Oregon Land Use Laws

As some of you may have heard, Oregon voters recently voted to overturn the state's model land use laws. Measure 37 forces the state to compensate people for the property value lost from these laws, including retroactive claims. The idea is that the state won't be able to fund these compensations and will eliminate the laws altogether. These laws prevented Portland from turning into Phoenix, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Houston, or other sprawl hells. There at least a couple of lessons we can draw from this defeat.

1. People are susceptible to property rights ideology. Many have credited the defeat to property rights advocates who complained that Oregonians can't do what they want with their land. Planners and environmentalists could have countered this by saying that people can do a lot with their land but they can't sell it to Wal-Mart or subdivide it without community input. They could have said that these laws are the reason that you can drive for 15 minutes outside of Portland and get to farmland and forests. But they didn't. And that leads us to #2.

2. The environmental community again shows its arrogance toward the public. For years, people on the ground in Oregon stressed that support for land-use laws and environmentalism in general in Oregon had been declining and that a public campaign was needed to educate people and shore up support for these laws. Unfortunately, but not too surprising, is that the planners and environmentalists ignored these ideas for their determined goals of protecting these laws from any change. The land use laws did not work for rural people, who say, could not build for themselves on their own land. Compromises could have made in these laws to allow for more flexibility. But this didn't happen because of a dogmatic way of thinking about environmentalism. The result was the ballot measure and its victory.

3. Land use laws are not necessarily good for local people. In theory they are. Oregon's land use laws did prevent a lot of potential sprawl in Portland. But by limiting growth without a serious investment in low and medium income housing in the urban center, housing prices get driven to astronomical levels, as has happened in Portland, as well as in Boulder which is another model land-use law area. Retirees from California and young people who have made money in computers can live in Portland, but it's hard for poorer locals to remain. This also leads to resentment of the laws.

There is some hope however. First Oregon has a ton of ballot measures. Lots of them are voted in but are poorly written or just stupid and are ruled unconstitutional. So there is a ray of light in the courts. Also local actions are taking effect. As reported in High Country News, an ordinance from Bend, which threatens to become to the Jackson Hole or Aspen of Oregon, allows people to sue their neighbors if development on one's land reduces their property values. In a place like Bend, where the land-use laws probably mean more than anywhere in the state except Portland, this means a lot. Land is valuable and if a Wal-Mart parking lot disturbs someone's view, that could mean a hefty lawsuit. The stated intention of the ordinance backers is to prevent people from using Measure 37. This could work wonders. I don't know how attractive this option will be in places like Brookings, La Grande, or other Republican enclaves in rural Oregon but it could work wonders.