Portland State University PDXScholar Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and and Presentations Planning 1-1-1994 Planning the Oregon Way : A Twenty-Year Evaluation Carl Abbott Portland State University, [email protected] Deborah A. Howe Portland State University Sy Adler Portland State University Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac Part of the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Citation Details Abbott, C., Howe, D. and Adler, S. Planning the Oregon Way : A Twenty-Year Evaluation. Corvallis: Oregon State UP, 1994. This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Planning Oron Way A TwrY-YE EVALUATION eite f7y Carl Aott eorah Howe Sy Aeller OregoM Slate Ueiversiti I'ress Corvallis, Oregon The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources and the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48- 1984. LiLrary of Congress Cataloging-in-PuHication Pata Planning the Oregon way a twenty-year evaluation / edited by Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, Sy Adler p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN o-87071-381-7 1. Land useGovernment policyOregon. I. Abbott, Carl. II. Howe, Deborah A., 1953-. III.Adler, Sy, 1950- HD211.07P55 1993 333.731309795dc2O 93-36408 CIP Copyright © 1994 Oregon State University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Contents Introductionix Part I uiIc1ing the Oregon System CHArTEr 1 Lana Use Eolitcs in Oregon 3 Gerrit Knaap CHAETER 2 Oregon's Urhan Growthouriari Eolicy as a Landmark Manning Tool 25 Arthur C. Nelson CHArTER 3 The Legal Evolution of the Oregon Manning Sistem 49 Edward J. Sullivan CHArTER 4 Irreconcilable Mfferences: Economiceveloment anLanc1 Use Manning in Oregon 71 i\latthew Slavin Part II Planning Issues anc Choices CHAFTE S Housing as a State rlaritiitig Goal91 Nohad A. Toulan CHAflES The Oregon Approach to Integrating Tranisportation and Land Use Manning 121 Sy Adler CHAf'TE 7 Siting Kegionial F'uE7lic Facilities147 Mitch Rohse & Peter Watt CHAF'fE & OregonuraI Land Use: ioIicj and F'ractices 163 James R. Pease CHArTER S Land Use Manning arid the Future of Oregon's Timl7er Towns 189 Michael Hibbard Part III Perspectives a tiel Interpretations CHArTER 10 The Oregon Rlanning StyIe 205 Carl Abbott CHARFER 11 Foflowing in Oregon's Footste19s: The Impact of Oregon's Rlanning I7rogram on Other States 227 John M. DeGrove CHAI'FER 12 Managing "the Laricbetween":A Rural Pevelopment Raraigm 245 Robert C. Einsweiler & Deborah A. Howe CHArTER13 A Research Ageria for Oregon Riannirig: F'rol7lems anc Rractice for the l9SOs 275 Deborah howe Afterword 291 Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals 299 Annotated Bibliography 305 Contributors 319 Index 323 SeasideAsttjtj, St. Helens CLATSOPOLCAMOOK ((5 EMMA . HermustonMiIton-Freewate woowA TIllamo WASE(NDOoPortland MULTNOMAEI The Dahles Pendleton McMlnnviile WOregonCCACKAMAA City HOERTROD SHERMAN GrandeEnterprise Lincoln city, POCK *Salem MAR,ON WASCO WHEELER MORROW UMATILLAGRANT BAKER Newport.LrNcocsCorvallis' Albany CR5 MadrasE(5LRSON Mitchell .BakerCity BENRON CARE SESCROCESRedmondPrineville John Day MACTEUA ReedsportFlorence Eugene Springfield Bend GURNEy OntarioVale CoosBayS COOS KLAMATH CROAK Burns Coquille Roseburg DOUGLAS CAKE Jordan Valley GoldPort Orford Beach, Grants Pass. MedfordJAC(TSON BaseBrookings map of OregonCWB. countiesAshland courtesy of A. Jon KimerlingKlamath Falls Lakeview Introduction n 1973, Oregon took a pioneering step in land use planning. Signed into law on May 29, 1973, Oregon Senate Bill 100 created an institutional structure for statewide planning. It required that every Oregon city and county prepare a comprehensive plan in accordance with a set of general state goals. While preserving the dearly held principle of local responsi- bility for land use decisions, it simultaneously established and defined a broader public interest at the state level. Supervised by a Land Conser- vation and Development Commission (LCDC), the Oregon system has been an effort to combine the best of these two approaches to land use planning. The very existence of Oregon's planning system has helped to inspire and justify similar programs elsewhere. Its details have been stud- ied, copied, modified, and sometimes rejected as Florida, Maine, New Jersey, Georgia, and other states have considered "second generation" systems of state planning. The twentieth anniversary of the Oregon system marks an opportune time for reflection and evaluation. To this end we have invited both aca- demic experts and practitioners to comment on the Oregon experience. John DeGrove of Florida Atlantic University provides the perspective of someone who has studied statewide planning systems for over twenty years. Gerrit Knaap of the University of Illinois and Arthur C. Nelson of the Georgia Institute oF1'echnology have studied Oregon's program ex- tensively, while Robert Einsweiler of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy brings a broad comparative perspective on regional growth issues. Sev- eral of the contributors have been involved in both teaching and consulting about Oregon planning issues as faculty members at the Uni- versity of Oregon (Michael 1-libbard), Oregon State University (James Pease), and Portland State University (Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, Sy Adler, Nohad Toulan). Practitioners are represented by Ed Sullivan, rec- ognized as the state's leading land use attorney, by Mitch Rohse of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, and by Peter Watt of the Lane Council of Governments. The first section of the hook covers the evolution of the planning sys- tem fromthe l970s to the 1990s. Specific issues such as housing, lx x Planning the Oregon Way transportation, public facility siting, rural lands, and economic restruc- turing are examined next. The third section explores the future of the Oregon system, its relevance to other states, and directions for change. Although the editors have worked to eliminate unnecessary overlap among the chapters, we have not tried to reconcile conflicting interpretations of the Oregon system. Indeed, we believe that one of the values of this col- lection is the presentation of multiple points of view. There tend to be two mindsets among those who are favorably dis- posed toward the Oregon planning system. Outsiders frequently think it is extraordinary, in part because they have the perspective of trying to plan in environments that do not value planning or do not provide the institutional context that facilitates coordination, collaboration, and con- tinuity over time. Insiders are in a position to see the flaws. They are mired in minutiae and are painfully aware of the program's inadequacies. They may no longer have the perspective of what it is like to work in a system that does not have a broader framework. Indeed, a whole generation of Oregon planners has experience with only this system. Many planners are frustrated with state rule making, the role of the Land Use Board of Appeals in interpreting requirements, and other detailed legal processes so clearly described by Ed Sullivan. In their minds, these technicalities put proactive planning on the back burner. It is valuable to note as context that a legalistic orientation to plan- fling and regulation reflects the strength of the environmental protection movement. As Vogel (1985) has argued more generally for the United States, the environmental movement has typically sought highly detailed rules and has leaned heavily on the courts to counterbalance the perceived power of development interests at the local level. In the case of Oregon land use planning, the advocacy group 1000 Friends of Oregon has con- tinually pressed for vigilant enforcement of strong statewide regulations. As Gerrit Knaap notes, however, the program provides the framework for the ongoing resolution of challenges. Carl Abbott's ideas regarding the culture of planning suggest that underlying support for Oregon's approach to public policy making is strong and likely to continue. It is certainly true that strong leadership for the Land Conservation and De- velopment Commission itself has been drawn from all parts of the state. In addition, the state has shown flexibility by adopting an increasingly fine-grained approach in its interventions, mandating different catego- ries of actions in different areas, and even excusing some places from Intro1uctiori compliance. Sy Adler's chapter on the transportation rule describes one of the ways in which the system is being modified to respond to specific issues.James Pease's chapter on rural lands discusses the effort to develop regulations that can be adapted to different local circumstances. This willingness by the state to fine-tune planning requirements re- flects political circumstances at the local level. Portland, other \Villamette Valley cities, and other large jurisdictions have the technical and politi- cal capacity to address a wide range of planning issues. They are able to differentiate themselves and to make arguments about the varying rel- evance of state mandates to local circumstances.