Land Use opinions in The Oregonian

Sunday’s Oregonian carries two particularly interesting articles in the Opinion section. Red Flags of Worry (the title in my print version – for some reason, on line it’s “Red Flags for Farmland or Red Flags of Worry”, which should properly use AND instead of “or”), is excellent. It debunks some of the myths of Oregon’s land use planning system, such as rural landowners having not received compensation for lost development potential. The Oregonian quotes an analysis by the American Land Institute, calculating $4.9 billion in property tax reductions for farm and forest landowners affected by development restrictions following Senate Bill 100 in 1974. Although the American Land Institute doesn’t have a web site, it’s rated 2 on a scale of “ideological spectrum, 1=Radical Left/8=Free Market Right” by Capitol Research Center, an organization “established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism.” Some will imply the American Land Institute’s numbers are skewed; it seems to me, the onus is now on those supporting Measure 37 to provide competing data or arguments. Good work, Oregonian editorial staff – although you might want to leave value-laden words like “outrageously” and “imperil”, tagged onto desire of landowners to build subdivisions on farmlands, to amateurs like me. The facts speak better for themselves.

In contrast, Randy Gragg’s column lauding developer Joe Weston’s “point towers” is irritating. No mention of the multiple protests about bringing in out-of-state, non-union workers, and safety violations when lauding the Benson Tower. And slipped right in the middle, Mr. Weston’s desire to change the Zoning Code to allow towers of unlimited height if each floor is 8,000 square feet or less. Wanna bet this request gets moved to the front of the line of issues for the Bureau of Planning to work on, ahead of improved tree protection regulations or a new look at those truck loading/parking requirements I mentioned yesterday?

I expect to see OpEd columns giving the opposing viewpoints on both these articles.