STATEMENT OF ROBERT LIBERTY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON
ON METRO EXECUTIVE MIKE BURTON'S
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY RECOMMENDATION

General Comments:

· While we may not agree with every detail of Metro Executive Mike Burton's recommendation to the Metro Council, Mr. Burton is asking the right questions about how we can best protect the qualities that make our region a place we are proud to call home.

Comments on Proposed UGB Expansion:

· ACREAGE: Mr. Burton is proposing a very large expansion of the urban growth boundary. We are concerned about the number of acres and want to make sure that number is justified.

· PROTECTING RESOURCE LAND: However, we are pleased to see that most of the area recommended for inclusion in the boundary is partially developed land that is not currently protected for farm or forest use, and agree that it would be inappropriate to undermine the region's agricultural economy by bringing significant amounts of farmland into the boundary.

· USING LAND EFFICIENTLY: Cities and counties in the metropolitan region are not working hard enough to use the land within the boundary efficiently. In some cases, existing regulations, like height limits in regional and town centers, are preventing development from occurring as efficiently as the market would provide. Mr. Burton is correct to suggest that Metro needs to work with local governments throughout the region to remove barriers to more efficient use of land.

In planning for the region's growth, we believe our first priority should be to promote development in places inside the UGB where new investment is needed to maintain economic vitality, such as in neighborhoods experiencing falling property values, declining average incomes, and closing shops.

Our second priority should be to promote development that will convert underutilized properties from neighborhood liabilities into neighborhood assets. This means taking abandoned commercial sites, contaminated industrial land, and empty parking lots and turning them into housing, shops and parks. That is what happened in the warehouses and rail yards of the River District and it is what should be happening on contaminated and abandoned lots in Northeast Portland.

Our third priority should be to promote in-fill development on undeveloped properties already inside the urban growth boundary-but not on land needed for parks or open space or to protect fish and water quality.

Our last priority should be to build new, complete towns in urban growth boundary expansion areas that are already partly developed for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such as the Damascus area. The new towns should have plenty of green spaces, their fair share of the region's jobs, and a full range of types of housing for families of all incomes.

If we stick to these priorities we will not need to open up productive farm and forestlands for development. Nor will we need to require tearing down or radically refashioning existing single-family residential neighborhoods.

While Mr. Burton's recommendation reflects some of these priorities, the region needs to be more aggressive about looking for development opportunities that do not require adding land to the UGB.

· DAMASCUS: If a large expansion of the UGB is justified, we agree that careful and sensitive urbanization of the Damascus area makes sense. Along with the Coalition for a Livable Future, local residents, and other stakeholders, 1000 Friends has worked very hard to develop a vision for how the Damascus area can, over time, become a new kind of complete community characterized by vibrant natural areas and a full range of choices in jobs, transportation, and housing.

· INDUSTRIAL LAND SUPPLY: We strongly agree with Mr. Burton that decisions on whether to add industrial land to the boundary and, if so, where and how much, should be guided by a regional economic strategy rather than made ad hoc. Land set aside for high-tech manufacturing should not be used for office buildings and "big-box" retail stores-yet some local governments within the region have squandered important industrial land by allowing it to be used for commercial development.

We also need to ask hard questions about the typical model for much of the commercial and industrial land in the region: low-rise buildings surrounded by large lawns and expansive parking lots. Let's be smarter about how we use our employment-related land.

· CONCENTRATION OF EMPLOYMENT GROWTH: The lack of a regional economic strategy also highlights the need to avoid the mistakes of Silicon Valley, where a disproportionate share of regional job growth was concentrated in one place. When this happens, the consequences for the region overall in terms of transportation, housing affordability, community livability, and fiscal equity are bad.

In our region, it would be a mistake to assume that the preponderance of family-wage jobs will continue to be created in Washington County and to allow that assumption to drive our overall growth management strategy. We need to take positive steps to create jobs elsewhere in the region.

· FISCAL EQUITY: The concerns of communities like Forest Grove and Cornelius about their fiscal health are real and must be addressed. However, trying to solve problems of fiscal equity through land use decisions is like using a hammer to drive a screw. Allowing land use decisions that will literally shape our communities for decades to come to be driven by tax base issues is foolish. Instead, as Mr. Burton notes in his letter to the Metro Council, we need to create regional mechanisms, like the tax base sharing used in Minnesota's Twin Cities area, to directly address issues of fiscal equity among regional partners.

Comments on Proposed Establishment of Urban Reserves

· OVERALL: We applaud Mr. Burton's effort to put forth a vision that provides long-term stability and certainty for farmers, developers, and communities in the region. We agree that we should be thinking about our long-term aspirations rather than re-evaluating our priorities every couple of years.

· THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB: However, we question whether the designation of up to 100,000 acres of urban reserves is the proper tool to achieve this objective. We have concerns that a 50-year urban reserve will create political pressure to prematurely bring the designated land into the UGB itself. Moreover, if farmland is included in such a reserve, the likely consequence will be immediate changes in farm management, discouragement of new investment in agricultural operations, and speculative price increases.

· 50 YEAR HORIZON: More generally, while we can reasonably forecast our land needs over a twenty-year horizon, the crystal ball clouds significantly when you attempt to look 50 years into the future. As just one example, who in 1950 would have forseen that a half-century later, only 22.7% of households in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties would be made up of a married couple with children, while 27.8% would consist of one person living alone? Unpredictable variables like this have obvious implications for the amount and type of housing, and thus land, required to meet the region's needs.

We agree that it is appropriate to consider what urban form we want in 50 years. Let's be sure to avoid unintended consequences as we consider how best to achieve our long-range aspirations.

# # #