Malinowski raises organic hay and beef on 60 acres of farmland in the Bethany area that his father purchased in the 1940s. Since the 1970s, he has worked to prevent the family’s land from being submerged by a rising tide of urban development. When the Portland area’s urban growth boundary (UGB) was drawn in 1979, it cut right through the Malinowski farm, bringing 20 acres in and leaving 40 out.

Now, in 1996, pressure was building to designate the surrounding land as "urban reserves": land reserved for future urban development. But if the city kept moving in his direction, Malinowski could see that his land would be isolated on an agricultural island surrounded by a sea of subdivisions/houses. If that happened, he knew, it would be virtually impossible to keep farming. In his words, "we’d be toast."

The Line in the Dirt: Urban growth boundaries have long symbolized Oregon’s planning program. The crisp demarcations between what is urban and what is not have had profound impacts on both sides of the lines. And because they literally determine the shape of our communities, they have been contentious since the beginning.

To be sure, some communities have established unnecessarily large UGBs based on growth projections that have proven wildly unrealistic. However, growth boundaries have generally succeeded at saving farmland, taxpayer dollars, and natural resources by preventing the uncontrolled, sprawling development so prevalent in other states. And by focusing development in existing communities, they have helped build thriving downtowns and neighborhoods.

Pressure Builds: In the Portland area, the 236,000-acre UGB has only been expanded by 5,000 acres in twenty years. However, in the mid-1990s, real estate and development interests began to mount increasing pressure for large-scale expansions.

Meanwhile, the regionally elected Metro Council was engaged in the process of designating land for eventual development, known as urban reserves. The concept of urban reserves is simple. While UGBs already must include enough land for near-term needs, it also makes sense to plan for long-term growth, even in areas that are not needed for development in the immediate future. By "reserving" certain areas for future growth, we can protect them from development patterns that would hinder later urbanization. At the same time, we can reduce speculative pressure on lands that will not be needed–especially farm and forest lands.

Oregon’s urban reserve rule, adopted in 1991, laid out a process for selecting these areas, as well as criteria governing which lands could be included. So-called "exception" lands near the UGB (lands already impacted by development) would be the first priority for inclusion, while farm and forest land was the last resort.

On March 7, 1997, the Metro Council designated 18,579 acres of urban reserves. While Malinowski’s land was spared, excellent farmland to his north and east was included–in apparent violation of state law. So was the most controversial piece of open ground in the Metro area: 463 acres of flat, prime farmland near Hillsboro owned by the Sisters of St. Mary.

Malinowski decided to fight. So did 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Washington County and Oregon Farm Bureaus, and several other organizations and state agencies.

The odds were steep. The urban reserve decision had involved intense lobbying by high-powered attorneys and political operatives representing major developers. But McCurdy knew the decision flew in the face of the clear provisions of the law. Most importantly, because Metro had failed to even evaluate certain partly-developed "exception" areas next to the UGB, which by law are the first priority for inclusion, it could not justify including flat, high-value farmland in the urban reserves.

Planning–and Planting–for the Future: McCurdy argued the case on behalf of 1000 Friends and several allies, including Malinowski Farm. With landowners, developers, local governments, farm bureaus, nonprofit organizations, and state agencies all filing briefs, the case was the largest ever to come before the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Finally, in February of 1999, LUBA handed McCurdy and 1000 Friends a sweeping victory. The ruling rejected not only Metro’s designation of specific parcels, but the whole 18,579 acres, saying Metro’s errors were so "general and pervasive" that the entire decision was invalid.

Metro appealed, joined by property owners, developers, and the city of Hillsboro. But on January 12, 2000, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s decision and went even further, upholding McCurdy’s argument that Metro had based its original decision on an inflated projection of how much land was needed for jobs and housing.

"The law isn’t very complicated," says McCurdy. "People just don’t want to obey it. This ruling confirms that it means what it says: that farmland is the last resort for UGB expansions."