Questions & Answers About Oregon's Land Use Program
S e c t i o n  B :  U r b a n  P l a n n i n g
A. Questions And Answers About Rural Lands Issues 1. Farmland Protection 2. Income Test for Farm Dwellings 3. Conserving Forest Land 4. Secondary Lands 5. House Bill 3661 6. Regional Differences	B. Questions And Answers About Urban Planning Issues 1. Urban Growth Boundaries 2. Affordable Housing 3. Transportation Planning
C. Questions And Answers About Issues Common To Rural And Urban Areas 1. 1000 Friends v. OIA 2. Economic Development 3. The Taxpayer's Stake In Planning 4. Regional Problem Solving	D. Questions And Answers About Planning And Permitting 1. DLCD's Budget 2. Permits and Appeals 3. Citizen Participation 4. Takings and Compensation

What is an urban growth boundary?

UGBs limit urban sprawl. They are based on a local analysis of local land need for a 20 year period and are adjusted regularly to reflect changing circumstances.

How do UGBs help the average citizen?

Based on studies around the country, Oregon's growth management program, and UGBs in particular, have saved Oregon taxpayers millions of dollars.

PSU's Center for Urban Studies concluded that subdivisions built adjacent to existing facilities cost 27% less to serve with infrastructure than one built in a leapfrog, sprawl fashion. (Source: PSU Center for Urban Studies & Regional Financial Advisors, Inc., DLCD's Local Government Infrastructure Funding in Oregon, 1990.)

"Studies over the last 30 years have concluded that when development is spread out at low densities, the per-unit cost of constructing and maintaining public facilities increases. The reason for this is that low-density development requires more miles of roads, curbs, sewers, and water lines; and municipal services must be delivered over a greater geographic area." (Source: The Urban Land Institute, "The Case for Multifamily Housing," 1991.)

Don't UGBs drive up the cost of housing by limiting the land supply?

Research shows that housing costs in the Portland area, and statewide, are more affordable compared to other West Coast cities. The land use program has also increased the potential supply of housing units inside UGBs.

A joint study by the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and 1000 Friends of Oregon concluded that Oregon's program of UGBs, in combination with other tools from the land use program, has kept housing prices in the Portland metropolitan area two to three times more affordable than other West Coast cities. This is because the program requires cities to designate land for all types of housing, and because developers wishing to build on that land get one of the fastest permitting processes in the nation. (Source: 1000 Friends of Oregon & The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, "Managing Growth to Promote Affordable Housing: Revisiting Oregon's Goal 10," 1991.)

As the Rutgers University study concluded, without a statewide planning act in New Jersey, each new home would costs $12,000 - $15,000 more. (Source: Rutgers University, Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, 1992.)

Inside the Portland metro area UGB, the maximum number of permitted housing units more than doubled, from 129,000 to over 300,000, between 1978 and 1982. (Greenfield, The Impact of Oregon's Land Use Planning Program on Housing Opportunities in the Portland Metropolitan Region, 1982.) Increasing the potential supply of housing, independently of land supply, helps control the cost of housing.

Here is what experts in the industry have to say:

"Oregon's growth-guiding legislation has successfully fostered affordable housing....UGBs are an effective tool. UGBs create a decision system, making it clear to government officials, real estate developers, financial institutions, property owners, and residents where development may occur. The concept has enabled communities to realistically plan expansion in services and infrastructure to support future housing needs while limiting urban sprawl and keeping housing costs down." (Source: Action, the newsletter of the Regulatory Reform for Affordable Housing Information Center, Summer 1992.)

"Land use regulation can in fact be a powerful force to reduce housing costs and red tape. In Oregon, it has done just that." (Source: Home Builders of Metropolitan Portland, in a letter to then-Secretary Jack Kemp, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, cited in Action, the newsletter of the Regulatory Reform for Affordable Housing Information Center, Summer 1992.)

What does the Oregon planning program do to promote affordable housing?

It eliminates zoning barriers to building affordable housing.

Has Goal 10 really made a difference in the housing supply?

Yes, especially in the Portland metro area.

Isn't the urban growth boundary causing the crisis in housing affordability in the Portland area by limiting the land supply?

Home and lot prices are comparable to other Western cities. Housing is less affordable in the Portland metro area because our wages are lower than these other cities.

Isn't housing affordability an issue outside the Portland area?

 Yes, particularly along the Coast and Central Oregon.

What can the planning program do to help assure affordable housing?

•Require UGB expansions to be contingent on master plans that include a certain percentage of housing affordable to families with below average incomes.
•Eliminate (remaining) zoning barriers to affordable housing, e.g. allow homeowners to build a rental unit inside an existing home ("accessory units").
•Enforce the prohibitions in Goal 10 against "snob zoning."
•Require large new developments to include housing affordable to families with below average incomes.

Back to Top

What does the Transportation Planning Rule require?

Adoption of transportation system plans which coordinate transportation facilities, promote pedestrian oriented design and in metropolitan areas, reduced reliance on the automobile.

In urban areas greater than 25,000 in population, the TPR directs local governments to adopt regulations to require new retail, office, and institutional buildings to provide preferential access to transit. This is to be accomplished by several means, including requiring buildings to be located as close as possible to transit stops. 

How can you justify the cost to local governments and private investors of complying with the requirements of the TPR?

The TPR will save local governments money by avoiding unnecessary road building and maintenance and save businesses money that would be wasted on congestion.

In 1993, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Association of Oregon Counties, and the League of Oregon Cities released a report from the Oregon Roads Finance Study. The report estimated Oregon's total road and bridge needs through 2013 at $48.8 billion (in constant 1991 dollars) but that compliance with the TPR would reduce these needs to $37.3 billion; for a net saving to Oregon's taxpayers of $11.5 billion. (Source: Forward Oregon: Roads in a New Context, at II-4.)

The Oregon Department of Transportation calculated that complying with the TPR would save Oregon companies more than $1 billion by reducing the amount of lost worker productivity and goods delivery time due to congestion. (Source: Oregon Transportation Plan at 85, 1992.)

What good does the TPR do for the average citizen who doesn't ride public transit?

If implemented, the TPR will control traffic congestion and air pollution.

Without the TPR, traffic congestion in the Portland metro area is expected to increase approximately 125% by the beginning of the next century. With the TPR, however, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) calculates that congestion levels will not increase, despite a substantial increase in population and employment. (Source: Oregon Transportation Plan Technical Report, at 1-32.)

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) estimates that increased driving in Oregon will push some of the state's urban areas (particularly the Portland metro area) out of compliance with federal clean air standards by the second half of this decade. Noncompliance with these standards means that Oregon industries must install the most expensive smoke stack reduction technologies and purchase expensive pollution offset credits from other businesses, resulting in billions of dollars in extra costs. DEQ estimates that full implementation of the TPR, however, would provide approximately one-fifth of the pollution reductions needed to keep Oregon from falling into these costly requirements. (Source: State Task Force on Motor Vehicle Emission Reductions in the Portland Area, Final Report, at S-6 & 2-6)

Why do local governments and businesses oppose the Transportation Planning Rule?

Not all of them do.

Several communities have complied with the requirements of the TPR without undue objections. For example, Clackamas County recently adopted an ordinance to implement the TPR that was supported by both environmental and business interests. This demonstrates that the TPR, as it currently stands, can be implemented in a way that accommodates business interests while improving the environment. Similar consensus efforts are now under way at Washington County and the City of Portland.

Moreover, a number of developers already design their projects in ways that comply with the design guidelines of the rule. Examples include the Murray West project being developed by Greg Specht in Beaverton, the Central Bethany project in Washington County, the Sunnyside Village project in Clackamas County, and the Fairview Village project being constructed by Holt & Haugh in Fairview.