Home

SALEM — Voters may have thought they had settled Oregon’s land use policies once and for all when they passed Measure 49.

That ballot measure pared back an earlier citizen initiative, Measure 37, to allow more limited development on long-held farm and forest land.

But, one year after Measure 49 passed, finishing touches are being put on a legislative proposal that could renew the jousting over how Oregon regulates rural development and preserves agricultural land and productive forests.

The Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning, also known as the Big Look Task Force, was created in 2005 and is charged with updating Oregon’s system of planning for development and preservation of its landscape. Nearly four years later, that committee is proposing that the 2009 Legislature adopt a series of changes, which are intended to:

Increase local flexibility to avoid a “one-size-fits-all” approach to identifying and designating farm and forest land. This would mean letting two or more counties work together to decide how to designate agricultural and forestry lands — a task currently handled at the state level.

Extend incentives and flexibility to encourage regional land use decisions by nearby cities and their counties.

Broaden the “strategic planning process” to include more than just the state Land Conservation and Development Commission. This means bringing in state commissions, boards and agencies that deal with forestry, transportation, the environment, agriculture, economic development, housing and community development.

The Big Look recommendations aren’t intended to unleash local governments from statewide land use planning goals and rules, said John Evans, project manager for the Big Look. For example, counties could get broader leeway to permit residential development, but the state still would require new homes in these areas to be clustered to reduce land use conflicts and to increase efficiencies. And, while the proposed legislation calls for more regional flexibility in determining which lands to develop, it also preserves the state’s 1973 statewide goals to promote agriculture and forestry through land use planning.

“There are several safeguards in there to make sure that you’re not losing important farm land, you’re not creating conflict that might prevent somebody from continuing to farm” or manage forest lands commercially, Evans said.

Land use watchdog 1000 Friends of Oregon has been critical of the recommendations. Mary Kyle McCurdy, its director of policy, said the Big Look legislation fails to address three of Oregon’s long-term challenges: climate change, rising gas and diesel costs, and population growth and changes.

“We are disappointed that the Task Force’s proposal fails to establish a coherent framework for addressing the challenges facing Oregon in the future,” she wrote in a letter to the Big Look committee criticizing its proposal.

Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat who helped lead the effort to draft and pass Measure 49, said he was sure the Legislature would take the recommendations seriously. But he was careful to avoid endorsing them.

“My hope and expectation is that the Legislature will, in fact, take whatever recommendations have been brought forward by the Big Look committee and give them consideration, review them, and get input through the legislative process,” he said.

Because Prozanski’s Democratic Party emerged from this month’s election with commanding House and Senate majorities, they are likely to play a deciding role in the Big Look task force recommendations for regionalized planning. But Republicans are hoping that they can find agreement with enough rural, moderate Democrats to prod the Legislature to act on them.

“There’s no question that they’re hitting the nail on the head, because their proposal addresses the age-old problem that one size doesn’t fit all,” said Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls. The recommendations look similar to what House Republicans have been drawing up for consideration in 2009, Garrard said.

“Between what we’re putting together and what the Big Look is recommending, we should be able to find compromise.”

Dave Hunnicutt, president of the property rights group, Oregonians in Action, said he agrees with the Big Look task force recommendation for more regional land use planning that could ease state limits on rural development.

But he said its actual proposed legislation was drafted in a way that fails to carry out its recommendations. And even if the proposal can be legally reworded to match the Big Look’s ambitions, it may not get far next session, he said.

For one thing, the Legislature’s work to balance the budget in a down economy will crowd out other issues, such as land use, Hunnicutt said. For another, the Legislature, regardless of which party was in control, has always been reluctant to make major changes to the 1973 legislation that created Oregon’s landmark land use planning system.

“That’s like criticizing the sacred text,” he said. “Once that happens, every legislator just climbs back into their shell and decides they can’t do anything.”

ON THE WEB

To read a summary of the Big Look recommendations and draft legislation, go to www.oregonbiglook.org