Oregon Plans: The Making of an Unquiet Land Use Revolution

Chapter 3: SB 100 in the 1973 Legislative Session

59 Chapter 3 SB 100 in the 1973 Legislative Session “Regarding the protection of our land . . . the lateness of the hour for remedial and preventive moves is almost cause for despair . . . Why the hell don’t you just give me $500,000, and I’ll zone the goddamn state?”—governor McCall democrat ted hallock, a flamboyant legislator who was highly regarded for his intelligence and his oratorical skills, had represented his Portland district in the state Senate since 1963. hallock had been a broadcast journalist, as had tom McCall, and he owned a public relations firm. he chaired the Senate Environment and Land Use Committee (SELUC) during the 1973 session. hector Macpherson had alerted hallock that he and his land-use policy group were preparing legislation. hallock was interested and asked a Portland engineer who was a member of Macpherson’s group to keep him informed. SELUC had seven members, four democrats and three republicans. democrats hallock and John burns represented Portland metropolitan area counties, as did republican Vic atiyeh. democrats Jack ripper and Michael thorne represented two southern coastal counties and three counties in the northeastern corner of the state, respectively. republican george Wingard came from the Eugene area, and hector Macpherson was a republican from the Willamette Valley’s Linn County. Macpherson, hallock , and Wingard solidly supported Sb 100; the others were troubled by various aspects of the bill. in a stirring speech to the opening session of the 1973 legislature, governor McCall tried to persuade legislators and the public that passing Sb 100 was an urgent necessity. a few days later, in a special message to the legislature, he discussed a report documenting “an unbelievable dev- 60 oregon Plans astation of land and pollution of resources, both inviting a serious public health problem” on the coast in Lincoln County. he also reported on the results of a 1972 study done at his request by the state health division about the subsurface sewage capability of 356 residential subdivisions involving 16,850 parcels of land totaling about 85,000 acres. “nearly 25 per cent of the acres,” McCall said, “have been found inadequate for any sewage handling short of a central system, but the rampaging, competitive development spiral continues, and irreversible environmental damage is being done” (McCall, 1973a). While McCall sought to portray the situation as a crisis, it became clear as SELUC began to hold hearings that Sb 100 was going to be intensely controversial. an authoritative regional planning role for Councils of governments and the inclusion of specific areas and activities of critical statewide concern generated the most contention. Martin davis, the Oregon Environmental Council activist, told the senators that OEC wanted more critical areas specified in the bill, something that he had advocated early on to the Macpherson group. he wanted certain private developments added to the list of critical activities to be regulated, including industrial parks, regional shopping centers, and large-scale residential subdivisions (davis, M., 1973a). OEC’s suggestions were supported by tri County new Politics, a new nonpartisan citizen organization in the Portland metropolitan area. Speaking on behalf of tri County’s Land Use task Force, Joyce Cohen also suggested that LCdC be required to adopt procedures mandating early citizen input into the development of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances (Cohen, 1973a). Macpherson asked Cohen to develop specific language that might be included in Sb 100 (Cohen, 1973b). the League of Women Voters of Oregon, which was active on land-use issues at the state level and through the efforts of its local chapters, was a strong supporter of tri County’s position on citizen involvement. dorothy anderson, the League’s legislative chair, told the senators: “the frightening speed with which development is taking place in many parts of Oregon and the seeming reluctance of many local governments to withstand the pressures for undesirable development dictate fast action . . . We must not continue to despoil our legacy to future generations.” the League suggested changes to Sb 100 that would mandate more effective participation, including public hearings at all government levels during sB 100 in the 1973 legislative session 61 planning and implementation and a spot on LCdC for someone who was not a member of a special interest group (anderson, d., 1973a). george diel, a coastal activist testifying on behalf of Oregon Shores, strongly supported Sb 100. he called on the legislature to ensure that LCdC and OCCdC be given interim permit...