We are being watched. We are being watched by an organization. We are being watched by the Northwest Environment Watch (NEW).

In October of 2004 NEW issued a press release and I’m putting excerpts below in blockquotes.

Oregonís land use laws save rural land, shows study of 15 cities

Greater Portland lost less than half as much rural land and open space in the 1990s as comparable cities

A new analysis of growth in 15 similar US cities shows that Oregonís land-use policies excel in protecting rural land. Person for person in the last decade, new development in metropolitan Portland consumed less than half as much land as the average city in the study. From 1990 to 2000, if greater Portland had sprawled like Charlotte, North Carolinaóthe city in the study with the worst recordóit would have lost an additional 279 square miles of farmland and open space, an area more than twice as large as the city of Portland itself.

ìThe bottom line is that Oregonís land use laws have been highly effective at protecting farmland and open space in Portland, which suggests that all Oregon cities are benefiting,î said Clark Williams-Derry, research director of Northwest Environment Watch (NEW), the Seattle research center that published the study.

“This report affirms the value of Oregon’s unique land use planning system,” said Ellyn McNeil, co-owner of Heritage Plantations, a Christmas tree farm in Washington County. “Without it, the counties closest to Portland wouldn’t be second and fourth in the state for agriculture sales and farmers like me might be out of business. I hope Oregonians have the insight to oppose Measure 37, which would wreak havoc on our farmland protections.”

I like saving farmland, especially farmland that is as productive as much of the farmland in the tri-county area. I think certain land use laws are extremely beneficial but sometimes some land use laws can be a little too restrictive. Also, there is some controversy concering propery rights and overly restrictive land use laws.

Some of the land use law were passed with the goal of having Portland build up and not out. This situation brings some unpleasant things into play, one of which is that land becomes much more expensive and property values go up and property taxes go up. This is ok when a person has got a good job with regular raises.

The situation is not so good for those on a fixed income.

As the property rises in price this also tends to narrow the base of those who can move into high density areas.

As many people are aware, the controversy between property rights advocaqtes and extreme land use advocates came to a head with the passage of measure 37.

Portland is constantly having budget problems and is almost always unable to fully fund important services such as police, firefighting personnel and equipment, schools, and social services for the poor, the elderly and the disabled.

Coming up in May there are going to be numerous elections for various school boards throughout the tri-county and the first thing those school board members are going to face is making a budget.

As usual they will find themselves facing a lack of bucks.

Is the chronic shortage of funds by counties, cities, and school districts caused in part by extreme land use laws? (Ed note: I’m using the adjective “extreme” to describe what I thing are overly restrictive laws because I think many land use laws are beneficial and they are also rational.)

The following is another excerpt from the press release.

Overall, greater Portland ranked third among the 15 cities studied at limiting the loss of rural land and open space in the 1990s, just behind Salt Lake City and Sacramento. (Seattle and Boise ranked eighth and ninth, respectively.) For every 100 new residents added to the greater Portland area between 1990 and 2000, about 10 acres of rural land or open space were converted to housing. In contrast, new residential development in Charlotte, North Carolinaówhich ranked lastóconsumed 49 acres of land for every 100 new residents.

I don’t know if this is good or bad. However, somebody has an opinion.

ìOregon land use laws encourage reinvestment in existing neighborhoods and existing property,î said Dick Cooley, Portland real estate investor and former chair of the Portland Planning Commission. ìThe result is a higher quality of urban life for everyone.î

I’m sure higher density is good for real estate investors and a few others, but is it really good for everyone?

Related posts:

1. Update to a post about Portland sprawl and urban planning
2. More about Portland planning
3. Portland’s New Crop: Houses
4. Congratulations! Our city sucks!
5. Bailey’s (of Irish Cream Fame) rates Portland most “Chilled Out” large city