Land use

I was invited to hear Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken address the Rubicon Society with a presentation on Oregon and land use.  I was unable to attend, but Mayor Leiken was kind enough to send me the outline of his speech.  Below the fold is the complete unedited text of his e-mail.  Before you read it, read this statement Mayor Leiken included to me:

What I would like to know is "why is the Mayor of Springfield talking about this more than the candidates for Governor?"

Good question!  Hopefully, as the primary swings into high gear, we will start to hear them chime in...

And now, the outline of the Mayor's presentation:

March 2, 2006

THEME: 

The time has come for "Oregon's Big Look" and a similar review of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan."

SUMMARY:

Last year the Oregon Legislature passed SB82.  It mandates what is being called "The Big Look."  That is, a "big look" at what our State's land use program has become after 33 years in service to the people of our state.  And a "big look" into the future as we reflect on trends and consider the consequences of extending these into the months and years ahead.  This is long past due.  So is a similar exercise to review the Metro Plan and decide whether this document is serving our area based on the values and desires of the community today.  I'd like to share some observations and offer some recommendations.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

Right now, few Oregonians really know much about SB82 ... including the planners.  The bill emerged amidst the strangely civil debate last session about BM37 - the takings/compensation initiative that represents a clear message from Oregonians that all is not well with our statewide land use program.

And while the Legislature couldn't sort out BM37 last session, it did agree that it's time to review the State's thirty year old planning program.  SB 82 and "The Big Look" establish a high-profile public process intended to give Oregonians an opportunity to ask themselves some basic questions about land use planning as it's become here in Oregon and most importantly ... what the State's planning program needs to look like in the future in order to accomplish the outcomes Oregonians want.

SB82 seems to beg several questions:

First:  Why did Oregon jump out ahead of the other 49 states in 1973 when the Legislature enacted SB100.  What prompted this "noble experiment," as it was called then?  SB100 was the land use bill that started it all.  How many were here then, and remember?

Second:  Are Oregon's planning laws, today, consistent with the State program's original intent?  And if not, why not?  Did Oregon landowners and taxpayers get to guide the changes or did these just somehow manifest themselves?

Third:  How do Oregonians want our State to look in 5 - 10 - 20 years and beyond?  And how do Oregonians want their public policy to guide this vision?  Can we reasonably expect SB82 to answer all these questions for us?

And finally ... closer to home:  Shouldn't we undertake a critical review of our own planning framework - The Metro Plan?

SOME ANSWERS COME EASILY:

- Oregon's planning program was established to "save prime farm and forestland," and to prevent urban sprawl.  These were the core reasons for SB100 in 1973.  Four years later the coastal goals were added to the program to "save the coast."

- But saving farm and forest land remained the program's emphasis thirty years ago and into the mid-1980's.  These remained the program's emphasis through and beyond two unsuccessful statewide initiatives to repeal it.

- Appeals against decisions by county commissioners to allow rural residential development were rampant into the mid-1980's but eventually it became clear to even the most ardent "local control" believers that the State's program would not allow rural acreage homesites and the kind of country living that remains popular in Oregon today.

- It took a small army of State land use planners to review "local" plans as jurisdiction after jurisdiction submitted them for approval. 

- But once Oregon's 36 counties and 200+ cities had their comprehensive plans blessed by Salem nearly 20 years ago now ... do you think staffing at the state Dept. of Land Conservation and Development was reduced? 

- In true form with all bureaucracies, the program's emphasis began a shift toward issues related to transportation and urban growth management ... And that trend continues today.  For example, one of the new administrative rules the state is considering today will dictate to cities a maximum width for local streets.  How many believe a skinny streets rule merits attention as an issue of statewide significance?

SOME ANSWERS STILL ELUDE US:

Is the State program consistent with the values and desires of mainstream Oregon?

- There's reason to believe it isn't.  After all, two statewide initiatives have essentially labeled the program:  unfair.  If government restricts the use and enjoyment of private property, it must compensate the owner for his loss.  So decried Oregon voters ... first though passage of BM7, then again just a few months ago now though passage of BM37.

- But we Oregonians love our state and value the open space and all its environmental qualities.  And there is evidence that Oregonians value their statewide planning program, notwithstanding the overwhelming passage of BM37. 

- Last April the Oregon Business Association and Portland State released a study about Oregonians current views concerning land use planning, personal property rights and BM37. 

- The study was conducted by an independent firm - CFM Research, of Portland - and included geographically stratified, random telephone survey that was statistically valid with a 4.5% margin of error at the 95% confidence level.  Its results fulfilled the study's objectives, which was "to assess perceptions, opinions and values relating to land use and land use policies in Oregon."  It produced some interesting results and the not-surprising conclusion that Oregonians have strong opinions about land use planning in our state.  Here are some of the specific findings supported by the survey's results:

- "Oregonians firmly believe that protecting the rights of property owners is very important."  67% said so.

- "This belief extends to a clear preference for protecting individual rights (60%) over a responsibility to the community (37%) and an affirmation that private rights (56%) are more valued than the public good (38%)."

- Respondents also said that "protecting land for future needs (70%) is more important than using land now for homes and business (25%) and that land should be based on public planning decisions (69%) rather than market-based decisions (23%)."

- "Overall, two in three Oregonians (69%) say that growth management has made the state a more desirable place to live."

THE MESSAGE IS ABOUT AS CLEAR AS A MUDDY WETLAND:

That is, Oregonians favor environmental protection, growth management restrictions and land use planning - all the while valuing and protecting individual, private property rights.  The OBA / Portland
State study confirms that "(w)hen given a choice, Oregonians are more likely to side with the right of a landowner to reasonably use their property (52%) rather than believing reasonable land use planning serves the public good (44%)." 

This certainly creates a dilemma for public policy makers left to find the balance that is needed to produce a more clear direction for our state than we have at the moment.  The survey shows us that there is simply no clear consensus:

- about whether current land use regulations are too strict, about right or not strict enough;

- about whether landowners are being treated fairly or not by existing land use regulations;

- or even about whether local livability has improved, stayed the same or gotten worse.

IT'S FINALLY COME TO A HEAD IN OREGON; IT'S COMING TO A HEAD IN SPRINGFIELD:

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

- Regardless of the magnitude of the challenge, public agencies and policy makers must find ways to balance the diverse viewpoints that characterize the conflict between Oregon's 33 year old statewide planning program and the fairness issues associated with private property rights.

- I believe most Oregonians feel it is long past time to review our statewide planning program. 

- 79% of the OBA / PSU study respondents said they favor "periodically reviewing land use policies to accommodate growth and the economy," and

- 73% said they favor "taking a flexible approach" to allow residential construction on private property.

- Likewise, I believe a growing number of those who live or work in Springfield-Eugene are coming to a similar conclusion about the need to review the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan - which is now over 20 years old and showing more than just a few signs of rust and corrosion. 

- Local elected and appointed officials wrestling with issues about how to most efficiently provide urban services - including fire, law enforcement and library services - have found themselves scratching their collective heads about archaic Metro Plan policies at one time or another over the past couple years.

- And the problems associated with our shrinking residential land supply in Springfield and Eugene have grown to the point that Springfield is now undertaking the analysis required by Oregon planning law to consider an urban growth boundary expansion - with or without Eugene's concurrence - if it comes that. 

- And likewise, a study about whether the area has enough commercial and industrial lands is soon to be completed under a contract managed by Lane County.

A lyric from a John Mellencamp song proclaims something like:  "I know there's a balance.  I see it when it swings by."  The balance in Oregon's land use laws needs to change, and it seems like most Oregonians are finally recognizing this.

# # #

Comments

[Vonski]

I have been very impressed with Mayor Leiken and we are very fortunate that he lives here in Lane County.

He is the steadfast to Kitty Piercy's sinecure. She could learn a lot from him.

[Rural Republican]

I am big supporter of the old style Teddy Roosevelt style conservation. Sid Leiken, you're no Teddy Roosevelt.

While I have supported the Mayor's goals to attract liveable wage jobs to our fair burg, those aren't the people he plays with anymore.

Sid talks about reconciling differences over land use practices, but he hangs out with the very developers who want to gut every land use law out there.

I am not defending the extremist wing of the environmental movement, but when I see Aaron Jones, Ken Demers, Larry Giustina, John Murphy, John Muscemeci and others licking their chops over M37 I feel the sudden urge to throw a big blanket over ANY changes to our landuse system. These guys use grandmas and small farmers to tug at the heartstrings of people who will literally get bulldozed by these landlords (and thats what they are - land....lords)

If we want to promote reasonable private property rights then we need to divorce ourselves from the rabid pave and build folks and get back to republican roots.....

In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, lets block these predators from snatching up all the available land and stop aiding them by echoing their lines about "property rights". Its a sham.

dk

[Robin]

I've lived here since 1963... and know there has been talks in the past about merging Eugene and Springfield into one big metropolitan which I am highly against.

simply because Eugène has proven over and over again that it cannot run a city.

some of us like our little Springfield just the way it is

[josh]

To Rural Republican, I use to work for the Leiken's in Roseburg and it is obvious you didn't know that his family is one of the largest developer's and landowners in Douglas County. They are salt of the earth types, just like most of the timber/development families are and frankly I enjoyed working for them. I just needed to move on and finish my degree

[Boze Noze]

Gully, I was there. Sid was his usual competent self.

Rural Republican, Teddy R. may have started the national park system but he would not have supported restricting peoples ability to use their own land. tha is more Teddy K's style of conservation than Teddy R's. I am surprised you are a Republican with your attitude towards developers. Just remember the houses you and your friends live in were probably built buy those bulldozing developers and the businesses that employ you and that you frequent were also built by those greedy evil developers.

[Rural Republican]

Whoa Boze Noze, hold on a second, Theodore Roosevelt was much more of an environmentalist that Ted Kulongoski would ever dream of being.

How many developers called him un-american when he put millions of acres of beautiful land out of their reach?

One of things that makes America, America and that makes me proud of this country is that we respect the right of private individuals to use their land TO THE EXTENT that it does not interfere with other people's rights to enjoy THEIR land.

If my quiet, peaceful, solitude is going to be broken by the latest Mall-Wart or McSubdivision you best be sure I will lambast the developers who are behind it.

And yes, developers have rights too, but they don't have the right to destroy what I and thousands of other Oregonians consider heaven.

You show your ignorance of Republican values if you think that we must always side with the developers. We would do well to learn that these "businessmen" don't care a whit about private property unless it is theirs.

M37 was a sham that Oregonians voted for because they thought they would "get theirs". Unfortunately they will, it just won't be something they like.

It would be nice if republicans among us would start to act like republicans, instead of shills for people who will downsize us the second their stock price dips below a certain rate, or destroy the private property we have worked so hard to maintain. Some of you fear the government, I fear big money.

And Josh, I don't know if you were agreeing with me or not - My view - Sid sold out.

dk

[josh]

dk

Who did he sell out to? His first year in office he was courting the feds for the federal courthouse, Symantec to Gateway and Peace Health to Gateway. It is obvious you do not know him at all. He has been very consistent all along. To the environmentalist, he was one of the first in the United States to introduce an environmentally friendly process at his chain of dry cleaners. Did you know that? Personally I think he is great.

[ajb]

The problem with Measure 37 is not really the sentiment behind it, it's the application of that sentiment.
Measure 37 is vague, overly broad, and quite frankly, a bad idea.
Gutting land use restrictions to protest the scope of them is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

No one can really say what TR's views on land use restrictions would have been, but given his beliefs on food and drug safety, as well as the trustbusting, I'm not sure he'd come down solidly on the side of the developers.
-ajb

[Rural Republican]

I know all about Leiken's wetcleaning (good idea) and his "courting" of the courthouse , Symantec, and Peacehealth. All of that is great, no problems here.

Where Sid is losing his mojo is that he said in his (2nd I believe) State of the City that we need to attract family wage jobs, not just jobs.

Then along comes Wal-mart and Best Buy......

Oh, and although he brought in Sony and Royal Carribean (with help), not once did he suggest any kind of clawback provision to make sure they hold to their promises. The 250 jobs at Sony that are now gone along with Sony and the xx# of millions of dollars in tax incentives cancel the fact that they came in the first place. I see it as the beginning of a slippery slope.

I like Sid personally (know him well) and I think he is good for Springfield, but I worry about him. He's not the same Sid. (maybe its his bank job?)

Don

[josh]

Don

Wait a minute!!! He is one person that has done wonders for Springfield. He has taken Springfield to be the leader in creating new jobs for the entire metro area, and this being done mostly with Jim Torrey on the other side of the freeway. I have heard the story about Symantec's expansion. It was Sid apparently setting up the meeting between the city and the state with the Symantec execs about expanding on their option. That is called instincts. These are going to be $60,000 plus jobs coming into the area. Frankly, what has been going on in Springfield is nothing short of being a miracle. Read towards the end of the article and it touches on the metro plan where Eugene and Springfield are tied to the hip. I wonder what could be if Eugene wasn't holding Mayor Leiken and Springfield back.

[Rural Republican]

Josh,

I don't disagree. Lets just say I take a wait and see approach to Mayor Leiken. It would be nice if he didn't make me so nervous recently. I correct my earlier statement about him selling out, and revise it to read "if".

but for now, I have to read the rest of Gully's Dorchester posts.

Thanks for the conversation.

Don