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

The Big Look Task Force finished up its four years of work by preparing a Final Report and submitting a bill (HB 2229) to be considered by the legislature this session.

The most controversial proposal in the bill as submitted would give two or more counties the authority to develop their own definition of “agricultural” and “forest” lands, lands currently defined and protected by statewide planning Goals 3 and 4. Proponents of the change argue it would provide more local control and flexibility to Oregon’s land use system. Opponents argue that the change is nothing more than a ruse to open more land to development.

The bill is now being given a close look by the House Land Use Committee, chaired by Mary Nolan (D-Portland). Nolan also serves as House Majority Leader. Already three hearings have been held at which invited experts (including representatives of the task force) and the public could speak, followed by several work sessions.

The committee does seem dedicated passing some kind of a bill – but evidenced little fondness for HB 2229, at least in its present form. Committee members complained it’s too complicated, too expensive, doesn’t implement the recommendations of the Task Force’s Final Report – and, most significantly, fails to provide any framework to guide the land use planning program for the next 30 years, taking into consideration new realities such as climate change. Bottom line: any bill that emerges won’t look much like the one the Task Force submitted.

The “two counties” proposal is going nowhere – nobody likes it. Sections 5-8 seem to be dead. Ditto for Section 17, which would require cities to annex lands as it brings them into UGBs.

The committee agreed that the Task Force’s four “overarching principles” are a pretty good idea. The planning program does need a foundation, and the four principles – despite their generality and lack of legal significance – are pretty unexceptionable. The only edit the committee made was to strike “to all Oregonians” from the fourth principle, “Provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians.” So not all Oregonians deserve fairness and equity. Go figure.

The committee also seems likely to adopt some version of the regional problem-solving fix contained in the bill. This section of the bill is technical in nature and limited in scope, and is not controversial. A work session devoted to this topic is scheduled for February 24.

Section 18 of the bill would direct DLCD to appoint a work group to conduct a “policy-neutral” audit of land use laws and rules, with the objective of reducing complexity and improving consistency, and “to allow for greater variation between the regions of the state.”  Certain committee members wryly pointed out that “to allow for greater variation” isn’t a policy-neutral directive. With that exception, the committed agreed on this section of the bill, subject to fiscal constraints.

It appears that the committee may be willing to latch onto a few other underdeveloped suggestions in the bill as launching pad for a more ambitious rewrite of the bill. Sections 19 and 20 would direct LCDC and DLCD to coordinate with other state agencies to develop a strategic plan and to set up benchmarks and performance measures for the planning program. Committee members saw that these suggestions might offer a way to better integrate transportation planning and concerns such as climate change into Oregon’s planning program. These sections may evolve to be the heart of HB 2229 as it moves out of committee. For this reason alone, this bill and this committee bears close attention.

On a different subject: One more land use bill is worthy of wholehearted support. Rep. Clem (D-Salem), Chair of the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Communities Committee, has introduced HB 2761. The bill provides that DLCD would be the one to hire soil scientists to re-evaluate agricultural soils. If a property owner thought their land was improperly zoned to be protected by Goal 3, he would request that DLCD hire a soil scientist to assess the capability of the land. DLCD would then send the property owner a bill.

This bill would put an end to the widespread abuse of “hired gun” soils scientists confirming the desired conclusion that EFU land isn’t really farm land and so can be opened up to development. In essence, the current practice is that a landowner pays to get the opinion that he wants. HB 2761 would ensure that decisions are made based on independent and objective information.