|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Local control critical for land-use
Capital Press Editorial
Capital Press Editorial
February 26, 2009
Though it needs an extensive rewrite, Oregon's labyrinthine land-use system can wait.
In an era when first things must come first, the Legislature's attention must focus on dealing with Oregon's red-ink-drenched budget. The state economist projects that tax revenue will fall at least $3 billion short of what legislators need to balance the budget for the next two years. For a state whose proposed two-year general fund budget is about $13.8 billion, that represents an emergency that will require the Legislature's full attention.
It also means non-budget-related issues that will require heavy lifting on the part of legislators must wait. Besides freeing them to attack burgeoning budget problems, such a respite will provide legislators with the time they need to come up with a land-use bill that will mend the shortcomings of the current system without adding further regulatory burdens for planners and landowners.
Judging from the reception the revision of the state's land-use bill received from county planners during a recent hearing, plenty of work remains. The planners flat-out described a provision of House Bill 2229, the Big Look bill, as "unworkable." The provision would require a neighboring county to agree to any changes in farm and forestland designations.
"To combine adjacent counties to redesignate farm and forest land doesn't make a lot of sense to us," Kent Howe, planning director for Lane County, told legislators at the hearing on HB2229.
Other planning directors told lawmakers that, when it comes to the designation of land uses, their counties had little or nothing to do with neighboring counties.
Coming from the people who would have to make the law work, this is discouraging.
A particularly important keystone that needs to be re-emphasized in the bill is the concept of local control. Not sort-of-local control, as the bill is now written, but genuine local control that provides county commissioners with the tools and power to address land-use issues unique to their jurisdictions.
One other observation can be made about the state's current land-use laws. They socialize the benefits of open spaces and privatize the costs. The public may benefit from more open space, but farmers and ranchers bear much of the cost of maintaining that open space.
The best way to address that - or any other provision involving land use - is through increased local control. That is the key, not a more complicated system in which accountability is lost and lawyers seem to be the primary beneficiaries as land-use disputes degenerate into round after round of litigation.
Tell county commissioners that they are responsible for deciding the future of their county and that they cannot pass that responsibility on to planners in Salem. Then the public will find that accountability - which has gone missing in the current process - goes a long way toward resolving many of the seemingly intractable conflicts over land use.
Rewriting the state's land-use laws will make Oregon a better place to live and to farm, but it will require the full attention of legislators. Only after they have taken care of the pressing business of balancing a budget that's now deeply in the red can lawmakers hope to devote the time and energy required to sort out the complicated issue of land use.
One option is to assign an interim committee to continue the work of the "Big Look" task force. Given the necessary time, legislators will be able to develop land-use laws that rely on local control and, consequently, are far more fair to everyone.
If that is the outcome, the wait will be worth it.
Though it needs an extensive rewrite, Oregon's labyrinthine land-use system can wait.
In an era when first things must come first, the Legislature's attention must focus on dealing with Oregon's red-ink-drenched budget. The state economist projects that tax revenue will fall at least $3 billion short of what legislators need to balance the budget for the next two years. For a state whose proposed two-year general fund budget is about $13.8 billion, that represents an emergency that will require the Legislature's full attention.
It also means non-budget-related issues that will require heavy lifting on the part of legislators must wait. Besides freeing them to attack burgeoning budget problems, such a respite will provide legislators with the time they need to come up with a land-use bill that will mend the shortcomings of the current system without adding further regulatory burdens for planners and landowners.
Judging from the reception the revision of the state's land-use bill received from county planners during a recent hearing, plenty of work remains. The planners flat-out described a provision of House Bill 2229, the Big Look bill, as "unworkable." The provision would require a neighboring county to agree to any changes in farm and forestland designations.
"To combine adjacent counties to redesignate farm and forest land doesn't make a lot of sense to us," Kent Howe, planning director for Lane County, told legislators at the hearing on HB2229.
Other planning directors told lawmakers that, when it comes to the designation of land uses, their counties had little or nothing to do with neighboring counties.
Coming from the people who would have to make the law work, this is discouraging.
A particularly important keystone that needs to be re-emphasized in the bill is the concept of local control. Not sort-of-local control, as the bill is now written, but genuine local control that provides county commissioners with the tools and power to address land-use issues unique to their jurisdictions.
One other observation can be made about the state's current land-use laws. They socialize the benefits of open spaces and privatize the costs. The public may benefit from more open space, but farmers and ranchers bear much of the cost of maintaining that open space.
The best way to address that - or any other provision involving land use - is through increased local control. That is the key, not a more complicated system in which accountability is lost and lawyers seem to be the primary beneficiaries as land-use disputes degenerate into round after round of litigation.
Tell county commissioners that they are responsible for deciding the future of their county and that they cannot pass that responsibility on to planners in Salem. Then the public will find that accountability - which has gone missing in the current process - goes a long way toward resolving many of the seemingly intractable conflicts over land use.
Rewriting the state's land-use laws will make Oregon a better place to live and to farm, but it will require the full attention of legislators. Only after they have taken care of the pressing business of balancing a budget that's now deeply in the red can lawmakers hope to devote the time and energy required to sort out the complicated issue of land use.
One option is to assign an interim committee to continue the work of the "Big Look" task force. Given the necessary time, legislators will be able to develop land-use laws that rely on local control and, consequently, are far more fair to everyone.
If that is the outcome, the wait will be worth it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml