oregonians in action

Looking Forward

Oregonians In

Action Education

Center is a

non-profit, non-

partisan, IRS 501

(c)(3) corporation

wholly funded by

voluntary

contributions.

For balanced,

flexible

and fair land-use

regulations, with

respect and

protection for

the rights of

landowners

Original material in

Looking Forward is not

copyrighted and may be

used freely. We would

appreciate credit to

Oregonians In Action

Education Center, but

will not object if anyone

wishes to use it without

credit.

A publication of Oregonians In Action Education Center

on land use and property rights

continued on page 3

The Oregon Legislature has just completed its 2013

legislative session, and Oregonians In Action

finished with another good showing, passing five

bills, while stopping many bad bills in their tracks.

This marks the twelfth consecutive session in which

at least one OIA bill has passed. Working closely

with legislators of both parties, OIA has found

common ground on a number of bills that reform

Oregon’s land use system, give property owners

more freedom to use their land, or solve problems

encountered by Oregon businesses or property

owners. This session was no exception.

At the conclusion of the session, the following OIA

bills had passed:

HB 3067: House Bill 3067 transferred an area of

land known as “Bonny Slope” from Multnomah

County to Washington County, resulting in the first

change to the Washington County boundary in its

history.

OIA Finishes Another

Successful Legislative

Session

LOOKING FORWARD

2 Volume 20, Issue 1

Inside This Issue:

The Looking Forward is

Produced by:


Education Center staff.

Printed by:

Lynx Group, Inc.

Salem, OR


Education Center

PO Box 230637 Tigard,

OR 97281

Phone: 503-620-0258 or

1-888 LAND USE

Fax: 503-639-6891

E-mail: [email protected]

OIA Education Center Board of Directors,

Officers & Staff:Officers:

Kay Finney

President

Mitch Teal

Vice President

Ross Day

Secretary

Kristi Halvorson

Treasurer

Directors:

Kristi Halvorson

Dean Werth

Kay Finney

Mitch Teal

Barbara Decker

Ted Urton

Ross Day

Executive Director:

Dave Hunnicutt

1-7: OIA Finishes Another Successful

Legislative Session

8-9: Do You Own Riverfront Property?

If So, We’d Like To Hear From You

10-11: Eastern Oregon Should Not Become The

Next Appalachia

Get all your property rights news at

these great websites:

www.oia.org www.oregonwatchdog.com

LOOKING FORWARD

Volume 20, Issue 1 3

OIA Finishes Another SuccessfulLegislative Session

continued from front page

In 2002, Metro, the Portland area regional government amended

its urban growth boundary (UGB) to add Bonny Slope. Once inside

the UGB, the property owners in Bonny Slope could expect that

their property would develop as an urban area. Unfortunately,

when bringing Bonny Slope inside the UGB, Metro failed to realize

that neither Multnomah County nor the City of Portland could

provide the needed services (water, sewer) to Bonny Slope.

Although Washington County could easily provide the needed water

and sewer service to Bonny Slope, they were unwilling to extend

services outside of the county boundary.

In 2010, a group of Bonny Slope property owners asked OIA for

help in solving this mess. Working with Senator Betsy Johnson of

Scappoose, Representative Mitch Greenlick of Portland, and

Washington County Chairman Andy Duyck, the best solution seemed

to be to simply change the county boundaries, and add Bonny Slope

to Washington County.

As a result, House Bill 3067 was introduced and approved

unanimously in the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate, and is

now law. Under the bill, Washington County and Multnomah

County are finalizing the details necessary to change a county

boundary. Thanks to Senator Johnson, Representative Greenlick,

and Commissioner Duyck for their efforts on this bill.

HB 2746: House Bill 2746 makes a significant change to the law

for replacement dwellings in farm (EFU) zones.

Under current law, a replacement dwelling is an allowed use in an

EFU zone in all counties. In order to qualify for replacement, a

dwelling must have intact walls, a roof, electricity, plumbing, and

a heating system. Structures that were once dwellings but have

since been converted to other uses, are dilapidated, or have long

been removed from the property do not qualify for replacement

under current law. continued on page 4

LOOKING FORWARD


continued from page 3

HB 2746 changes this. Under the bill, structures that were once

dwellings but have become dilapidated, converted to other uses (like

ag buildings), or have been removed from the property may be used

to qualify a property for a replacement dwelling. The effect of this

bill is to allow dwellings on EFU zoned properties that would

otherwise not qualify for a dwelling.

Thanks to Representatives Ben Unger of Hillsboro, John Davis of

Sherwood, and Brian Clem of Salem for their work on this bill.

HB 3415: House Bill 3415 appears to be the first legislation of its

type in the United States. The bill requires a state or local government

to charge a “market rate” when the government leases space on its

communications tower.

The bill is the result of a problem arising in Union County. Ken

Johnson owns and operates Racom, a La Grande company which

installs communications towers, and leases space on the towers it

owns and maintains. Nearly a decade ago, Racom installed a tower

on a hill above La Grande to serve La Grande and its outlying areas.

The cost to install a tower is approximately $150,000. In addition,

Racom pays a monthly lease fee to the United States Forest Service

(USFS) for leasing the land for the tower, and pays nearly $5,000 a

year in property taxes to Union County for the tower.

Shortly after Racom constructed its tower, Union County sought and

received a federal grant to construct a communications tower. The

grant paid for the entire cost of purchasing and constructing the tower,

which the County placed on USFS property immediately adjacent to

Racom’s leased property. Union County pays no lease fee to the

USFS, and no property taxes. In other words, Union County pays

nothing for its communication tower.

continued on page 5


LOOKING FORWARD




After constructing its tower, Union County approached Racom

customers, offering lease rates for space on the County tower. Because

the County had no outlay for installing its tower or leasing the USFS

land, it could offer Racom customers lease rates which Racom (or

any other private company) simply couldn’t match.

Unfortunately, other rural counties in Oregon were also seeking federal

grants, threatening Racom and every other rural Oregon

communications business.

Looking for help, Johnson contacted Oregonians In Action. Working

with Representative Jim Weidner, HB 3415 was introduced and

approved with overwhelming support. Thanks to Representative Jim

Weidner of Yamhill for sponsoring the bill, and to Representative

Paul Holvey of Eugene for first hearing the bill and moving it to the

floor.

HB 3479: House Bill 3479 resolves a thorny problem in The Dalles.

The bill limits the ability of The Dalles to charge a “fee in lieu of a

local improvement district (LID)” or to require a property owner

seeking to partition land to enter into a non-remonstrance agreement

for the future formation of a LID.

For nearly a decade, The Dalles has had an ordinance that requires

property owners along unimproved streets to pay a “fee” to the City

in exchange for a development permit.

The fee is purportedly used to pay for street and sidewalk

improvements and does not depend upon the type of land use

application submitted. For example, a property owner seeking to

partition a residential property to create one new lot and home is

required to pay the exact same fee as a developer seeking a 40 lot

subdivision.

continued on page 6

LOOKING FORWARD




What is truly staggering, however, is the amount of the fees charged

by the City. At the House and Senate hearings on HB 3479, several

property owners from The Dalles testified about the amount of the

fee being charged by The Dalles under its current program. The

amount of the fees ranged from a low of just over $52,000, to a

high of over $180,000.

As OIA testified in the legislature, there is simply no possibility

that the creation of one or two new lots and dwellings would create

enough traffic to justify a six figure “fee.”

HB 3479 stops the City from charging their “fee” for minor land

use applications, like partitions. Thanks to Representative John

Huffman of The Dalles and Senator Arnie Roblan of Coos Bay for

spearheading this bill through the House and Senate.

SB 476: Senate Bill 476 puts some very significant and important

safeguards in place for property owners and private businesses

who enter into “prospective purchaser agreements” (PPA’s), which

are contracts with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) for cleaning up polluted properties.

Oregon law encourages DEQ to enter into PPAs with private

companies to clean up contaminated sites. The contaminated site

gets cleaned and rehabilitated without the taxpayer footing the bill;

the clean-up creates private sector jobs; and the rehabilitated site

is then developed and used by the private sector.

Unfortunately, when DEQ refuses to comply with its own PPAs,

the entire program is jeopardized. In fact, SB 476 was introduced

as a result of DEQ’s failure to honor its PPA with Patrick Lucas, a

Sherwood property owner and developer.

continued on page 7

LOOKING FORWARD




Lucas’ company entered into a PPA with DEQ to clean-up one portion

of a contaminated tannery site in Sherwood. After spending over

$1.3 million to clean up the site to DEQ’s specifications, it was

discovered that Wells Fargo owned the tannery property during the

time that the tannery was dumping toxic materials into a pit at the

back of the property.

Both the PPA and Oregon law allow Lucas to recover the $1.3 million

in clean-up costs from the party who caused the pollution. But before

Lucas could seek recovery from Wells Fargo, DEQ negotiated a $2.2

million settlement with Wells Fargo, without notifying Lucas.

There was a catch, however. Wells Fargo refused to settle the case

unless DEQ agreed that the settlement applied to all pollution clean-

up costs, including the $1.3 million spent by Lucas.

And what did DEQ do with the money? They kept it, of course, and

refused to honor their PPA with Lucas, ignoring both the contract and

Oregon law.

The legislature was very troubled by DEQ’s behavior in the Lucas

case. SB 476 now prohibits DEQ from agreeing to settle a case that

affects the rights of a PPA holder like Lucas without giving the PPA

holder the right to participate in the settlement, and allowing a court

to review the settlement to make sure that it treats everyone fairly, not

just DEQ.

If SB 476 had been in effect earlier, DEQ would have been forced to

honor their PPA with Lucas. Unfortunately, the legislature did not

make SB 476 retroactive, meaning Lucas will still have to fight his

legal battles with DEQ in court.

Thanks to Senators Betsy Johnson of Scappoose, Larry George of

Sherwood, and Floyd Prozanski of Eugene for leading the charge to

pass SB 476.

LOOKING FORWARD


Do You Own RiverfrontProperty? If So, We’d Like

To Hear From You

If you own property along one of Oregon’s major rivers,

your ownership rights may not be what you think they are. We’d

like to hear from you.

One of Oregonians In Action’s priority bills in the most recent

legislative session was Senate Bill 479. If approved, SB 479 would

have prevented the State of Oregon from claiming title to drylands

which were once submerged (underwater) or submersible

(underwater for a portion of the year), but which have been filled

by a public body, and are now upland properties in private

ownership.

The most common way that property that was submerged or

submersible becomes upland is by the placement of dredge spoils

on property adjacent to uplands. During the late 1800s and early

1900s, the federal, state, and local governments dumped dredge

spoils on thousands of properties across the state as part of a plan

to widen and deepen river channels and coastal bays for ship traffic

and other commercial activities.

As rivers and bays were dredged, the dredged materials

(spoils) were typically placed on shallow or marshy areas near the

river or bay. Once enough dredge spoils were deposited, the land

became upland, and was typically subsumed by the adjacent property

owner.

Over the decades, thousands of Oregon properties that

contain areas where dredge spoils have been deposited have been

bought, sold, and developed as private property. Unfortunately,

the Oregon Attorney General and the Oregon Department of State

Lands (DSL) have begun to assert title to those areas, claiming that

although the land is no longer submerged or submersible, it once

was, and therefore the State of Oregon holds a title interest in the

property. continued on page 9


LOOKING FORWARD

Do You Own Riverfront Property? IfSo, We’d Like To Hear From You

It gets worse. The State is now demanding that property

owners pay the State to clear their title. In a recent case involving

property near the Willamette River in Portland, the Oregon Attorney

General demanded $2,400,000 to release its claim in a 10 acre

industrial property which the owner had purchased in 2004 from

another company for over $8,000,000.

After learning of this problem, OIA asked legislators to

sponsor SB 479, and legislators agreed. The bill has resulted in

the formation of a group that will meet this fall to attempt to resolve

this issue. OIA President Dave Hunnicutt is a part of that group,

which is tasked with reaching a compromise, and reporting back

to the Oregon legislature and the State Lands Board, with an eye

on new legislation in either 2014 or 2015.

The DSL has identified over 19,000 privately owned

properties along the Willamette River and Oregon coast alone

where the State of Oregon claims ownership. Most of these

properties have been in private ownership for decades, and have

been bought and sold with no one aware that the State claims an

interest in the property.

These properties, along with others along major Oregon

rivers, are a ticking time bomb, waiting to be set off by the Oregon

Attorney General. Thousands of Oregon property owners are

buying, selling, and developing land that they believe is their own,

but which the state also claims. We must resolve this issue now,

before further damage is done.

If you own property near a major river or bay, we need to

hear from you. OIA is trying to identify and organize property

owners who own land that contains dredge spoils, and whose titles

are threatened by the State. There is strength in numbers, and

together, we must demand change. If you own riverfront or bayfront

property, please give us a call or send us an email, and we’ll put

you on a list and keep you apprised of what we’re doing.


LOOKING FORWARD


Eastern Oregon Should NotBecome The Next Appalachia

The most recent government statistics on unemployment and

poverty paint a grim picture for Oregonians living in rural counties,

particularly those in eastern Oregon. It’s time for the Oregon

legislature to take aggressive steps to fix this problem.

A case study shows the disparity. For those of you who

don’t venture further east than Bend, Harney County is a large

southeastern Oregon county, covering 10,226 square miles. The

county seat is Burns. As of the last census, the population in Harney

County was 7,422. The nearest metropolitan area is Boise, Idaho,

nearly 190 miles away.

Harney County shares a border with Humboldt County,

Nevada. Like Harney County, Humboldt County is large, spanning

9,626 square miles. Humboldt County is also very rural, with a

population of 16,735. The county seat is Winnemucca. The nearest

metropolitan area is Reno, nearly 170 miles away.

Agriculture is a major industry in both counties, which are

geographically similar. Approximately 1.46 million acres of Harney

County is in farms, and nearly 760,000 acres of Humboldt County

is farmed, making it Nevada’s largest agricultural producing county.

Neither county is changing dramatically. Between 2000

and 2010, Harney County lost nearly 3% of its population. By

contrast, Humboldt County grew by approximately 2% in the same

period.

In short, Humboldt County and Harney County are very

similar neighbors. But there is one area where the similarities

end.

In April, 2013, the unemployment rate in Humboldt County

was 5.4%. The unemployment rate in Harney County during the

same period was 13.1%. The median household income in Harney

County hovers around $35,000. In Humboldt County, it is over

$56,000. And nearly 19% of Harney County residents live in

poverty. In Humboldt County, that figure drops to 12%.

So why are two similarly sized, similarly situated rural

county neighbors so different economically? Why do residents of

continued on page 11

By David Hunnicutt

LOOKING FORWARD


Eastern Oregon Should Not Become The

Next Appalachia


Harney County have fewer jobs, make less money, and have more

residents in poverty than their neighbors to the south? There are a

number of reasons, and land use policy is one of them.

Nevada does not have a statewide land use system. Land

use decisions in Nevada are controlled by the counties. This means

that Humboldt County residents can control their own future,

whereas Harney County citizens cannot.

This point was exemplified in the most recent legislative

session. Representative Cliff Bentz, a legislator representing

Harney County, brought forward House Bill 3267. HB 3267 would

allow Malheur County, a neighboring county to Harney, to create

an industrial site in the county.

The obvious goal of Representative Bentz’s legislation was

to allow Malheur County (which has the same unemployment/

poverty issues as Harney County) to make land available for job

creation, to help cure its jobs and poverty problems.

This would not be a problem in Humboldt County. If

Humboldt County wanted to create more industrial land, they would

simply do so, and not have to beg the state legislature to fix a

uniquely local issue.

But Oregon has statewide land use planning, so

Representative Bentz was forced to ask the state legislature to solve

Malheur County’s problem. Unfortunately (but predictably), the

legislature failed to do so, leaving Malheur County, and other rural

Oregon counties like Harney, stuck in the same cycle of

unemployment and poverty that they have been for years.

Giving Harney County and other rural Oregon counties the

ability to do their own land use planning would be a tremendous

boon to their fortunes. They need look no further than to their

neighbor to the south to figure out why. That’s why the Oregon

legislature should take steps in 2014 to allow rural Oregon counties

to make their own land use decisions and do their own land use

planning, before eastern Oregon becomes the western version of

Appalachia.

Ore

gonia

ns

In A

ctio

n

Educa

tion C

ente

r

PO

Box 2

30637

Tig

ard, O

R 9

7281-0

637

Ad

dre

ss s

ervi

ce r

equ

este

d

NO

NP

RO

FIT

OR

G

US

PO

ST

AG

E

PA

IDP

OR

TL

AN

D, O

R

PE

RM

IT N

O. 1

608

Scan this code with your smart

phone to get the property rights news

at www.oia.org

Yes, I support OIA Education Center’s efforts to protect

private property rights!

Name ______________________________________

Address ____________________________________

City, State ___________________________________

Zip ______________________________

Please mail check to: OIA EC, PO Box 230637 Tigard, OR 97223

oregonians in action

News & Politics