of the Commissioners (Kathy George and Leslie Lewis) steamrolled forward on the process to allow Baker Rock to do the mining. Now, there's a question as to whether the rock deposit actually qualifies under the law to be mined. Apparently, somebody is going to have to pay to go to the Land Use Board of Appeals to have the thing settled. I can't understand why Commissioners would vote to go forward without knowing all this stuff. Doesn't it cost the County more in time and money if the process isn't managed correctly in the first place?
 |
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
8:40 a.m.
Mar 23, '11
Why? It is Yamhill County. Just imagine what it would be like if Starrett had won, not that it was likely.
10:33 a.m.
Mar 23, '11
There is also SB766, which would kneecap the power of governments and citizens within UGB boundaries to question proposed development of industrial land. How 'bout an LNG terminal on West Hayden Island?
http://audubonportland.org/issues/metro/766
1:31 p.m.
Mar 23, '11
I have written each committee member and my representatives about HB 2610, 2182, and 2181. The first two clearly violate statewide planning goal 1, citizen involvement because their intent is to permit only the wealthy to use LUBA. HB 2181 requires that even if you win at LUBA, you must pay attorney fees. Unfortunately, my representative, Sal Esquivel is a sponsor of two of these bills.
I've also written about SB 766, SB 7712, SB 792 and SB 476. They concern changing the law to provide more industrial land with the weak argument that if you have the land available, jobs will come. I support SB 766, which creates an Economic Recovery Council that will sunset when the unemployment rate is below 8% for a period of time. The other bills are intended to rezone resource lands without justification, without taking exceptions to the land use goals. I'm sure I don't need to list the bill sponsors; if you've paid attention to land use bills in the past 20 years, you know who they are and are now joined by some non-conservative types who were elected last November.
I don't know about the other bills you've listed but will be researching them today and writing letters to legislators.
1:50 p.m.
Mar 23, '11
Carla - you might have had a different impression of the joint WashCo Board / Metro Council meeting on March 15 if you'd been able to attend. The "map story" is that after listening to several hours of testimony, and considering letters and materials submitted in writing, and after a series of interlocking, back-and-forth motions and votes, the County Board and Metro Council agreed on a map which was not the December 14 County map, not the Duyck-Hughes map, and not the map recommended by the County Planning Commission. It was a new map which had not been proposed before. I think it would be fair to say that the outcome was not determined in advance.
9:17 p.m.
Mar 23, '11
Marc:
I know many, many people that attended that hearing. The number that I spoke with came away with the impression that I wrote above. The big question on that map was the land north of Highway 26--which was in fact quite predetermined before anyone gave a single syllable of testimony.
The proposal by the Planning Commission was a nonstarter--which I think both of us know. The Oregon Dept of Land Conservation and Development had already rejected the land north of Council Creek. There was no way that the County Commission or Metro could possibly put it back in. Honestly, it was a pretty silly move by the Planning Commission. To say that it was not predetermined that this wouldn't go in is honestly, kind of insulting.
There was never any serious consideration by the majority of Washington County Commission or Metro to NOT put the land north of Hwy 26 into this map. It was predetermined. This was the most contentious part of the Duyck-Hughes map..and it went right on through.
Perhaps if Metro and the Washington County Commission hadn't decided to have the meeting in the middle of the morning on a weekday, when most citizens have to be at work (like me), I might have been able to attend. Alas.
11:08 p.m.
Mar 23, '11
Well, I'll try once more. Not far from the end of the proceedings, the Metro Council voted 7-0 for a map that included no Urban Reserve north of Council Creek in Cornelius, and no new Urban Reserve north of US 26. That map was rejected 3-2 by the County Board. Then the final compromise proposal was voted 6-1 by the Metro Council, and 3-2 by the County Board. That is what happened, Carla. I would call a 7-0 vote for a map that included no replacement Urban Reserves "serious consideration".
10:10 a.m.
Mar 24, '11
I was there for the whole joint hearing. Marc's account is accurate, in that it took a bewildering number of back-and-forth votes as the meeting went from Metro Council to WAshCo Commission, before an agreement was reached.
On one County vote, Commissioner Roy Rogers joined Schouten and Malinowski voting to protect north of 26 as rural reserve. Metro followed with the 7-0 vote for a map with no replacement reserves and land N.of 26 in rural reserve between Helvetia and Jackson School Road.)
County Board went back into session, and Andy Duyck and Bob Terry were adamant against a map w/ no replacement ur's. Terry moved the map with a horizontal slice of undesignated north of Cornelius and Urban Reserve n. of 26 to W.Union Rd. Roy Rogers repeated his opposition to ur n. of 26, but nevertheless voted w/ Duyck and Terry in deference to the principle that WashCo had to assert its right to replace "lost" urban reserves somewhere.
Finally, Counselor Collette proposed the "compromise" that put the west boundary of the north-of-26 ur at Groveland Road, or thereabouts. All the Metro Counselors who are veterans of the reserves wars (consensus process? more like political rugby)voted for her motion. The County accepted that proposal too, and adopted it 3-2.
What was "predetermined" about the outcome was not the exact boundaries and placement of ur, rr, and undesignated lands, (though they're close to what Hughes and Duyck proposed) but the continuing power of three myths:
1)that Washington County cannot prosper without letting its cities expand out into farmland --a sort of latter-day "manifest destiny" approach that ignores the economic value of agriculture and natural resources;
2)that Washington County and its cities must save face at all costs by insisting on their own choices prevailing;
3) that Metro is not a regulating agency but a "partner" whose job is to yield when other partners won't cooperate. (Not really a sound "collaborative" model to work from.)
In the minds of most WashCo electeds and staff, yielding to partners' judgment (some say yielding even to LCDC rulings) shows weakness rather than good sense or enlightened self-interest. Never admit to mistakes, etc.
Remarkable exceptions to this groupthink are Commissioners Schouten, Malinowski, and for awhile there on March 15th, Rogers.
I still have hope for what might happen as ordinances are considered at WashCo and Metro to implement the IGA. There will be a lot more testimony, good strong testimony, and we'll build our cases so legal action can be effective if all else fails to protect the resources SB1011 was supposed to protect.
10:15 a.m.
Mar 24, '11
I was there for the whole joint hearing. Marc's account is accurate, in that it took a bewildering number of back-and-forth votes as the meeting went from Metro Council to WAshCo Commission, before an agreement was reached.
On one County vote, Commissioner Roy Rogers joined Schouten and Malinowski voting to protect north of 26 as rural reserve. Metro followed with the 7-0 vote for a map with no replacement reserves and land N.of 26 in rural reserve between Helvetia and Jackson School Road.)
County Board went back into session, and Andy Duyck and Bob Terry were adamant against a map w/ no replacement ur's. Terry moved the map with a horizontal slice of undesignated north of Cornelius and Urban Reserve n. of 26 to W.Union Rd. Roy Rogers talked about his opposition to ur n. of 26, but nevertheless voted w/ Duyck and Terry in deference to the principle that WashCo had to assert its right to replace "lost" urban reserves somewhere.
Finally, Counselor Collette proposed the "compromise" that put the west boundary of the north-of-26 ur at Groveland Road, or thereabouts. All the Metro Counselors who are veterans of the reserves wars (consensus process? more like political rugby)voted for her motion. The County accepted that proposal too, and adopted it 3-2.
What was "predetermined" about the outcome was not the exact boundaries and placement of ur, rr, and undesignated lands, (though they're very similar to what Hughes and Duyck proposed) but the continuing power of three myths:
1)that Washington County cannot prosper without letting its cities expand out into farmland --a sort of latter-day "manifest destiny" approach that ignores the economic value of agriculture and natural resources;
2)that Washington County and its cities must save face at all costs by insisting on their own choices prevailing;
3) that Metro is not a regulating agency but a "partner" whose job is to yield when other partners won't cooperate. (Not really a sound "collaborative" model to work from.)
In the minds of most WashCo electeds and staff, yielding to partners' judgment (some say yielding even to LCDC rulings) shows weakness rather than good sense or enlightened self-interest. Never admit to mistakes, etc.
Remarkable exceptions to this groupthink are Commissioners Schouten, Malinowski, and for awhile there on March 15th, Rogers.
I still have hope for what might happen as ordinances are considered at WashCo and Metro to implement the IGA. There will be a lot more testimony, good strong testimony, and we'll build our cases so legal action can be effective if all else fails to protect the resources SB1011 was supposed to protect.
11:46 a.m.
Mar 26, '11
Marc: The problem with what you're saying here is that, in the end, the outcome really was what everyone generally knew it would be. Not because the public had a say. Not because there was any real substantive discussion at the hearings. But because a few people went into a room, made decisions, and decided to take a really long time to codify them.
The kabuki dance you and Linda have both described here did nothing to substantively include the public. It was, for all intents and purposes, decided before that meeting ever took place. This is the frustration that so many of us have with Washington County and by extension, Metro.
I will continue to beat this drum as long as these entities continue to conduct business in this fashion.
1:01 p.m.
Mar 24, '11
Carla, I bring no information but ignorance. Regarding HB 2700, to what categories of land does the apparent current requirement for owner's permission to zone land apply in Oregon? I grew up in a suburb of Boston on the east coast, and while zoning battles were fairly common in the city and 'burbs (not sure if rural areas were any different), and possibly in some situations there was some kind of compensation requirement for zoning changes (not sure), zoning changes pretty frequently were made over the objections of some land owners in the affected areas. It appeared to me that was kind of the point of zoning, in fact.
That's not to say I'd support HB 2700. I'd just like to begin by understanding what it would change and what areas or kinds of areas it would affect.