Imagine the stretch of land between Portland and Eugene with an additional 1.7 million people. Picture wider roads, thicker congestion, a sea of houses and a lot of cement. Picture fewer wetlands, forests and farms.
This doesn’t have to be the future of the Willamette Valley, according to participants in the day-long land-use conference held Friday in Corvallis. If the I-5 corridor prepares for the influx of people in the next 50 years, overcrowding and the less-than-livable conditions that accompany it can be avoided.
The conference was sponsored by the Willamette Valley Livability Forum, which Gov. John Kitzhaber organized in 1996 to coordinate local, state, and federal governments in Oregon in order to plan for growth expected for the Willamette Valley. The audience will influence Gov. Kitzhaber’s next move in planning for Oregon’s future.
Throughout the day, presentations, displays and workshops provided participants an opportunity to discuss their priorities and concerns for the Willamette Valley. The day began with a presentation of two sketches of the valley’s future 50 years from now.
In the future, Oregon will likely continue with current planning trends, public policy and market forces. More than 105,000 acres will be added to Oregon’s urban growth boundaries, which restrict population densities to protect and preserve farm and forest land outside cities. Urban and rural development will swallow 50,000 acres of forest land and 300,000 acres of farmland. If Oregon continues conserving land, it is predicted that only 63,000 acres will be added to urban growth boundaries.
While the land conservation alternative seems ideal, Gov. Kitzhaber said in his presentation that such a goal will be a challenge.
“All of us are far too complacent,” he said. “We think we can ignore those nagging signs that things are changing, while our riparian environment is sacrificed to industrial and urban development.”
Planning can’t rely on state and local governments alone, he said; instead, the state needs to encourage community-based problem solving and locally driven projects that involve many perspectives in the planning process.
“We need to integrate our economic, social and environmental needs in every decision we make so that we can make the smallest footprint possible,” he said.
Several new incentives could be in place to encourage individuals and businesses to reduce their impact on natural systems, said Peter Watt, executive director of the Livability Forum.
For example, farmers could receive a tax rebate for cutting back on pesticide use.
“The government can be creative,” he said. “It’s a matter of them putting their money where their mouth is.”
Marilyn Slizeski, representative of the city of Philomath, doesn’t think financial incentives are enough to change current land-use practices. Individuals need to change their core values and the way they live their lives, she said.
“People should be embarrassed to drive a Suburban and have five kids,” she said. “It’s not practical anymore.”
Landowners should practice more responsible stewardship of their land, she added. For example, Oregon law requires landowners to replant trees if they’ve been logged.
“Sure, the money comes out of landowners’ pockets, but it’s the right thing to do,” she said.
Bill Fuji, a natural resources specialist, compared the attitudes of Americans with those of people in Japan and Europe.
“It can cost people $40 to go 30 miles in Europe. It should be a privilege to drive on the roads,” he said.
Changing something as fundamental as peoples’ values and attitudes regarding the environment requires schools to adapt an entire curriculum devoted to teaching kids about the importance of planning, said Milt Markewitz of The Learning Center.
Watt said he agrees that there needs to be an increase of awareness at all ages.
“The people involved in planning aren’t going to be alive in 50 years, but younger generations will be. It’s really their future,” he said.