Relevant News

Land-use planning: One size can fit all

The Statesman Journal

[December 12th, 2008]

The Statesman Journal

December 12, 2008

As the Big Look Task Force readies its report on Oregon's land- use planning system, its chief conclusion seems to be that "one size doesn't fit all."

Oregon deserves more than such simplistic sound bites. The tragedy of such silliness is that it substitutes political posturing for substantive change.

Our planning system certainly can be made better, but it won't be if changes to it are driven by platitudes as vacuous as "one size doesn't fit all." Besides being an empty cliché, the one-size complaint suffers from three major flaws.

First, one size very often does fit all. Perhaps the best example is our Constitution. Its Bill of Rights lists many policies that apply to all Americans and that seem to have fit us well for two centuries.

If Oregon is indeed a state, with residents linked by common history, culture and geography, then it is neither wrong nor unusual to set statewide policy for land-use planning. We have statewide policies on matters as diverse as speed limits, schools and water quality. Surely then we can (and should) have statewide policies on a topic as important as land use.

Second, the "one-size" complaint vastly overstates the uniformity of Oregon's planning system. The truth is that our state has planning laws that differ markedly from one region to another and by size of community.

The Portland area is subject to a regional planning system unlike that found anyplace else in Oregon. The state's coastal zone — seven counties and 30-plus cities — has its own special planning system. The Columbia Gorge has yet another. Eastern Oregon's rangelands are subject to different, less stringent state planning requirements than farms in the Willamette Valley. More than half of Oregon's cities are exempted from many state planning requirements just because they have small populations.

Finally, the "one-size" complaint is mostly a red herring. A large majority of Oregonians have strongly supported our planning system through three decades and three statewide initiatives. Those who oppose it, therefore, find it impolitic to openly argue that the system should be eliminated. Instead, they cloak their opposition in generalizations such as "one size doesn't fit all."

That's understandable: it's smart politics. But the task force needs to realize that weakening our planning system to assuage those who want it eliminated is a compromise that benefits no one. Those who support statewide planning will be frustrated to see it cut back once again. Those who oppose it will just be emboldened to complain more loudly.

As Solomon recognized several millennia ago, compromise doesn't always bring the best result: cutting the baby in half will satisfy neither its real mother nor the woman who falsely claims it. We should expect similar wisdom from the task force.

To refine Oregon's planning system on the basis of careful analysis and nuanced reason would be wise. To change it in response to sound-bite complaints about one size not fitting all would be foolish.

Mitch Rohse of Salem is a longtime land-use planner. He can be reached at mitchrohse@comcast.net.