Oregon's Land Use - Is There a Middle Ground?

The Big Look task force, as some will recall, was established by the 2005 Oregon Legislature and the Governor to review Oregon's then 32 year old experiment with top down land use management and control.

The now infamous Senate Bill 100, carried forward in 1973, set Oregon apart from other states in establishing the nation's first system of state wide land use planning. The system remains the first and only system of its kind in the nation 35 years later. So much for not reinventing the wheel in the laboratories of democracy.

The task force met numerous times to begin its review of Oregon's complicated and bureaucratic land use system. The next step was a series of town hall meetings around the state to receive input from landowners and citizens. However, as word leaked out that the group's preliminary findings and recommendations might call for some weakening of strict top down control, funding was abruptly cut off by the Legislature.

Some say that the suspension of funding was to slow the project so that any results would not compromise the Legislature's Measure 49, on the ballot in 2007. That measure was intended to reverse the effects of an earlier Measure 37, a successful initiative by the people in 2004, to restore many individual property rights.

After the passage of Measure 49, funding was restored and the task force continued forward with a series of meetings across the state. For many of us who attended some of the meetings, the effort seemed a waste of time. The meetings were heavily scripted, questions were limited, and the presentations were slick and professionally packaged. It appeared the means were structured to justify the end.

However, to the profound surprise or dismay of many land use followers, the Big Look group issued a number of findings and recommendations which make a great deal of sense.

If adopted by the Legislature in 2009 (big IF), considerable balance will be restored to Oregon's land use system. That, of course, was the stated reason for establishing the group in the first place.

Among other things, the recommendations include moving much of the site specific decisions to those governments closer to the people - the counties and cities. The task force appears to have discounted the suspect theory that one size fits all.

Indeed, few people will dispute that local governments have a greater awareness, appreciation and understanding of the local economy, environmental issues, and sense of the people than state officials. Not only is that common sense, it's absolutely true as many of us who live in rural areas and who know our local officials well can testify.

Two recent legal opinions have added strength to moving our land use system toward restoring some individual property rights and balance to the current system which continues to thumb its nose at individual Oregonians and their property rights.

A federal judge recently held that landowners in Jackson County, by following then current requirements of the law and modifications granted under Measure 37, had established a contract with the county which could not be set aside by the imposition of Measure 49 three years later.

In Yamhill County, a judge ruled that two developers had invested enough time and money in good faith that their projects could move forward, despite restrictions imposed under Measure 49.

Now, the folks at 1000 Friends of Oregon (which may be neither, depending on your point of view), are planning legal challenges along with other groups. If nothing else, Oregon's land use laws have become a statutory annuity for land use attorneys.

And so the pendulum swings. A collective approach or individual property rights? My land, your land or our land? The moral issue of taking from one without compensation for the stated benefit of all?

Time will tell if the 2009 Legislature will do more than listen politely to the report of the task force. But don't bet what's left of your 401(k).

It's a better bet that the report will find its way into the archives of Oregon to be used by some graduate student in the year 2025 as part of a thesis.

And that would be a shame and a bit frightening. America was built on private property rights.