(A slightly edited version of the following column was published as an "In My Opinion" column in the April 12, 1997 Portland Oregonian newspaper. The author then amplified on his thought about farmland in a letter to the editor, "Growth boundary stifles options for farmland.")
The Metro council recently voted to study 18,579 acres of land for potential inclusion within an expanded urban growth boundary (UGB) for the Portland metropolitan region. As councilors were deliberating, they were criticized by people from all sides, especially related to the subject of farmland preservation.
What the critics fail to recognize, however, is that there is no "correct" decision. The process of establishing or expanding a UGB requires policy makers to know what is inherently unknowable -- the optimal use of land in the future.
Instead of criticizing individual decision makers, we should re-examine the UGB policy itself. The UGB is part of Oregon's broader land-use strategy of urban containment, which seeks to minimize the amount of development that takes place on rural farmland. Three main reasons are frequently given for preserving farmland: jobs, environment, and open space. How valid are these reasons?
Jobs. In the tri-county region, 16 percent of all land is in farm production, but the farm economy contributes only 2.5 percent of the region's economic output. Washington county has the largest imbalance -- 30 percent of the county's land is in farm production, but most wealth is being generated in other sectors of the economy.
If economic value is measured in terms of employment, instead of gross output, the picture remains the same: the 22,193 metropolitan jobs associated with agriculture constitute only 2.7 percent of all tri-county employees.
Mandating farm production on land that clearly has higher economic value in other uses simply creates an artificial land scarcity within urban areas. This drives up land costs and impedes job creation elsewhere in the economy.
Environment. Farm preservation is frequently touted as being good for the environment. But agriculture is far and away the largest source of water pollution in Oregon, especially in the Willamette River basin. Substantial amounts of sediment, pesticides and fertilizers migrate into the Willamette as a result of commercial farming activities.
Alternative uses of farmland have their own environmental problems, but they are not necessarily any greater (and frequently less) than those associated with intensive agriculture.
Open space. The real rationale for rural farm preservation in the minds of many people is that farms are nice to look at. But in a state where 98 percent of the land is already in open space, and 54 percent of it is owned by the federal government (thus off-limits to most development), it's difficult to justify legal mandates that force many landowners to set aside most of their property as scenic viewing areas for others.
If these policies had been in effect 100 years ago, much of Portland would never have been built. In 1891, for example, William Ladd converted 128 acres of rural farmland to a residential development known as Ladd's Addition. Now a Portland icon, this neighborhood includes many of the amenities that Metro planners desire for new development, such as narrow streets, small lots, and houses with garages in the back. Yet, if William Ladd tried to build a replica of Ladd's Addition on rural farmland today, he would be unable to. He would likely be criticized for promoting "urban sprawl", and his request for a building permit would be denied.
An Alternative Strategy
Instead of rationing land through a highly politicized process, we should consider an alternative approach of allowing individuals to conduct numerous types of activities on their land regardless of where they live -- but force them to mitigate any negative impacts on their neighbors. This approach, known as performance zoning, has been used successfully in other states for over 20 years. With this system, local governments replace their zoning ordinances with regulatory standards which ensure that any negative effects of proposed development are minimized. This allows landowners to control their own destinies, while protecting the public interest in land use.
If this type of zoning were coupled with other, incentive-oriented strategies to reduce environmental problems -- such as congestion pricing of highways, transit de-regulation, and pollution taxes -- we would be able to attain a higher quality of life than we have today, without the problems associated with choosing urban growth boundaries.
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that all land uses, even farming, have potential negative effects on the community. We should control those specific effects, and stop trying to centrally plan all land uses.
John A. Charles served as executive director of the Oregon Environmental Council from 1980 through October, 1996. He is now environmental policy director of the Cascade Policy Institute in Portland, and manages the institute's Oregon Growth Plan project.