-
Notes
- University of Arizona Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Notes Chapter 1: Introduction 1. See New York Times, May 19, 2008, p. A15. 2. The Oregon Country was a larger area than the present- day State of Oregon, encompassing all of what is today Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and parts of British Columbia, Montana, and Wyoming. 3. Oregon Blue Book, “Oregon History: World War II.” Online: http://bluebook .state.or.us/cultural/history/history26.htm. Last accessed March 27, 2009. 4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “1990 Census of Population and Housing: Population and Housing Unit Counts: Oregon.” CPH- 2- 39. U.S. Department of Commerce , 1992. Online: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph- 2- 39.pdf. Last accessed November 4, 2010. 5. George C. Hough, Jr., “Oregon’s Changing Demographics 2000,” Population Research Center, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, July 2000. 6. Tom McCall, Governor’s Legislative Address, Oregon State Archives, 1973. 7. McCall, Legislative Address. 8. Quoted by William Robbins in his 2006 essay “The place we call home: A history of land use planning in Oregon.” Oregon Humanities, Spring/Summer 2006. Online: http://www.oregonhum.org/place- we- call- home.php. Last accessed March 13, 2009. 9. Another approximately 600–700 claims were filed with county and city governments , according to widely circulated media accounts, for a total of more than 7,500 claims—though no precise total is available. 10. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, “Measure 37 summary of claims.” Online: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/MEASURE37/summaries _of_claims.shtml. Last accessed November 1, 2009. 11. Oregon State University, Institute for Natural Resources, “The Oregon Land Use Program: An Assessment of Selected Goals.” Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, August 2008. 12. In late 2010 several online news sources reported that Gosnell et al. (2010) had shown that the Oregon land use system was “not working as planned”—an interpretation Gosnell vehemently disputed. Hannah Gosnell, personal communication, September 21, 2010. 256 Notes to pp. 11–28 13. Measure 37 neighbor letters received by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, reviewed by P. Walker, May 2008. 14. Reader comment to Jonathan Maus, “Obama in Portland: Props to our ‘bicycle lanes’ and bikes as far as the eye can see.” May 19, 2008. Online: http://bikeportland .org/2008/05/19/obamas- bicycle- lanes- remark- and- the- rising- profile- of- bicycles- in - american- politics/. Last accessed April 3, 2009. Chapter 2: Planning for Growth 1. John Echeverria, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School, e- mail to P. Walker, December 16, 2009. 2. Mike Burton, Portland Metro executive officer, as quoted in Mitchell (2001). 3. This project benefits from earlier analyses, such as the extended discussion of Oregon’s planning system at the twentieth anniversary of its inception (see Abbott, Howe, and Adler 1994), and specifically builds on key observations about land use politics within that work by Gerrit Knaap (1994). Our analysis differs in two key ways from Knaap’s discussion of land use politics in Oregon. First, Knaap focuses primarily on diagnosing and characterizing the diverse actors (e.g., citizens, legislature, state interest groups, agencies, local interest groups, local governments, landowners) within the planning process from a functionalist perspective. Thus, he focuses on which actors are involved at different states of the process: adoptions, policy formulation , acknowledgment, planning, and implementation. Viewed from this perspective , the system is largely divorced from the political economic changes that produce particular types of politics and political engagement at multiple scales, ranging from the local to the national. Support for, or opposition to, the system as well as distinct issues here are largely taken as part of a static landscape of interest groups. Second, our analysis covers the more than 15- year period of land use decision making, including major planning and citizen initiatives, that has characterized the Oregon system in its third and fourth decade. Thus, we attempt to both expand discussion of “local networks” that seek to influence planning and address the efforts of the property rights movement, helping to demonstrate the ways that new links are forming among the disparate actors identified by Knaap. 4. For more extensive discussions of the emergence of state land use controls, see the works of Bosselman and Callies (1972), Popper (1981), and Mason (2008). 5. 1000 Friends of Oregon, The Battle to Keep Oregon Lovable and Livable (audio recording), 1998. 6. For a deeper history of land use controls and their evolution in Oregon specifically , see Knaap and Nelson (1992). 7. North Carolina...