Oregon’s Big Look Task Force this month released draft legislation meant to reshape the state’s land use laws to meet future needs of both urban and rural areas. Neither property rights advocates nor land use protectionists seem enamored of the draft, and we believe both sides make salient points that need careful legislative review.

The task force was named in 2005 by Gov. Ted Kulongoski, Senate President Peter Courtney and then-Speaker of the House Karen Minnis. The group of 10, representing different opinions, perspectives and professions from across the state, was directed to conduct a comprehensive review of the state’s land use planning laws. They traveled throughout Oregon, listened to testimony and conducted research, using what they learned to craft the legislation as they were asked to do.

The draft focuses on four overarching principles: to provide a healthy environment; sustain a prosperous economy; ensure a desirable quality of life; and provide fairness and equity to all Oregonians. All are admirable goals.

The group recommends increasing local flexibility, avoiding the “one-size-fits-all” approach, while continuing to maintain strong protections against sprawl and loss of farm and forest land. The state should offer incentives, they say, to facilitate and encourage regional planning and financing of infrastructure. Further, the state should develop an integrated strategic plan that addresses climate change and other critical issues.

The problem, as we see it, is that the draft seems to tie planners’ hands by creating complex conditions for local flexibility, so compliance would become difficult.

Dave Hunnicutt, president of the property rights group Oregonians in Action, says the task force’s “heart is in the right place, but their draft does not meet their desires.” He said the task force acknowledged “a greater need for local control and a better partnership between LCDC and local governments,” yet the draft legislation includes “a process to allow two counties to request that LCDC redefine farmland and forestland in their counties, subject to limitations that are both vague and appear to be impossible to satisfy.”

Yamhill County Planning Director Mike Brandt agrees. He has been telling Oregon legislators for years that planners need more local control. But it appears the legislation “falls short of actually … accomplishing such a goal.” In fact, he says, the proposed land use processes actually seem more cumbersome than what now exists.

Ilsa Perse, a member of Friends of Yamhill County, says there are positive features to the idea of regional planning, but the task force “seems to be saying that areas should work together to figure out how not to comply with state land use regulations. Without cohesive, statewide policies, there could easily be dozens of disjointed regional plans.” She thinks regional flexibility should be part of the plan, but should not take the place of statewide rules and regulations.

We’re not ready to disparage the efforts of a dedicated citizen group that tackled a volatile political issue. But it seems there’s more work to do if we are to avoid a fix that’s more complicated than the problem.