Oregon Plans: The Making of an Unquiet Land Use Revolution

Chapter 6: Adopting Statewide Planning Goals: LCDC, Stakeholders, and the Politics of Conflict Resolution

119 Chapter 6 Adopting Statewide Planning Goals: LCDC, Stakeholders, and the Politics of Conflict Resolution “If the . . . goals adopted by [LCDC] are too specific and technical, the commission will be accused of usurpation. If the goals are stated too generally, they will be meaningless because virtually any local planning decision could be interpreted as meeting loose state requirements.”—register-guard, Eugene Local government and industry representatives argued during goal development that the Land Conservation and development Commission’s proposals permitted local governments to exercise far less discretion to tailor their planning processes to particular circumstances and to balance potentially competing state and local interests than the legislature had intended in Sb 100. in their view, the proposed statewide planning goals were weighted too heavily toward conservation objectives, and they wanted the flexibility to plan for alternative outcomes. gordon Fultz was “extremely concerned” that the commission had not followed “the Legislative intent and the workable process by which local government was to prepare comprehensive plans” (Fultz, 1974b). Steve hawes agreed: [S]pecific statements within your proposed goals curb [their] ability to carry on a comprehensive land use planning process applicable to their own jurisdiction. goal policy statements should not be so specific as to eliminate alternative planning considerations which could be used in different areas of the state under different conditions to reach localized compliance with goals. 120 oregon Plans associated Oregon industries wanted LCdC to know that it was supportive of the land use planning effort. however, many of our members are concerned with the general preservation direction of the goals. Many feel that if a planning body’s motivation is towards preservation, it could be achieved and easily supported . . . On the other hand, if a planning group wishes to accomplish something in the development area, it would have difficulty . . . finding justification for doing so. (associated Oregon industries, 1974) State agencies were concerned as well. the Oregon department of transportation, for example, told LCdC: “the more detailed and numerous the guidelines, the greater the likelihood that many valid plans and projects will be impeded. Certainly a point can be reached at which little can be accomplished without lengthy delays and/or legal involvement” (Oregon department of transportation, 1974). State agencies were positioning themselves to deal with perceived threats to their resources, their missions, and their established intergovernmental and private-sector relationships. Local governments wanted to make sure they retained their connections and discretion. industry groups generally shared the state and local government perspective and encouraged their members to resist regulations that would increase costs and disrupt established ties. Everyone acknowledged the difficulties LCdC faced, but they also wanted recognition for their support during the 1973 legislative session and their participation on technical committees and at workshops and hearings. they pledged to continue working with LCdC to achieve the best possible outcome. Steve hawes, for example, gave LCdC a political update following publication of the revised proposals in november: “as you may have heard following a meeting of the [realtors] Executive Committee . . . Oar endorses the legislative concepts in Sb 100 but [has] reservations about specific points covered in your proposed statewide planning goals and guidelines.” While realtors acknowledged that some regulation was necessary and comprehensive planning would be beneficial both for individual property owners and the private enterprise system, the organization wanted to keep government intervention to a minimum. hawes assured LCdC, though, that “we are not prepared, and indeed, have affirmed our position that we will not walk away from this process lcdc, stakeholders, and the Politics of conflict resolution 121 if all of our concerns or suggestions are not met in your proposed goals and guidelines.” Environmentalists came at the issues from a different angle. they had supported Sb 100 because they believed that local governments exercised too much discretion, which sometimes had environmentally destructive and economically inefficient consequences. that was why a strong state role in planning was necessary in the first place, and they sought detailed, specific language in the goals and clear priorities among them in order to achieve through administrative politics what they had been unable to secure in the legislative arena. Many Oregon planners strongly supported the goals of environmental activism and they agreed that a strong state role was necessary in land-use planning. Some planners working in local government settings, however, also thought that putting together a plan that their elected officials would willingly adopt required room to maneuver and...