Oregon's Property Values Still Not Hurt By Planning

Email Post

Special Series

This Land: Measure 37's Impact on Oregon

In a Series

Posted by Eric de Place

06/08/2007 11:20 AM

OSU study: growth management benefits property values.

UPDATE 6/8/07: Changes made throughout this post.

Last week I wrote about a study showing that, in aggregate, Oregon's property values were not hurt by the state's smart growth laws. Ergo, Measure 37 "fixed" something that wasn't broken.

Turns out that study was based on data collected and analyzed by two researchers at Oregon State University. Those researchers, William Jaeger and Andrew Plantinga, have produced a more complete report (pdf) containing a full economic analysis and no editorializing. The conclusion, however, is basically the same: there's no evidence to support the claim that Oregon's growth management protections have harmed property values, at least in aggregate.

I'm hopeful -- probably naively so -- that when Oregon voters consider a revision to Measure 37 this fall, the discussion will move past the property value question. It's more or less been settled definitively now: Oregon's growth management laws have not hurt property values. That said, Measure 37 raises a host of other questions -- about fairness, planning, and local democracy -- that we should be hashing out instead.

Permalink

Comments

Posted by a-kos 06/11/2007 12:58 PM

That doesn't surprise me at all. The arguments of M-37 were a ruse - just wealthy developers trying to make as much money as possible.

It makes sense that planning/growth management would actually help property values by maintaining/promoting a high level of livability. If an area is livable, people will want to own property there, hence property values will increase.

That isn't to say there aren't some areas pricey areas dominated by sprawl, they just aren't livable.

Posted by Red Cloud 06/12/2007 08:57 AM

This is not the only study. Georgetown University Law School has also conducted a study that reaches many of the same conclusions:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/GELPIMeasure37Report.pdf

Your concern with fairness, planning, and local democracy are on point. The backers of 37 are opposed to planning, opposed to local democracy, and opposed to any concept of fairness that extends beyond the property owner.

These people are anti-government. 37 effectively kills comprehensive planning by putting a ransom on community action. Oregon voters were persuaded that "takings" means a whole lot more than the Fifth Amendment sets out. So much more that they could only institutionalize the concept of partial takings through the initiative process - the Courts would never support their unique (to be polite) interpretation.

Posted by Arie v. 06/17/2007 02:20 PM

Good point that M37 subverts all three, "fairness, planning, and local democracy". As part of planning we should also add that the plans be implementable, which is the flip side of what we have in King County. The CAO has the right goals, but is tough to implement and the process was to (1) shoot high with an executive mandated plan, that was impractical then (2) scramble at the council level to broker a last minute rewrite - what we got was not an ideal model of planning or process.

When we go after big goals as we do here in the NW of becoming a national model for smart growth and environmentat protection we must have best-in-class planning and execution. Get that and you no longer have to worry about M37 or I-933 happening again.

I'd love to see process, planning and implementation excellence as a theme here. Get that and you'll also be closer on fairness and more likely to get local (i.e. rural) support.

Posted by Dan 06/19/2007 06:23 PM

I'd love to see process, planning and implementation excellence as a theme here. Get that and you'll also be closer on fairness and more likely to get local (i.e. rural) support.

I remember the first two as being a theme in WA, but the politicians tend to get in the way of the 'implementation excellence' part. Reality on the ground, too, when folks see that affordable housing in their neighborhood idea being implemented...