Supply and Demand

We have a housing crisis in Corvallis, in fact, in all of Oregon, but my focus is on Corvallis because that's where I live.  The dirty little secret is that Oregon's unique and acclaimed land use system is partly at fault.  Yet, I recently submitted an application for a seat on the local Planning Commission in the faint hope of being able to nudge public policy in a different direction.

The current land use planning system all began with Senate Bill (SB) 100, which passed the Oregon Legislature in 1973.  Oregon's beloved environmentalist then-Governor Tom McCall gets the lion's share of credit.

Based on the finding that "uncoordinated" land use posed a threat to the State and its people, SB 100 established a complex framework of requirements to guide all future development "to assure the highest possible level of liveability [sic] in Oregon."  The law established policy making and administrative bodies at the State level.  The framework mandated that each city and county establish comprehensive plans, with regular review and revision, and component structures -- zoning, ordinances, regulations -- were required to conform to statewide planning goals, which now number 19.  Extensive public participation in the development of goals and guidelines was mandated in great specificity within the statute itself; and public involvement is now enshrined as Planning Goal 1.

What could possibly go wrong?

The Corvallis Comprehensive Plan, which was last revised in 1998, is replete with contradictions and based on what we now know are seriously flawed assumptions.  Among the more laughable of the assumptions are these two:

• "Oregon State University enrollment is expected to stabilize or grow slowly over the next 20 years, and Hewlett Packard is not planning any major expansions."
• "Rental housing will remain affordable compared to the rest of the State."

Since adoption of the plan nearly 20 years ago, reality has deviated radically:  OSU enrollment has more than doubled, HP employment has dropped as a stone succumbs to gravity, and Corvallis rental housing is some of the most unaffordable in the State.

None of these assumptions was revised when the Housing article of the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2016.  In other words, the plan today is essentially the same plan as that adopted in 1998, despite vast changes in local circumstances.

Comprehensive Plans are developed from a broad, inclusive "visioning" process.  Unfortunately, such processes tend to be neither broad nor inclusive.  I've just recently observed one of these processes in action.  Consider which segments of the population actually turn out for community"visioning" activities:  those with discretionary time and income.  

The following is one inexplicable Vision statement cited in the Housing Article of the Corvallis Comprehensive Plan of 1998:

• "Development standards have been created based on the characteristics of traditional Corvallis neighborhoods."

In other words, development standards were designed to maintain the status quo.  To confirm this, read the Corvallis Land Development Code (LDC).  Or simply weigh it:  in print, it is a 1017-page brick.

Of course, as a practical matter, the status quo is fine if you do not expect anything to change (as anticipated by the assumptions underlying the Corvallis plan).

In the interests of full disclosure, I mentioned most of these observations in my interview with the City Council to become a Planning Commissioner.  I even referred explicitly to "the mess we're in" with respect to our lack of affordable housing.

But there are numerous other contradictions between talk and action within the Corvallis Comprehensive Plan.  It cites "Findings" (defined as "facts") that express support for:

• New buildings on smaller lots to add to the diversity of housing types;
• Variation in lot dimensions to vary housing types to lead to greater market choice;
• Promotion of diverse housing types;
• A mix of housing types and costs to promote diversity in household types, ages, and incomes;
• Compact development.

All that appears downright forward thinking.  Yet, in the same section these are effectively contravened by ambiguous references to:

• "Compatibility" between buildings in compact developments;
• Mitigation of "compatibility" problems;
• "Compatible" development using design features.

Diverse yet compatible.  Novel yet traditional.  Square yet circular?

These illustrate another problem that arises in Corvallis on a regular basis:  the regulatory reliance on ambiguous notions such as "compatible" and "similar" when the law provides only for clear and objective standards.  But that is enough of a topic for a whole separate blog entry.

However, this leads us back to livability, the purpose of SB 100.  "Livability" is probably the most over-cited reason for no-growth, no-change, no-development, no-no-no-no in Corvallis.  I have come to be physically repulsed whenever I hear the term.  And it comes up a lot, always in response to change.

In Corvallis, "livability" is code for preserving the status quo, repealing the law of supply and demand, repudiating the value of diversity under a veil of privilege.

Why do I want this job?  When did this practical, pragmatic one become so quixotic?

Postscript:
Despite all my disclosures, including my personal critiques of the way things are, they still selected me to serve.  Oh, my.  Whatever does THAT mean?