Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m being a little redundant. This is my second article – for the eight or nine people who probably noticed – on the subject of Measures 37 and 49. Land-use regulation is, however, an important issue that often gets little coverage (well, it can be quite boring – I mean, who cares if a subcommittee of the Wilsonville Planning Commission approved a variance reducing the setback of an institutional property from 15 feet to 10 feet, ugh…).
But reasonable disinterest aside, one fact remains: land-use regulation, (save for, maybe, national defense or education) might have one of the greatest effects on our daily lives. This is because it deals with how and where we live: how resources are used, whether they will be available for future generations to treasure, our commute, our personal safety and that of those around us, the likelihood of fire in our homes, our access to education, water, recreation, and other facilities, and on and on. For these reasons, I want to cover it somewhat thoroughly as Oregonians decide the fate of one of the state’s most contentious land-use regulations this November: the urban growth boundary.
Measure 49 reinstates the urban growth boundary, which was mostly nullified by Measure 37 a few years ago. It does so, however, with exceptions. Measure 37 passed on the basis of some legitimate complaints about the scope of previous land-use laws, many of which suffered serious flaws. It had the effect, though, of all but removing the laws, something proponents of Measure 49 believe wasn’t the true intent of the voters. Measure 49 is the effort to strike a balance, revising land-use laws to make them more fair and reasonable, while still preserving our valuable resource and environmental lands for future generations.
The developer elite, represented by a lobbying group called Oregonians In Action (a number of which, ironically, are not Oregonians at all), seek to defeat Measure 49 in November, bombarding voters with expensive TV spots and libertarian rhetoric. While they largely argue that land-use regulation devalues their land so much that it constitutes a government “taking” of part of their property, they also tend to appeal to our more compassionate and personal budgeting interests by arguing that it also increases the price of housing.
I don’t deny this. I mean only to qualify the argument that land-use laws make housing more expensive. The actual data seem inconclusive. Using Portland housing prices as the primary data, affordability studies have reached myriad conclusions about the market effects of the urban growth boundary. Some find the price has increased compared to national averages; others say it has decreased, being less subject to land speculation; still others have found no relationship between the UGB and housing prices. Unlike proponents of measures that prevent urban sprawl, though, I argue that it is likely to increase the value.
My reasoning, though, might be different. While the lesser supply might have some influence, in the absence of really clear data, I argue that the greater demand is a more significant factor. People would simply rather live in Portland than in more depleted and sprawling city environments. The city has consistently topped lists rating urban qualities of life, and recently has ascended to the top of lists for best cities to do business. The urban growth boundary serves to maintain this quality of life, and this makes more people want to live there, which unfortunately, drives up the price of housing.
We also have to look at location. While the sprawling construction of San Jose, Calif., may have reduced the price of housing in the San Francisco area, my guess is that it does little to make housing in downtown San Francisco more affordable. If anything, the value of living in the downtown of a larger metropolis drives up the price. But will an expanded Portland reduce the cost of living in the Pearl District? Probably not. The increased supply, however, might make it easier to buy a house somewhere in the middle of the Willamette Valley.
So when we realize that land-use regulation may very well increase our housing prices, we are faced with two options: We can increase the supply, lower our quality of life back down to that of everyone else, and destroy our environment, which will decrease the number of people who want to live here, lowering prices; or we can leave our regulations in place, benefit from our protected and booming agriculture, and figure out some other way – either through subsidies or financial incentives – to lower the cost of housing. Ultimately, I wish to suggest only one thing from this: that we have other options. We should, without a doubt, be concerned about the effect of our land-use protections on the price of housing. But does that concern mean we must give in to suburban sprawl or be priced out of the market? I don’t think so. We have other choices. Let’s spend our time thinking about those, rather than trying to destroy what makes Oregon a nice place to live.
[email protected]