ONE TOWN SQUARE: at the intersection of peak oil, climate change, and land use

Yes, it feels really good to give the other side a thumping, and it is especially sweet to cut Hunnicutt down a peg or two. But before we overdo it with the back-slapping over Oregon voters’ overwhelming (62-38) approval of Measure 49, let’s remember what it is we “progressives” have done: we’ve sponsored and passed another version of a regulatory takings measure.

The basic premise of Measure 49, as Measure 37, is that government regulation is inherently unfair and that people deserve to be compensated when government action results in any loss of property value – even when that government action furthers the common good and the benefits accrue to all, including individual property owners.

Regulatory takings measures – such as 37 and 49 – have proven to be highly unpopular in other states. Voters in red-state Alaska just turned down Measure 1 - a clone of Oregon’s Measure 37 – on a 79% to 21% vote. Voters in red-state Idaho turned down a similar measure in 2006 – 76% to 24%!

So we shouldn’t be too self-congratulatory. And we’ve not exactly left ourselves in a good position to now argue now that a regulatory takings concept that we created and exhorted the voters to approve – and that they did pass, resoundingly – should be repealed in its entirety.

Given where we are, what should we do next? That’s the question I’d like to explore a bit in this post. It’s going to be a long one, as I’m going to set out an overall concept and then a pretty detailed outline of what I think the agenda of the land use community for the next few years should look like.

First, we have to set aside, for now, the property rights vs. community debate. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said about a much different issue, it could benefit from a period of benign neglect. We instead need to focus on addressing the twin challenges that pose the greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced – our energy and climate crises – and the role that land use plays in meeting those challenges.

We have to attend to the foundation of Oregon’s planning program and rebuild it on ecological principles, as envisioned in Aldo Leopold’s land ethic. It has become undeniable that human communities and economies operate within and are completely dependent on healthy ecosystems, including Earth’s ecosystem as a whole. Yet our planning program sees land and resources as something “out there” to be protected and exploited, rather than as members of Aldo Leopold’s “land community”- “soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.”

We, the land use activist community, have to take on this task, and lay out the ecological and ethical basis for our concern with land use. Only when we have done so clearly and convincingly can we explain to people why we have to pay attention to the way we live with and within the land.

We have to urge the resumption of the Big Look – but not as it is presently constituted or charged. Rather than a panel of politicians chosen to reflect a pre-conceived “balance” of adversarial forces and re-hashing old battles, we need to convene a panel of scientists and the best experts we can gather – including representation from the government and political spheres – selected for their awareness of the peril of our situation, their knowledge and experience within their fields, and their commitment to forging a new consensus and mapping a way forward. We need to draw upon all of Oregon’s resource agencies – including the departments of agriculture, forestry, environmental quality, fish & wildlife, geology & mineral industries, water resources, transportation, and DLCD, as well as the expertise of the science and planning communities based in our universities.

We need to re-think all of Oregon’s land use planning goals within an ecological framework, and update and strengthen them to address a world in which energy constraints and climate impacts are looming threats. I’m going to through them, quickly, to see what this might mean – but this is by no means a finished product. It would be great to get all of us in the land use community involved in coming up with proposed revisions. But it’s important to start thinking and talking about this now, as any action is sure to be at least a couple of years down the road.

Goal 1, Citizen Involvement

Danial Patrick Moynihan once said, “citizen participation is a device whereby public officials induce nonpublic individuals to act in a way the officials desire.” While the cynicism in this remark is well-founded, it’s undeniable that no policy can be implemented without building public support. And widespread citizen participation is essential if public buy-in to policy changes is to be attained. The problem with Goal 1 as it exists today is that public participation, while officially lauded, is in actuality discouraged. Citizen involvement “programs” have become fossilized. What’s needed is a more decentralized and less controlling approach. All information and materials needed for citizens to actively participate in both legislative and quasi-judicial matters should be readily available on the internet. Local processes should be expeditious and cheap, so as not discourage or price people out. Conflict cannot and should not be seen as a bad thing – it’s the way a democracy works. The objective should be to reach finality as quickly and cheaply as possible, while honoring the right of people to participate and strenuously advocate for their beliefs.

Goal 2, Land Use Planning

What’s missing in Goal 2 is any kind of overarching statewide goals or strategic plan to meet those goals. The Big Look task force suggested that the state set such goal. Regional and local plans would thus take their place as part of the implementation strategy. The four overarching goals suggested by the task force are actually pretty good: 1) a healthy, sustainable environment; a prosperous, sustainable economy; 3) [presumably good] quality of life and livable communities; and 4) equity and fairness. As long “equity and fairness” means social justice rather than being code words for property rights, this list is unexceptionable.

It would be a great idea if all of the statewide planning goals contained within them specific goals or targets. For example, Goal 6 (Air, water and land resources quality) could set greenhouse gas emissions goals; administrative rules could set standards; and local plans could set local goals and standards.

Goal 3 Agricultural Lands

Goal 3 sets out to “preserve and maintain” agricultural lands, through zoning. But what we really care about is food and other agricultural production – which requires that we maintain the health of our soils. This requires more than just drawing a line around farm land and keeping people out. If we’re to sustain the agriculture and our food supply over the long haul, we need to work on our relationship with the land. What this will mean in an era of energy constraints and relocalization needs to be thought through. We also need to consider the carbon cycle impacts of farm practices.

Goal 4 Forest Lands

Goal 4, like Goal 3, draws a line around forest lands and attempts to limit non-forest uses. It mentions but really does nothing to protect non-commercial forest values. We need to recast Goal 4 to see forests as ecosystems, to recognize the value of ecosystem services, and to maintain the health of forest ecosystems over generations.

Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources

Goal 5 again operates by inventorying and drawing lines around specific, individual resources, with the objective of keeping competing uses out. We’ve learned that we cannot save a plant or animal species or a resource without ensuring the health of the ecosystem within which it exists. Preserving ecosystem integrity should be the focus.

Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality

There’s a lot that could be done with Goal 6 to address greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems. The way it works now is that we issue permits to pollute. We need to set tangible targets and implement programs to reach those targets.

Goal 7 Natural Disasters and Hazards

Goal 7 is another line-drawing excercise. But it doesn’t stop us from building where we shouldn’t. There’s a lot of work to be done to address risks from global warming, including rising sea levels, increased risks of flooding, and increased fire hazard in the forest/human interface.

Goal 8 Recreation

This is pretty much the destination resort goal. We’re going to have to figure out how to meet our recreation needs closer to home, and to ensure that all Oregonians have easy access to nature – even within our cities.

Goal 9 Economy of the State

Goal 9 is predicated on economic growth, and insists that we set aside land to accommodate that growth. We need to remember that the function of an economy is not to grow or to provide jobs – it’s to provide food and shelter for people, along with the things that make live worth while and enjoyable.

Goal 10 Housing

Goal 10 is another “growth” goal. It requires that we project population growth into the future based upon past trends, and set aside land to accommodate that growth. What if it were to be recast as a qualitative rather than quantititive goal?

Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services

A “project and provide” goal. It needs to become a tool to be used to accomplish overriding societal objectives, such as achieving energy and emissions targets.

Goal 12, Transportation

Again, a “project and provide” goal. Goal 12 as it is implemented is especially absurd because it assumes something we know isn’t true: that oil will continue to be cheap and abundant and that emissions are cost-free. We need to recast its objective, which should be to minimize the need for transportation in the first place and to provide for alternative modes. We need a moratorium on road on airport construction.

Goal 13 Energy

Another empty goal, waiting to be filled with meaningful content. We need to set energy goals by production sector as well as consumption sector, to encourage more localized production, to focus on and promote energy conservation.

Goal 14 Urbanization

Goal 14 is yet another “project and provide” goal. It envisions limitless growth, “smart” or not. We need to repeal the mandate for growth and concentrate instead on improving equity and the quality of life within our communities.

Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway

Another “draw a line and protect (as much as possible, so long as it doesn’t hurt)” goal. The goal needs to be strengthened to offer real protection to the river as an ecological system.

Goal 16, Estuarine Resources

Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands

Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes

My experience with these goals is that they seldom actually keep any development from happening, regardless of impacts on the land community or potential hazards. Maybe there are some places we just shouldn’t build.

Goal 19 Ocean Resources

Goal 19 aims “to conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf.” My experience with Goal 19 is zip. We do know that fisheries around the world are collapsing due to overexploitation, pollution, and a myriad of other problems. Somebody with actual knowledge is going to have to help me out.