SALEM — Multiple bills aim to relax restrictions on building homes and businesses in Oregon’s rural areas, but they face short lives unless lawmakers soon take action.
Exemptions to Oregon’s statewide land use planning system would give local governments more flexibility under the five bills, which received a hearing April 6 from the Senate Environment Committee.
• Senate Bill 432 would allow local governments to create land use plans without complying with statewide goals as long as they’re in counties with fewer than 50,000 people and haven’t grown since the previous federal census.
• Senate Bill 602 would allow local governments to waive land use requirements to create a five-year supply of “shovel ready employment sites.”
• Senate Bill 608 would allow local governments to expedite the growth of urban growth boundaries if they meet certain criteria for population growth.
• Senate Bill 612 would allow local governments experiencing unemployment and poverty to take an exception from a land use goal if it creates at least five jobs paying four times the federal poverty rate.
• Senate Bill 618 would allow local governments to waive a land use goal in the event of a “land use emergency.”
Under rules adopted for the 2017 legislative session, these bills will die by the end of April 7 unless they’re scheduled a work session, during which committees generally vote on legislation.
Much of the testimony during the recent hearing centered on SB 432, which would effectively only apply to eight Oregon counties: Baker, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Sherman, Wallowa and Wheeler.
These counties have lost significant numbers of people, which threatens the viability of schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies, said Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, the bill’s chief sponsor.
“The social infrastructure is really what’s unraveled in these communities,” he said.
Washington has exempted 10 rural counties from its land use system and they’re performing better economically than comparable counties in Oregon, which have struggled for decades, Ferrioli said.
“It worked there, it can probably work here. We just need the courage to give it a try,” he said.
Any development in Oregon’s most rural counties would still be constrained by available water, power and soils suitable for septic tanks, said Gary Thompson, county judge for Sherman County.
“That will eliminate 90 percent of the land available in the county,” he said.
Proponents of the bill argued that rural counties in Eastern Oregon face a completely different situation than those where expansion of urban growth boundaries can’t keep up with housing demand.
It’s unlikely that counties with low or negative population growth will succumb to urban sprawl, but existing rules prevent the possibility of new development, according to supporters.
The economic stagnation in these areas is self-reinforcing, since local governments cannot expand urban growth boundaries unless they can forecast population growth, said Erin Doyle, lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities.
“Tell me what you’re supposed to do. You can’t say you need more housing because you’re not having more people coming in,” she said.
Opponents of SB 432 and the other four bills claim that a lack of land isn’t really what’s hindering development, which is actually stymied by a lack of transportation and other infrastructure.
It’s true that land within urban growth boundaries is more expensive, said Peggy Lynch, natural resources coordinator for the League of Women Voters of Oregon.
“The reason is there are services inside,” she said.
The five bills propose a “false promise” of easily spurring economic development, but lawmakers would be better off investing in adding value to Oregon’s agriculture industry, said Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, a nonprofit that supports land preservation.
Morrow County, for example, has a strong food processing sector that provides local jobs, she said.
Agriculture has kept growing in Oregon through economic recessions, sometimes at a pace faster than the state’s high-tech industry, she said.
“It’s not just vacant land,” McCurdy said.
The Oregon Farm Bureau is concerned about the economic health of Oregon’s rural communities, where its members generally reside, while wanting to preserve productive farmland, said Mary Anne Nash, the group’s general counsel for public policy.
However, the Farm Bureau is in discussions with Ferrioli to examine whether SB 432 might be revised to strike a balance between those two goals, she said.
If that’s possible, the organization would be neutral on the bill, Nash said.
Oregon Farm Bureau is also in negotiations over House Bill 2937, which would ease the construction of “accessory dwelling units” near existing homes.
That bill is being considered by the House Agriculture Committee and isn’t at risk of dying after April 7 because it’s already been moved out of the House Human Services and Housing Committee.
A recent amendment to HB 2937 would restrict accessory dwelling units to rural residential zones and prohibit them within exclusive farm use zones.
That change has pushed the Farm Bureau closer to being neutral on the bill, since its priority is preserving productive farmland, said Nash.