By:David A. Smith

Â

Evolution works by simultaneous mutation and natural selection; science works by replicable paired experiments between a study group and a control group, and for both of these, America’s vast space and our three-leveled government create a huge range of possibilities â€“ which is my circuitous introduction to the value of studying the fascinating four-decade experiment in channeling (or strangling) growth that Portland, Oregon has been running, as updated recently in the Economist (July 27, 2013):

Â

Zoning laws, biking and hiking, but no parking

Are Oregonâ€™s strict planning rules stifling growth?

Â

As the Economist well knows, though is diplomatic about its knowledge, the answer is Yes, Oregon has voluntarily retarded growth, though the policy’s defenders are at pains to claim the contrary, which bespeaks their embarrassment at the inescapably obvious.

Â

That’s embarrassing

Â

The city of Vancouver, Washington lies just across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon.

Â

Before we get to the micro issues, I’ll look at the case macroscopically, because while one can argue the short term, the long term is conclusive:

Â

Portland to the south,

Â

Portland was founded at the confluence of two rivers, the mighty Columbia and meek Willamette:

Â

The city orients around the captive Willamette, not the free-flowing Columbia

Â

Its growth has always been curiously shaped by its geography:

Â

Aerial photograph of Portland, looking east

Â

As the above aerial photo makes clear, Portland is divided by the Willamette, with the downtown and commercial center concentrated in a handful of blocks (right center of picture, just below the river) and its residential areas stretching away in all directions.

Â

Â Since 1990 Portlandâ€™s population has grown by 38%, while Vancouverâ€™s has nearly quadrupled.

Â

Portland has thus chosen to push jobs â€“ lots of jobs â€“ into Washington.

Â

More importantly, Portland had no reason to lose out to Seattle as a global destination â€“ its climate is better, it’s flatter and easier to develop than Seattle hills, it’s nowhere near as waterlocked as downtown Seattle, and it’s closer to California â€“ and yet Seattle has blown past Portland as an economic engine and growth city:

Â

Aerial photograph of Seattle, looking east

Â

Just compare the two aerial photographs and the difference is striking: Seattle has three or four times as many large office towers, and its downtown core is further supported by secondary office buildings.

Â

To critics, that is proof that Oregonâ€™s strict land-use laws are crimping the city and the stateâ€™s growth.

Â

Quick, name a global company headquartered in Portland.Â Nike?

Â

Â

Now name a global company headquartered in Seattle.Â Costco, Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom, among others.Â

Â

Â

All of these are fairly new companies, all of them have had amazing growth, and none of them relied on some distinctive geographical advantage; they grew in Seattle because Seattle enabled them to grow.

Â

Forty years ago, Portland was mentioned in the same breath with Seattle; now it wheezes that it’s better than Vancouver â€“ Washington,Â not Canada.

Â

To supporters, it is a sign that the planning regime is working as intended, preventing sprawl and preserving Portlandâ€™s pristine surroundingsâ€”on Oregonâ€™s side of the [Columbia] river, at any rate.

Â

Actually, if one looked at both Seattle and Portland, one would say that Portland’s urban has the less-efficient land use â€“ all those single-family homes within a few miles of the central business district?Â It seems green but it isn’t.

Â

No one disputes that Oregonâ€™s land-use law, in force for 40 years, is among the strictest in the country.

Â

Indeed, in one of the earliest AHI blog posts, nine years ago, I covered its implications for uncompensated eminent domain taking of land use:

Â

Measure 37, passed by the voters with a 60% majority, mandates that the state must either pay compensation for a regulatory taking or suspend the law with respect to an individual property.

Â

A glance at the arguments pro and con is revealing:

Â

Supporters say Opponents say The measure would restore property rights to landowners that have been taken away from them by land use regulations. The present system is unfair to property owners. State and local governments are not likely to have the financial resources to pay landowners the compensation required by the measure.

Â

Supporters say current law is unfair. Opponents say fairness will cost too much. In other words, Measure 37 isnâ€™t so much about whether we like green space, but if we do, who pays to keep it green â€“ its owner, or the state?

Â

Like many a conservation measure, this one was pushed by an immigrant: Governor Tom McCall.

Â

Statue of Governor McCall fishing

Â

The governor who pushed for its adoption insisted that the stateâ€™s â€œquality of lifeâ€ was at risk from â€œsagebrush subdivision, coastal condo-mania and the ravenous rampage of suburbiaâ€.

Â

Governor McCall reading by kerosene lamp to dramatize the energy problem, 1973

Â

To hold these horrors in check, and bolster Oregonâ€™s two main industries at the time (forestry and farming), he pushed for every inch of the state to be zoned, with cities corralled within â€œurban growth boundariesâ€.

Â

While statewide zoning has a solid logic to it, statewide down-zoning (capping development) is an invisible corset for the entire state, leaving nowhere to grow.

Â

Not so good for growth, is it?

Â

Essentially this is the British national development model â€“ everything is greenfield, no development is as-of right, all density has a cost â€“ applied to a single state, Oregon.

Â

A new house can be built outside these areas only for:

Â

1. The use of a farmer, his relatives or employees

Â

2. On a tract of at least 80 acres which has produced at least $40,000 a year in agricultural income in recent years, and

Â

3. Only if there is no alternative structure on the same land that could be used for the same purpose.

Â

In short, farm-ers good, build-ers bad!

Â

The missus and I were going to subdivide, but now we can’t

Â

Inside the growth boundaries, meanwhile, planners urge ever denser construction and discourage cars.

Â

All right, they urge â€“ do they incentivize?

Â

Jim Rue, the head of the agency that oversees these rules, says that they have been a success.

Â

Jim doesn’t rue SB 100

Â

What else would he say?Â He wouldn’t have been hired to dismantle the program, and if it were dismantled, he and his whole staff would be out of work.

Â

Since Oregonâ€™s planning regime came into force, he points out, the state has lost just 1% of its farmland, while Washington has seen almost 10% disappear.

Â

If how you measure success is based solely on the farmland in your state, you might as well just erect barricades at the borders with signs saying, Please go away, and take your jobs with you.

Â

Leave your dollars behind though

Â

Martha Bennett, who runs Metro, the agency that supervises planning for Portland and its hinterland, sees other intangible benefits.

Â

Bennett loves benefits that are intangible

Â

Claiming intangible benefits is usually a signal of a dearth of tangible benefits.

Â

Locals prize easy access to hiking, berry-picking and beaches; that is the yin to the yang of Portlandâ€™s crowded streets, she says.

Â

Must’ve been bad berries I picked

Â

Both the walkable neighborhoods and the unspoiled surroundings, she believes, help to attract young, bright migrants to the city.

Â

Unfortunately, they can’t live affordably in Portland when they arrive, in part because of those selfsame development restrictions make new housing expensive to build ($240,000 for a one-bedroom).

Â

Cheap at $240,000 an apartment for 1-BR’s

Â

[Continued tomorrow in Part 2.]

Â

Â

Â