HBA forms new coalition to address Metro's Rural/Urban Reserves Recommendations
As most of you are aware, for the last two years HBA has been a part of a coalition of various economic development and housing organizations that has coordinated collective strategies, work and responses to the urban/rural reserves process. It also allowed us to help representatives of our organizations who served on Metro's Reserves Steering Committee formulate their testimony and positions on behalf of our organizations. During this time, the coalition was simply called the Reserves Business Coalition.
Towards the end of last year, as Metro's Reserves Steering Committee was wrapping up its work, our group talked about the need to move forward to the next stage of the process. A couple of things came out of that.
First, we wanted to develop a new coalition name that would help us this year (and potentially beyond) as we get into the politics of the final reserves decisions and future UGB expansions. That led to renaming the group the Coalition for a Prosperous Region (CPR). Yes, the acronym has a different common meaning. While we didn't intentionally come up with the name to fit that acronym, once we thought about it, we realized it was very appropriate. The business, housing and overall economic health of our region is failing, and without the right actions, it could get much worse. The proposals our group is developing literally will help strengthen those areas and make them healthy again. So, CPR is very appropriate.
Second, we wanted to reach out to other potential partners who would be good allies in our goals and strategies, especially ones that might help us reach across the aisle politically. We realized that we had an opportunity to partner with labor interests, as the future of their members' livelihoods was also at stake. So, one of the partners added to the CPR was the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council. Labor interests are being actively engaged in this effort, and this has already proven to be a powerful addition to our coalition.
The CPR has been working collectively over the last few weeks to provide final documents to Metro regarding the urban and rural reserves recommendations. We have developed our own map of reserves lands and recommendations, expressed areas that we believe Metro has failed in its analyses and in some cases falls short of its legal obligations, and laid out specific recommendations for Metro to address in any final decisions. Below are the final documents we submitted to Metro on the urban reserves.
We're working hard on this and the coalition has helped us have an even stronger voice than any of our organizations would have had on its own. Please contact us at 503-684-1880 with any questions, comments or concerns.
Metro Urban/Rural Reserves Process Overview
Metro and the three main Counties in the Portland region are finishing a process that will impact development, jobs, housing and the economy for our region for the next 50 years. Soon they will have designated lands set aside as rural reserves (areas where development can not occur) and urban reserves (areas where development might one day occur if needed). These designations will be virtually permanent - land set aside as reserves, especially rural reserves, will be locked up for 50 years. Also, if not enough land is designated for potential future expansion as urban reserves, our region could be hurting its long-term economic future.
HBA has been actively working on this issue for well over a year. We are partners in a broader business coalition of major housing, economic and development organizations in our region. We have participated in various County reserve planning meetings as well as Metro's Reserve Steering Committee. We have issued position papers on Metro's preliminary reports, especially those relating to housing and infrastructure. We have also commissioned independent studies of Metro's reports and provided that information to Metro.
Throughout this process, we have raised the following questions:
a) How does Metro plan on increasing refill and redevelopment rates by 50% (from 27% to 40%) given their own public survey results that show people do not want changes to their existing neighborhoods or communities?
b) How does Metro plan on achieving a 50% increase in mandated densities (from 10 units per acre to 15 units per acre), especially in areas outside urban core areas? Does this even make sense to expect the same kind of density on areas near the edge of the boundary as areas closer to city centers? Doesn't this just increase infrastructure costs and create more transportation problems?
c) How does Metro anticipate having 71,000 housing units subsidized to the tune of up to $50,000 per home, and what will the impact be on schools and other public services if URDs or LIDs are used to create these subsidies and consequently pull money away for other public services?
d) How can Metro anticipate accommodating 1 million more people in our region in the next 25 years (a 67% increase over current population) and yet plan on needing only 5% more land (15,000 acres) for reserves for the next 50 years? Don't let them use the rationale that most new growth in the last ten years has happened in areas already part of the UGB - not expansion areas. This is primarily due to the facts that 1) expansion areas are meant to accommodate 20 years of growth, so we've barely made it through the first decade - it's too soon to assume that the land isn't needed; and 2) the largest amount of land was brought into in Damascus 7 years ago, and by Metro's own admissions they knew this land wouldn't be developed (due to major infrastructure needs) for 15-20 years at least. In other words, it's no surprise and hardly proves anything that so far UGB expansion areas haven't accommodated much growth.
e) Wouldn't being conservative mean leaving more lands as undesignated, rather than locking so much up as rural reserves? What if Metro is wrong in its assumptions? Where will growth go? How will jobs and our economy survive if Metro is guessing or projecting wrong?
f) Why is Metro rushing this? They just released a report that says we need potentially 15-21,000 acres of urban reserves. Washington County alone believes it needs more than twice that. If both sides have put in a lot of work and thought into their results, and the answers are so different, doesn't that bear looking into further to make sure the right decisions are made, especially given the significant long-term ramifications these decisions have?
g) Could anyone have predicted in 1959 how our region was going to grow, what businesses would need, where growth was needed, or even what industries would develop over the last 50 years? It's pretty audacious to assume anyone can predict anything for the next 50 years. Given the unknown, why wouldn't Metro err on the side of designating more land as urban reserves? Setting it aside as an option doesn't bring it in the UGB - it only creates the opportunity and flexibility for future leaders to make the decisions best needed at that time, since none of us knows right now what the region will look like or need, or what new industries will develop.
For more information on this process or further updates, contact the HBA at 503-684-1880.
15555 SW Bangy Road, Suite 301 · Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 · Telephone: (503) 684-1880 · Email: info@hbapdx.org
