Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area after Measure 37

  Created in the aftermath of Measure 37, the Russill Fellowship is aimed at examining non-regulatory land use planning tools and their potential application in the Portland Metropolitan area, with a particular ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area after Measure 37 Author: Reid, Ted Year: 2006 Created in the aftermath of Measure 37, the Russill Fellowship is aimed at examining non-regulatory land use planning tools and their potential application in the Portland Metropolitan area, with a particular emphasis on habitat conservation. The above-mentioned ballot initiative and the larger private property rights movement have given an indication that Oregon voters perceive inequities in the State’s land use planning system. It is also clear that Oregonians still place a high value on the conservation of our state’s natural resources. According to a March, 2005 statewide survey, protecting farmland for farming is very important to 67% of respondents, protecting the environment is very important to 61%, and protecting wildlife habitat is very important to 58% (CFM Research, 2005). According to a more recent survey commissioned by Metro, 72% of respondents indicated that a policy to “add houses in existing neighborhoods” comes closer to how they feel while only 16% chose “convert farm and forest land for growth” (12% responded with “don’t know”) (Davis, Hibbits, & Midghall, Inc., 2006). Regardless of the legal status of Measure 37 or any future regulatory takings initiatives, the planner’s toolbox needs to be expanded, providing a wider variety of options to accomplish the Statewide Planning Goals. However, as the research for this paper progressed, a more complicated picture of planning and the use of regulations has emerged. It has become clear that non-regulatory planning instruments are no substitute for regulation in upholding Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. The above-cited survey indicates that Oregonians do still see the importance of the Goals. Thus, this paper has focused on the need for long-range planning, the relationship between planning and property values, the threat of sprawl in the Portland region, planning instruments that help to control such sprawl, and whether such instruments are able to attain Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. Title: Planning in the Portland Metropolitan Area after Measure 37 Author: Reid, Ted Year: 2006 Created in the aftermath of Measure 37, the Russill Fellowship is aimed at examining non-regulatory land use planning tools and their potential application in the Portland Metropolitan area, with a particular emphasis on habitat conservation. The above-mentioned ballot initiative and the larger private property rights movement have given an indication that Oregon voters perceive inequities in the State’s land use planning system. It is also clear that Oregonians still place a high value on the conservation of our state’s natural resources. According to a March, 2005 statewide survey, protecting farmland for farming is very important to 67% of respondents, protecting the environment is very important to 61%, and protecting wildlife habitat is very important to 58% (CFM Research, 2005). According to a more recent survey commissioned by Metro, 72% of respondents indicated that a policy to “add houses in existing neighborhoods” comes closer to how they feel while only 16% chose “convert farm and forest land for growth” (12% responded with “don’t know”) (Davis, Hibbits, & Midghall, Inc., 2006). Regardless of the legal status of Measure 37 or any future regulatory takings initiatives, the planner’s toolbox needs to be expanded, providing a wider variety of options to accomplish the Statewide Planning Goals. However, as the research for this paper progressed, a more complicated picture of planning and the use of regulations has emerged. It has become clear that non-regulatory planning instruments are no substitute for regulation in upholding Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. The above-cited survey indicates that Oregonians do still see the importance of the Goals. Thus, this paper has focused on the need for long-range planning, the relationship between planning and property values, the threat of sprawl in the Portland region, planning instruments that help to control such sprawl, and whether such instruments are able to attain Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. Close

• 2. [Article] Documenting the Impact of Measure 37: Selected Case Studies

  Oregon has long been known for progressive planning policies and visionary government. The passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973 ushered in Oregon’s modern era of land use planning and reflected a commitment ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Documenting the Impact of Measure 37: Selected Case Studies Author: Martin, Sheila A., Shriver, Katie Year: 2006 Oregon has long been known for progressive planning policies and visionary government. The passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973 ushered in Oregon’s modern era of land use planning and reflected a commitment by Oregonians to the protection of farm land and other natural resources while planning for substantial urban growth. Many other states have envied Oregon’s framework as they struggle with the pressures of urban sprawl. While other states were quickly converting farmland to residential uses, Oregon converted just over one percent of its farmland to other uses between 1982 and 1997. On November 2, voters in Oregon chose to approve Measure 37 by a fairly wide margin. Although the message implied by that vote is widely debated, one thing is clear: Measure 37 has disabled the tools used over the past four decades to prevent sprawl and preserve agricultural and forest land in Oregon. We suspect that, based on experience in Florida with a similar measure, Measure 37 will also have a chilling effect on innovation in land use planning within local government. Although the legal status of the Measure is currently unclear (see below), we expect opponents of the land use system to continue to press for weakening these tools in Oregon. Efforts are underway to pass similar measures in other states. For example, property rights advocates are working in the state of Washington to make another attempt similar to failed Referendum 48, which was rejected by Washington voters in 1995. Before such an initiative is approved by voters, it is important that they understand how Measure 37 will affect land use planning in Oregon. However, the full impact of Measure 37 will be slow to unfold, as the courts make decisions about issues such as the transferability of waivers, the applicability of exceptions, and the rights of local governments to create a cause of action for neighbors affected by Measure 37 waivers. Title: Documenting the Impact of Measure 37: Selected Case Studies Author: Martin, Sheila A., Shriver, Katie Year: 2006 Oregon has long been known for progressive planning policies and visionary government. The passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973 ushered in Oregon’s modern era of land use planning and reflected a commitment by Oregonians to the protection of farm land and other natural resources while planning for substantial urban growth. Many other states have envied Oregon’s framework as they struggle with the pressures of urban sprawl. While other states were quickly converting farmland to residential uses, Oregon converted just over one percent of its farmland to other uses between 1982 and 1997. On November 2, voters in Oregon chose to approve Measure 37 by a fairly wide margin. Although the message implied by that vote is widely debated, one thing is clear: Measure 37 has disabled the tools used over the past four decades to prevent sprawl and preserve agricultural and forest land in Oregon. We suspect that, based on experience in Florida with a similar measure, Measure 37 will also have a chilling effect on innovation in land use planning within local government. Although the legal status of the Measure is currently unclear (see below), we expect opponents of the land use system to continue to press for weakening these tools in Oregon. Efforts are underway to pass similar measures in other states. For example, property rights advocates are working in the state of Washington to make another attempt similar to failed Referendum 48, which was rejected by Washington voters in 1995. Before such an initiative is approved by voters, it is important that they understand how Measure 37 will affect land use planning in Oregon. However, the full impact of Measure 37 will be slow to unfold, as the courts make decisions about issues such as the transferability of waivers, the applicability of exceptions, and the rights of local governments to create a cause of action for neighbors affected by Measure 37 waivers. Close