Last week, I had the privilege of attending a seminar hosted by Portland State University’s Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Senate Bill 100, Oregon’s pioneering land use and planning bill. For the uninitiated, SB 100 was enacted in 1973 and revolutionized the state’s approach to land use planning by introducing comprehensive planning and zoning requirements.
One of the key objectives of SB 100 was to preserve Oregon’s natural and agricultural resources while accommodating population growth and development. The law established a framework for land use planning at the state, regional, and local levels, promoting the principles of compact urban development, protection of farm and forest lands, and the creation of livable communities.
In a nutshell, the bill strives to strike a balance between growth and preservation, which is…tricky. So I was fascinated to hear the thoughts of Ed Sullivan, a land use attorney who knows the bill as well as anyone, on the “genius” aspects of the bill, the flaws, and the fixes. What he termed “the primacy of the plan” caught my attention as one of the bill’s strengths: Every land use action, development proposal, etc., in Oregon must be shown to be in compliance with the Bill and the Comprehensive Plans that it mandates—a fun little fact that has kept me and many others of this ilk busy over the years!
Sullivan also pointed to the urbanization goals as “genius,” and I tend to agree. Indeed, as I’ve delved deeper into planning in New Jersey, I find that the urbanization aspects of the NJ equivalent—New Jersey’s State Planning Act—to be far too weak for the context. I’m not sure if the Urban Growth Boundaries that SB 100 established in Oregon would directly translate to NJ, but you certainly see sprawl in the Garden State—warehouse sprawl is a big issue today—in a way that simply doesn’t exist in Oregon, and I wish the NJ planning framework had stronger guardrails there.
Following Sullivan’s overview, it was great to hear from Dr. Brenda Bateman, current director of the state agency charged with implementing SB 100, Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development. Bateman shared some fun and engaging stories about the day-to-day work of DLCD and the LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission), charged with overseeing DLCD (Are these acronyms confusing enough yet?!). Much of this work currently centers around housing policy, unsurprisingly given the context of runaway home prices throughout Oregon.
The second half of the session featured an all-star panel, including Metro President Lynn Peterson, State Representative Mark Gamba, Oregon Business Council President Duncan Wyse, and Sam Diaz, the executive director of the watchdog group founded by Governor Tom McCall to serve as a watchdog for state planning. Like Bateman’s talk, much of the panel discussion focused on the housing crisis and striking that ever-elusive balance between preservation and growth. A fascinating exchange followed a question from Hillsboro City Councilor Kipperlyn Sinclair, centered around the potential for citing a new Intel chip factory within Hillsboro and whether and how that aligned with the intent of the bill.
I will say that, having heard from elected officials, attorneys, and organizational leaders about Oregon’s planning framework, I did find one professional voice strikingly absent: actual planners! Toward the end of the session, as the panelists lamented the difficulty of implementing our high-minded plans but struggled to explain reasons or solutions, the perspective of someone charged with doing that day-to-day work would have resonated. But it was a terrific event overall and one that reinforced my appreciation for the myriad challenges of striking the preservation/growth balance, which is perhaps the most important charge of the planning profession generally.