<body><div>Notwithstanding the continued underperformance in the number of housing starts despite significant efforts to eliminate local regulations and expedite residential permitting, Oregon’s current administration now turns toward increasing housing in areas that were once deemed sacrosanct – areas outside of urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The Land Conservation and Development Commission has announced plans to undertake rulemaking that will chip away at a fundamental characteristic of Oregon’s land use planning system. UGBs direct growth to areas where infrastructure and services are available to support communities providing homes, shopping and jobs. However, the proposed rulemaking would allow for significant increases in housing via hundreds of “urban unincorporated communities” (UUCs) where there is lawfully existing, recognized urban-type development already on the ground. In most cases, those existing developments cannot be expanded to allow additional urban uses. The current and long-standing policy has been that almost all urban uses are prohibited outside UGBs, unless an “exception” justified overriding state policy in a particular case or urban uses that existed outside a UGB before 1975. Because an exception based on overriding state policy is rarely upheld when challenged, the only option for development comes where pre-1975 development may continue to exist but generally not expand. Oregon’s pragmatic approach to limit urban growth to urban areas, while recognizing the realities of existing lawful urban uses and activities outside UGBs, has served the state well and the exceptions process reinforced the reasonableness of the state’s urbanization policy.Nevertheless, the LCDC has begun rulemaking to allow additional housing outside UGBs but within UUCs, suggesting it seeks “every possible pathway” to meet the state’s housing needs of almost 500,000 new units in the next 20 years. In addition to housing, the Department of Land Conservation and Development proposes to require participating counties to plan and zone lands in these areas as well for “appropriate” commercial, industrial and public facilities and urban services to support that new housing. “Appropriate” is not defined yet, but there are fundamental questions to be answered. First, is this rulemaking necessary to meet the housing need? The state requires cities and counties to plan for sufficient land within UGBs and with adequate urban infrastructure to meet its housing needs for the next 14 to 20 years. No one has suggested that this planning and zoning has not been done. Moreover, since 2019, the state has brought forward numerous changes to its land development laws to require local governments to approve accessory dwelling units, duplexes, “middle housing” and other devices to increase housing opportunities within UGBs. Plus, the state has, in the name of “removing housing barriers,” made it easy for housing developers to secure land use approvals without having to deal with the “pesky public” that may have concerns over a proposal. Finally, the state has the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis that makes local governments accountable if they fail to accept and produce their fair share of housing needs as calculated by the state. Many of these tools have yet to be tested; however, there is no reason to believe that the identified housing goals cannot be achieved within existing UGBs.Second, who benefits from these proposed rules? This is not about the need for more housing units but rather about increasing country housing preferences (imagine a three-bay garage with a boat, an RV and a riding lawnmower). Those who stand to benefit most from making these amenities to the landed gentry, real estate agents and development interests, stack the nongovernmental membership of the rulemaking committee, which has only one token member from the farmland preservation community. Third, what are the likely outcomes of the rules? They are not aimed at first-time homebuyers, who would not be able to afford the large lot and the home along with the shared costs of necessary infrastructure, which would be necessary to build water, sewer, schools, parks, stormwater facilities, and roads to support that housing. And they are certainly not aimed at renters and those working in minimum wage jobs in food processing or other rural employment. For them, such housing is an impossible dream. Then there is the problem of demands placed on adjacent cities, where residents must absorb and pay for additional vehicle congestion necessary for these future rural residents to have access to jobs and services. Additional unresolved issues include wildfire potential, water shortages, and lack of community identity. Having been ineffective in moving the housing needle in urban areas, where it should happen, this rulemaking, pursued by the current administration, will prove to be an ineffective and cynical ploy to push for housing outside UGBs. Those areas are largely bereft of infrastructure and unprepared for dealing with growth that cities have administered for over half a century, and yet with this rulemaking committee, the pathway seems greased for the rules’ passage. This effort will not overcome interest rates, materials and labor costs that already deter urban housing. In fact, it will add lack of infrastructure to those problems and distract from the effort to site housing where infrastructure is available or can be. At best, this misguided effort will benefit those who are willing to pay a premium for their country homes and those who would sell land to accommodate those homes. The irony is that this proposal will not benefit the state politicians who propose it and seek accolades from those who are not likely to vote for them anyway. Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience. Contact him at [email protected].Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the DJC guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.</div></body>

Block Source: Daily Journal of Commerce

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

Notwithstanding the continued underperformance in the number of housing starts despite significant efforts to eliminate local regulations and expedite residential permitting, Oregon’s current administration now turns toward increasing housing in areas that were once deemed sacrosanct – areas outside of urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The Land Conservation and...

Oregon’s performative housing ploy: LCDC rulemaking | Opinion

NewsBreak

Notwithstanding the continued underperformance in the number of housing starts despite significant efforts to eliminate local regulations and expedite resi

Oregon’s performative housing ploy: LCDC rulemaking | Opinion

Comments