Questions & Answers About Oregon's Land Use Program
S e c t i o n  C:  R u r a l  a n d  U r b a n  I s s u e s
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 farmland should be protected?

Oregonians In Action: Only about 15% of all of Oregon's farmland should be protected; the remaining 13 million acres should be rezoned for low density residential development.

"Over 12 million acres of rural land . . . are zoned "exclusive farm use," but actually have little or no farm value." "Land which is not classified as "Prime" by the US Dept. of Agriculture . . . should be re-zoned." (Sources: OIA newsletter, Jan/Feb, 1992; Op-ed by Frank Nims, 2/27/93 in the E. Oregonian.)

OIA's draft bill for the 1995 legislative session would protect only "prime and unique" soils, thereby allowing counties to rezone approximately 13 million acres, or 85% of the land in existing exclusive farm use (EFU) zones for rural non-farm homesites.

1000 Friends: We must protect all of the productive farmland now in exclusive farm use zones, even when it is not "prime." We already have 710,000 acres reserved for rural homesites, and 1993 legislation authorized "lot-of-record" dwellings on over 12 million acres in exclusive farm use zones.

1000 Friends supports Oregon's current agricultural lands policy, ORS 215.243, adopted in 1973; it says nothing about protecting only prime farmland: The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the state . . .."

In fact, only 13% of Oregon's farmland (1.9 million acres) qualifies as "prime," as defined by the US Soil and Conservation Service. Many important crops, from grapes to grass seed and cattle to cranberries, are grown on non-prime lands. (Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Maps.)

The 1993 Legislature substantially loosened the reins on ag land protection. House Bill 3661 made it much easier to qualify for non-farm dwellings east of the Cascades, and authorized new dwellings for pre-1985 owners of all non-"high-value" farmland, and some high-value farmland, totalling over 12 million acres statewide.

What forest lands should be protected?

Oregonians In Action:  Less than half the private lands in Oregon now zoned for commercial timber production should be protected; counties should be able to rezone the remaining 4.5 million acres for low density residential development.

OIA has drafted legislation to allow all forest lands which produce less than 120 cubic feet of commercial wood fiber per acre per year, to be reclassified as "secondary" and opened up for development as homesites. The U.S. Forest Service classifies as "prime" any forest land which can produce 85 cubic feet per acre per year of commercial wood fiber. The net national average growth rate is 45. OIA wants to make homesites out of 4.6 million acres of the 8.6 million now zoned for forestry. Of this 4.6 million acres, 1.4 million are classified as "prime."

1000 Friends: All commercial grade forest land should be protected, in order to supply fiber for our mills in face of declining supplies from Federal forest lands.

What are the two organizations' visions for communities with "good" land use?

Oregonians In Action: "We're not in a position to make that kind of judgement" (B. Moshofsky, 8/16/94 Business Journal)

OIA leaders frequently assert that the real agenda of the land use program is to force everyone into high-density crime-infested cities. Bill Moshofsky and Frank Nims have both publicly referred to apartments as "breeding boxes." OIA has not articulated an urban land use vision.

1000 Friends: We support compact urban areas with urban green spaces and a range of transportation choices, employment options, and housing types, including large-lot, single family residential, as well as multi-family dwellings.

Should landowners be compensated for regulations which reduce the value of land?

Oregonians In Action: "Oregon's excessively restrictive land use regulations do `take' private property without compensation, which is unconstitutional." (Moshofsky op-ed, Capital Press, 4/29/91)

1000 Friends:  Property rights are a central aspect of freedom and should be respected. We oppose OIA's compensation legislation because it is not required under the U.S. Constitution, creates another layer of bureaucracy, and singles out certain landowners for special payment at taxpayers' expense.

Rural landowners rightly receive large property tax breaks (preferential farm, forest and open space assessments) to keep their land in farm or forest use. Many rural property owners pay as little as one-fifth or one-tenth of the property taxes paid by fellow taxpayers, in recognition of the restrictions on the use of that land.

Don't urban growth boundaries drive up commercial and industrial land costs by reducing supply?

No, because state land use laws require an adequate supply of commercial and industrial land inside urban growth boundaries. Land in other states without urban growth boundaries is often more expensive than land here.

By requiring local jurisdictions to plan for industrial sites, provide them with infrastructure, and protect them from incompatible development, there was a 79% increase in the acreage of vacant industrial land in Oregon's 10 largest urban areas between 1979 and 1982. During the same period, industrial land in Oregon has generally remained cheaper than other west coast cities. (Source: Richmond, Does Oregon's Land Use Program Provide Enough Desirable Land to Attract Needed Industry to Oregon?, 14 Envtl. L. 693-95, 703 (1984)).

Doesn't all the red tape connected with the planning laws inhibit economic development, compared to other places that don't have these laws?

Oregon's land use review process is faster than other states, and is praised by business owners and investors.

Oregon's land use planning laws reduce the time it takes to make initial decisions and process appeals. Oregon's local permitting process is free of the additional state review and environmental impact assessment processes found elsewhere. State law requires local governments to make a final decision within 120 days of the date an application is completed. Decisions on matters appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals and the Court of Appeals are also required to be made under tight time restrictions. Research shows that LUBA normally decides appeals in one third less time than such cases were decided previously in Circuit Courts.

Here's what people in business say:

Thanks to Oregon's land use laws, "Oregon's a damned good place to do business." (Source: Frank Brawner, lobbyist, Oregon Banking Association, Daily Journal of Commerce, July 29, 1991)

"The Oregon system is more decisive," said Mark Hunton, a Clark County, Washington developer who also builds in Oregon. By deciding in advance where development will be located and allocating land for it, he said, builders know where they can build." (Source: Seattle Times, November 26, 1989.)

"The greatest benefit is certainty. You don't have to go back and replan every time you want to do something....It takes about a year in most places in the nation to get a subdivision permit. Here (in Oregon) it takes 120 days or less." (Source: Charlie Hales, then governmental affairs director for the Home Builder Association of Metropolitan Portland, Seattle Times, November 26, 1989.)

"Oregon gives us a quick go or no-go. That's what we want." (Source: Gary Fazzino, Hewlett Packard governmental and public affairs manager, "Environmental Protections Help Attract Business to Oregon," California Journal, January 1985.)

Has Oregon's growth management program harmed the attractiveness of Oregon for business?

No, in fact the Oregon program has protected our quality of life, thereby enhancing the state's attractiveness to business.

"Managed growth has helped put Portland in the limelight with national investors and business relocations. Properly handled it will allow Portland to continue in this limelight for future years." (Source: David Hewett, Senior Vice President, Scherzer Real Estate Group, Inc., quoted in the Business Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) supplement to The Business Journal, May 27, 1994.)

"The economic advantage of Washington vanished when Reynolds considered the helter-skelter quality of development in Vancouver." (Source: An article describing why Stephen Reynolds, president of Pacific Gas Transmission Company, chose to locate in Portland, The Oregonian, January 16, 1994 page J1.)

"The long-run health of Oregon's overall economy will depend, increasingly, not on sacrificing the environment but on protecting it." (Source: Economists Ed Whitelaw & Ernest Niemi, "The Greening of Oregon's Economy," 1989.)

Doesn't development "pay its own way" by generating enough property taxes to cover the cost of new facilities and services?

Not necessarily.

A study of various regions around the country indicates the cost of providing public infrastructure and services to residential development averages around $1,063 for every $1,000 in new tax revenue, compared to $386 in costs for every $1,000 of tax revenue for services to farm and forest land. Source: American Farmland Trust, Farmland and the Taxbill: The Cost of Community Services in Three Minnesota Cities, 1994.

Although taxing systems vary from state to state, the public costs of new development in some areas exceed the property tax revenues it generates. For example, in Gallatin County, Montana, where more than half of local government revenues come from property taxes, rural residential development requires $1,450 in county government and school district expenditures for every $1,000 in tax revenue. Source: Haggerty, Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses on County Government and School Districts in Gallatin County, Montana, Local Government Center, Montana State University, Jan. 1996.

Growth does not necessarily lower Oregonians' tax bills: Research by the City of Springfield showed that after a decade of rapid growth (1971 to 1981) the city's spending per capita tripled, after being adjusted for inflation. Source: Springfield Planning Department, The Cost of Growth: 1971-1981 June 1982.

Don't Systems Development Charges (SDC's) recover the cost of new infrastructure, like new roads, sewers and schools?

No. SDCs cover a fraction of the costs and exclude schools.

An analysis of seven public infrastructure costs (schools, sewer, storm drainage, roads, water service, parks and recreation, and fire protection) in cities in the Willamette Valley estimated the cost of these facilities at $24,500 per house. Source: Eben Fodor "The Real Costs of Growth in Oregon." July, 1996. Most cities charge much less than this amount (Eugene charges $2,400 in SDCs for example) and state law prohibits cities from collecting SDCs to help pay for new school buildings.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard required the city to quantify the impacts of the Dolan's store expansion on traffic, in order to determine whether or not the requirements imposed on the Dolans were "roughly proportional" to the traffic impacts. Tigard's traffic engineers estimated that the cost to serve extra traffic generated by the Dolan's expanded store will cost the city $49,000; the Traffic Impact Fee assessment was only $15,762. Source: Exhibit A to Draft Dolan Application Final Order on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.

How can we afford to pay for planning after Measures 5 and 47?  Shouldn't we be using our tax dollars for higher priority services like fire and police protection and schools?

Good planning saves taxpayers money. Failing to fund planning is penny wise and dollar foolish.

A 1992 study commissioned by the New Jersey legislature analyzed that state's prevailing growth pattern and found that more compact, orderly development could save New Jersey residents $650 million in local road costs and $90 million in state road costs (by avoiding the cost of building 1,600 lane-miles of local roads and 27 lane-miles of state roads.) Compact growth would save $440 million in water supply and sewer infrastructure costs. Municipalities and school districts could save $400 million each year in public service costs, including avoided maintenance costs for roads and better use of existing schools. All of these savings are caused by using only 165,000 acres, instead of 292,000 acres, to provide land for jobs, housing, transport and services for 530,000 additional residents and 654,000 new workers. Source: Rutgers University, Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Executive Summary February 28, 1992.

To put the New Jersey acreage figures in perspective, Oregon already has about 800,000 acres zoned for rural residential, rural commercial or rural industrial development, plus 800,000 acres inside Urban Growth Boundaries.

The American Farmland Trust conducted a study of two alternative growth patterns for California's Central Valley, as it population triples to 12 million by 2040. A more compact growth pattern would yield cumulative savings in the cost of taxpayer financed facilities and services of $29 billion over the 50-year period. The compact pattern would yield budget surpluses for local governments, while the low-density alternative would produce significant local government deficits by 2040, necessitating reductions in services. Source: Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California's Central Valley; The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers.

In 1995, the Bank of America joined state agencies, land use advocates, and a low-income housing interests in calling for better growth management in California, stating: "it is clear that sprawl has created enormous costs that California can no longer afford." Source: Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California, January, 1995.

The Bend Bypass is another example of the cost of not planning. The

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) used taxpayers' money to build the existing Highway 97 as an alternative fast route around Bend. Local governments granted land use permits for new commercial development along the new Highway 97 and ODOT agreed to provide direct highway access. Now Highway 97 has become clogged with local traffic (the people going to stores along the strip) and it is no longer serving its intended purpose as a bypass. Oregon taxpayers are now spending $88 million more to build another bypass through Bend, displacing jobs and housing in the process. Good planning would have avoided the cost of building a bypass around a bypass.

What is "Regional Problem Solving?"

"Regional Problem Solving" refers to state-supported planning initiatives adopted in 1996 to address critical growth issues in selected areas of the state.

Under HB 3482 (Feb., 1996 Special Session), the Land Conservation and Development Commission sponsored four pilot projects to address unusual (sometimes acute) growth issues in various parts of Oregon:

•Two of the projects will address compounded problems of unplanned growth in southern Deschutes County (La Pine area) and the Clatsop Plain. Planning issues in these areas include septic contamination of groundwater and financing of basic services;

•A third project will address transportation and other growth-related impacts in the Grande Ronde-Willamina area after construction of the Spirit Mountain gaming facility;

•The fourth project will develop community plans for unincorporated hamlets, and complete recreational, watershed and aggregate resource planning in Josephine County.

Is the "Regional Problem Solving" authorized under HB 3482 good planning?

LCDC selected worthwhile pilot projects under the Regional Problem Solving legislation. However, the bill could have allowed special "committees" to remove farm and forest land protections, and could have allowed projects which did not comply with important state planning laws.

When the original "Regional Problem Solving" legislation was introduced, no testimony was offered to explain what "problems" could not be "solved" under existing land use laws. The problems addressed under the current pilot projects apparently can.

Regional planning should not be designed to allow undefined "regions" to circumvent Oregon's growth management laws (for example, to authorize -- or even promote -- more development in rural areas, or to avoid incorporation).

Does 1000 Friends support Regional Planning?

 Yes. Within the framework of existing land use laws, state-supported regional planning is needed in several parts of Oregon.

Local governments across the state face difficult planning challenges, and require better coordination between affected jurisdictions, during Oregon's current period of unprecedented growth. Other worthwhile proposals for pilot projects under the 1995 legislation included:

•Lower Umatilla groundwater management study;
•Salem-Keizer regional framework plan;
•planning for the impacts of the Snake River Correctional Institute;
•better coordination of development along the I-5 corridor in Douglas County.

Nothing in Oregon's land use laws prevents these legitimate planning objectives and 1000 Friends supports their funding.

Today, "commuting sheds" and sprawling development patterns extend across city, county, and even state boundaries. Problem areas include the Rogue-Bear Creek Valley, Central Oregon (from Madras to La Pine, including Prineville and Sisters), the Central and North Oregon Coast, and the Willamette Valley.

State-supported regional planning can bring about region-wide, long-term solutions. Regional planning also provides a unique opportunity for consensus among diverse interests, because growth management issues become much better understood and appreciated ö often for the first time for many participants.

Summary of 1000 Friends' Position on Regional Planning

1000 Friends supports both regional planning and the use of state funds for targeted regional planning problems. 1000 Friends does not support legislation that would allow local governments to avoid state planning laws under the label of "regional problem solving."