Looking Forward
A publication of Oregonians In Action Education Center
on land use and property rights
Oregonians In
Action Education
Center is a
non-profit, nonpartisan, IRS 501
(c)(3) corporation
wholly funded by
voluntary
contributions.
For balanced,
flexible
and fair land-use
regulations, with
respect and
protection for
the rights of
landowners
Original material in
Looking Forward is not
copyrighted and may be
used freely. We would
appreciate credit to
Oregonians In Action
Education Center, but
will not object if anyone
wishes to use it without
credit.
Fixing Our Land Use
System - Lessons From
Washington
In a recent edition of Looking Forward,
we chronicled the differences in the economy
of Harney County, Oregon, and its neighbor to
the immediate south, Humboldt County,
Nevada. The two counties, which are virtually
identical to one another in terms of size,
distance from major metropolitan areas,
geography, and climate, are complete opposites
in terms of their economies and the well-being
of their residents.
While Harney County remains mired by
high unemployment, a shockingly low average
family income, and a high percentage of its
population in poverty, Humboldt County is just
the opposite – unemployment is low, families
maintain a high average income, and the
percentage of county residents at or below the
poverty line is small.
continued on page 3
LOOKING FORWARD
Inside This Issue:
1-5: Fixing Our Land Use System - Lessons
From Washington
6-8: Legislature Overrides Metro, LCDC,
Passes Land Use Grand Bargain
8: Action Alert - Deschutes County
Considering New Rural Zone
9-11: View From Murrayhill
Oregonians In Action
The Looking Forward is
Education Center
PO Box 230637 Tigard,
Produced by:
OR 97281
Oregonians In Action
Phone: 503-620-0258 or Education Center staff.
1-888 LAND USE
Fax: 503-639-6891
E-mail: [email protected]
Printed by:
Lynx Group, Inc.
Salem, OR
OIA Education Center Board of Directors,
Officers & Staff:
Officers:
Kay Finney
President
Ross Day
Secretary
Directors:
Kristi Halvorson
Dean Werth
Kay Finney
Mitch Teal
Barbara Decker
Ted Urton
Ross Day
Kristi Halvorson
Treasurer
Executive Director:
Dave Hunnicutt
Mitch Teal
Vice President
2
Volume 21, Issue 1
LOOKING FORWARD
Fixing Our Land Use System Lessons From Washington
continued from front page
As we noted then, one of the likely reasons for this disparity
is Oregon’s regulatory system, particularly its land use planning
laws. One of the major industries in Humboldt County, Nevada is
mining. According to statistics from the Nevada Mining
Association, the mining industry in Nevada contributes mightily to
the state and local economies in Nevada. Jobs in the industry pay
a family wage, significantly raise the tax base at both the state and
local levels, and help to create stable communities.
In contrast, Oregon has focused on tourism and the low
wage jobs created in that sector. In early March, the Oregon
Employment Department reported that over the next decade, job
growth in Oregon will be in the following jobs: retail sales, food
preparation, waiters/waitresses and cashiers. See any family wage
jobs there? Neither do I.
At the same time, there are counties in Eastern Oregon that
have an abundance of mineral resources. Our state land use laws,
particularly in rural areas, focus almost exclusively on the
preservation of farm and forest land to the detriment of all other
uses, including natural resource uses like mining. Mining is a
natural resource industry, just like timber and agriculture. Yet our
state agencies and elected leaders reject this industry, in favor of
the $10/hour jobs at the local McDonald’s or Target.
In other words, our state leaders have pursued a job strategy
that makes Oregon weaker, not stronger. It’s not even a neutral
strategy for our economy – our strategy makes things worse. There’s
only one word for this kind of “strategery” - stupid.
continued on page 4
Volume 21, Issue 1
3
LOOKING FORWARD
Fixing Our Land Use System - Lessons
From Washington
continued from page 3
Harney County should serve as a warning sign to the Governor,
legislature, and state agencies. You cannot create an economic success
model off one segment of the natural resource industry, and the prayer
that you can create some kind of tourism industry, particularly when
things get worse if your prayer is somehow answered. If Oregon is
going to dream (which is, after all, our state motto), then we might as
well dream about an economy that actually makes things better for
our citizens.
So how can we do this, and what’s this got to do with land
use laws? There are a variety of answers, but one simple fix would
be to make some changes to our land use laws, to more closely
approximate those of the other 49 states. For example, approximately
20 years ago, the State of Washington enacted the Growth Management
Act (GMA). The GMA is the closest equivalent to Oregon’s statewide
land use planning system of any of the other 49 states, yet it provides
much more flexibility to local governments to make their own zoning
and planning decisions.
The GMA allows Washington counties with small, nongrowing populations to completely opt out of the GMA requirements,
and continue with exclusive land use control at the local level. This
makes sense – if a county isn’t growing, there’s no growth to manage,
and hence no need for the GMA.
To date, 10 of Washington’s 39 counties have used this
provision to opt out of the GMA. Studies in those counties
demonstrate that the development patterns aren’t different from those
in counties subject to the GMA, meaning local government officials
can safely handle having the controls over development and industry
in their particular county.
continued on page 5
4
Volume 21, Issue 1
LOOKING FORWARD
Fixing Our Land Use System - Lessons
From Washington
continued from page 4
In Oregon, applying a provision identical to the opt out
exemption in the GMA would mean that eight Oregon counties would
have the ability to opt out of our state land use planning laws. Sherman,
Gilliam, Wallowa, Baker, Grant, Wheeler, Malheur, and Harney
Counties would be given the ability to make their own land use
decisions if the Oregon legislature was to pattern Oregon law after
the GMA.
These counties are large in size but are small in population,
and suffer in most cases from high unemployment and negative job
growth. At the same time, many of these same counties have potential
for mineral exploration and mining, if we’d just step out of the way
and let them get on with it.
One step in accomplishing this goal would be for Oregon to
follow our more economically successful neighbor to the north and
adopt a different land use strategy for areas of Oregon where growth
is non-existent, unemployment is high, job growth is low, alternative
industries are needed, and families are struggling to put food on the
table.
This will require more than changes to our land use laws, and
is a coordinated effort among multiple state agencies, but until we
change our land use laws, Oregon can’t get past the very first hurdle.
OIA remains committed to a strategy to fix this problem now. We can
use all the help you can provide.
Like us on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/OIAOregon
Volume 21, Issue 1
5
LOOKING FORWARD
Legislature Overrides Metro,
LCDC, Passes Land
Use Grand Bargain
The 2014 legislative session ended in early March. The session yielded
an important land use bill, House Bill 4078. Although the bill only
affected the Portland Metropolitan area, it was critical for Oregon’s
economy, and at the same time highlighted another area of Oregon’s
broken land use system. As always, Oregonians In Action (OIA) was
deeply involved in the passage of the bill.
At stake in the bill were the Portland Metropolitan area’s urban and
rural reserves, and the 2012 expansion of the Metro urban growth
boundary. As a result of legislation adopted in 2007, Washington,
Clackamas, and Multnomah Counties, along with Metro, approved
urban and rural reserve designations for thousands of acres of land in
the Metro region.
Those designations, adopted by Metro and LCDC in 2011, were created
in order to determine where the Portland Metropolitan region was
going to grow. As quickly as they were approved, however, they were
immediately appealed by environmental groups. In addition, after
adopting the reserves, Metro added approximately 2,000 acres to the
Portland metropolitan area UGB in 2012, which was also appealed.
In an effort to cut short years of ongoing litigation, OIA was asked to
prepare a bill to approve the 2012 UGB expansion, and end the ongoing
court battles, which were expected to last through 2016. This bill
was discussed in the last edition of Looking Forward. The bill, House
Bill 4078, was essentially a request to enable the property owners
(including many OIA supporters) who owned that land to proceed
with their development plans.
Although the bill was opposed by the same groups who filed the
lawsuits, the legislature understood that letting the lawsuits drag
through the court system was causing significant damage to the economy
and was harming local governments, school districts, property owners,
and businesses. As a result, negotiations began in earnest on the passage
continued on page 7
of HB 4078.
6
Volume 21, Issue 1
LOOKING FORWARD
Legislature Overrides Metro, LCDC,
Passes Land Use Grand Bargain
continued from page 6
Those negotiations received a significant boost in late February when
the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a 126 page opinion overturning
the 2011 urban and rural reserves decisions. The court’s decision
invalidated the reserves decisions made by all three counties, and
approved by both Metro and LCDC, and was a complete setback to
the reserves process. If unchanged by the legislature, the court decision
would have setback the Portland metro economy for years.
A small group of legislators, led by Rep. Brian Clem of Salem and
Rep. John Davis of Wilsonville, convened a small group of interested
parties to agree on new reserve maps and affirm the 2012 UGB
expansion. The negotiations took approximately three weeks, with an
agreement hammered out in late February.
In short, by meeting with interested parties who all had a stake in
resolving the issue, the legislature accomplished in less than a month
a decision that took LCDC, Metro, and the three metropolitan counties
years to accomplish (and as it turns out, get completely wrong), at
significant cost to the taxpayers.
As noted by legislators from both parties, HB 4078 highlights a
significant problem with our current land use system. Under current
law, local governments are tasked with the nearly impossible task of
applying vague and unreasonable criteria to justify expansion of their
urban growth boundaries. They are required to engage in endless
hours of “citizen participation” to allow everyone to have a say about
the proposed expansion, knowing that any person who doesn’t like
their decision can appeal that decision to LCDC, the Oregon Court of
Appeals, and the Oregon Supreme Court.
The result is an endless quagmire for Oregon cities, who simply can’t
jump through the hoops necessary to expand their UGB’s. In the last
decade, efforts by McMinnville, Woodburn, Bend, Scappoose, and
Metro to expand their UGB’s have all failed, having been rejected by
either LCDC or the Oregon appellate courts.
continued on page 8
Volume 21, Issue 1
7
LOOKING FORWARD
Action Alert - Deschutes County
Considering New Rural Zone
If you own rural property in Deschutes County, there’s a
series of meetings in May that you must attend.
Deschutes County is considering changing zoning on rural
lands currently zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU) in certain parts
of the County. As many of you know, Deschutes County is a “poster
child” for problems with Oregon’s land use system. The Oregon
Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has
forced Deschutes County to zone thousands of acres of nonproductive sagebrush and lava as “farmland” – land which in most
cases is rated as having no farm value by the United States
Department of Agriculture.
In order to address this situation, the County is considering
the adoption of a new zoning designation for their non-resource
lands. In May, the County is holding a series of public meetings
around the county to hear from rural property owners.
Here are the locations, times and dates for the meetings:
May 6: Alfalfa Community Hall 6-8 p.m.
May 7: Deschutes Service Bldg., Bend 6-8 p.m.
May 13: Brothers School 6-8 p.m.
May 15: Sisters High School 6-8 p.m.
May 19: Terrebonne Community School, 6-8 p.m.
May 21: La Pine Senior Center, 6-8 p.m.
These hearings shouldn’t be missed - we urge all Deschutes
County rural property owners to attend.
Legislature Overrides Metro, LCDC, Passes
Land Use Grand Bargain
continued from page 8
A land use system that creates this kind of difficulty needs
to be changed. Either allow the local governments to make their
decisions without endless lawsuits or simply have the legislature
do the job, as they did with HB 4078. Either option is preferable to
the current system.
Thanks to Reps. Clem and Davis for their efforts on HB
4078. The bill averted an economic disaster for the Portland
metropolitan region.
8
Volume 21, Issue 1
LOOKING FORWARD
View From Murrayhill
By Bill Moshofsky
Seneca Jones Timber Takes A Stand – Others Should Follow
Recently, the Oregon State Land Board voted unanimously to accept
bids for the purchase of approximately 2,700 acres of state owned
timberland in the Elliott State Forest. The State Land Board is
composed of Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Kate Brown,
and State Treasurer Ted Wheeler.
The State Land Board is charged with maintaining Oregon’s state
owned publicly held property. The State of Oregon owns
approximately 700,000 acres of land throughout the state. That
land was set aside in state ownership for the purpose of providing
a funding base for Oregon’s public school system. The State Land
Board has a constitutional responsibility to maximize the revenue
from that land for Oregon’s public schools.
In the past, the Land Board would manage state owned lands through
the sale of timber on state owned parcels. The timber was
harvested, the land was replanted, and when the stand matured, the
Land Board would again sell the timber. This was a good
management practice by the state, and provided maximum revenue
to Oregon schools.
But in the last few decades, timber harvests on state owned lands
have virtually ceased, as environmental groups use the court system
to file lawsuits to block all timber sales on state owned lands.
continued on page 10
Volume 21, Issue 1
9
LOOKING FORWARD
View From Murrayhill
As a result, state owned lands are in many cases costing Oregon
taxpayers to maintain, rather than providing revenue to Oregon
public schools. Because revenue can’t be generated from the land,
the environmental lawsuits force the Land Board to sell state owned
land, rather than simply sell the timber and retain ownership of the
land.
Seneca Jones Timber Company, a Eugene based company that
employs hundreds of Oregonians at family wage jobs, submitted a
bid for approximately 800 acres of the property. If the bid is
approved by the Land Board, Seneca Jones would presumably log
all or a portion of the property.
As you would expect, the Land Board’s approval of accepting bids
for the sale of the Elliott land did not sit well with the environmental
groups. One group, the Cascadia Forest Defenders, published a
letter to all potential purchasers that contained the following
paragraph:
“We will not respect new property lines, signs and gates. We will
not respect a company that further degrades the integrity of Oregon’s
fragmented coast. Do not bid on these sales. If you become the
owner of the Elliott, you will have activists up your trees and
lawsuits on your desk. We will be at your office and in your mills.”
As a result of this letter and the past actions of the environmental
groups, no other timber company bid on the sale of the Elliott
property. Fortunately, however, Seneca Jones Timber Company
submitted a bid.
According to the company, Seneca submitted its bid not because it
needed the timber which it would harvest from the property, but
rather because someone needed to stand up to environmental groups
like Cascadia who use threats of illegal activities to bully well
respected Oregon companies from engaging in normal business
continued on page 11
activities.
10
Volume 21, Issue 1
LOOKING FORWARD
View From Murrayhill
I have one thing to say to Seneca Jones Timber Company – thank
you. Thank you for taking a stand for the natural resource industries.
Thank you for defending not only your company’s right to do
business in a state that was founded on natural resource use, but
also for defending your employees and their families, who depend
on a steady supply of timber for their jobs.
Thank you for standing up for common sense. The State Land Board
is comprised of people whose political leanings are more likely to
align with groups like Cascadia than the timber industry, but
nevertheless, the Board saw fit to allow a very small portion of the
Elliott go to bid for sale.
While it would certainly be better if the Land Board could allow
bid on the timber, while retaining the land, environmental groups
like Cascadia have blocked timber sales through lawsuits, thus
forcing the state’s hand. This solution was the best solution the
Land Board could make, and your decision to submit a bid lets
groups like Cascadia know that someone in the natural resource
industry is willing to call their bluff before the public.
Finally, thank you for standing up for property rights. A group that
sends a letter indicating that they will not respect private property
is a group that imposes a threat to an organized, civil society. Protest
all you want, but putting “activists” in trees, trespassing, and
sending activists into an industrial site create dangers to workers
and are a threat to all who value private property. We should all
rise up and put an end to this kind of negotiating tactic. Thankfully,
Seneca Jones is willing to lead the charge, and I thank them.
Get all your property rights news at these great websites:
www.oia.org
www.oregonwatchdog.com
Volume 21, Issue 21
11
Address service requested
PORTLAND, OR
PERMIT NO. 1608
PAID
NONPROFIT ORG
US POSTAGE
Oregonians In Action
Education Center
PO Box 230637
Tigard, OR 97281-0637
Like us on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/OIAOregon
Scan this code with your smart
phone to get the property rights news
at www.oia.org
Yes, I support OIA Education Center’s efforts to protect
private property rights!
Name _____________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________
City, State ___________________________________
Zip ______________________________
Phone: ___________________________
Please mail check to: OIA EC, PO Box 230637 Tigard, OR 97223