Big Look with Tired Eyes

This link goes to the press release for the newly, Governor appointed Task Force on 30-Year Review of Oregon Land Use Planning, or "Big Look." The panel is distinguished, but since this is a blog I'll get right to my criticism.

I think the Governor has done a good job with the appointments in the sense that the many typical interests and constituencies have been represented - farming, jurisdictions, forest products, transportation management, eastside/westside, etc.

But one glaring problem with the commission is the fact that all of the members, based on their descriptions - more than one I've worked with or for - all are lifelong or nearly lifelong Oregonians.

That means that all of them have the following redundant qualities, not for the better:
-They haven't lived, i.e. had to buy a home, rent a home, etc. under a different land use planning regime in another state (or lack of one in another state);

-They haven't worked/had a profession under or with a different land use planning system;

-They all have fairly established lives and, therefore, likely are not facing the same dwindling and puzzling choice of homes and decreasing affordability of younger and/or new/working age residents;

-Not one of them comes from native-born or immigrated minority populations whose ability to work and afford life here range from easier (in the case of many East Indian households in high tech) to very difficult (in the case of Latino households with one or more family members seasonally employed in ag), much less the cultural detachment.

Beyond that, I also should point out that the only business owners on the panel are in ag and forest products. Steve Clark, the Washington County/business rep, is an executive at the Portland Tribune, but he's not the business owner so his perspective is a bit different. I suppose Phil Knight is just a bit conflicted about land use right now. But then again, maybe he would be a great pick for that reason.

So I do find that business owners, particularly in Oregon's newer industries, not related to actual utility of land for production, are underrepresented compared to agriculture. And that, right there folks, is the key to problems here: overvalue of agriculture relative to other uses, including fostering whatever sustainable, knowledge-based industry that even the pinkest lefty could support over traditional industry. Remember kids, mass-produced and sprayed fertilizers and insecticides make up a huge percentage of the pollutants in Willamette Valley waterways because of all the "protected" farming.

I have respect for the people on the task force I have had dealings with, so it should be interesting to see the process. But still, these are important failings of the panel in my opinion.

But given the selections, there is one of two possibilities for the outcome based on how committees are chosen:

1. Kulongoski truly wants a diversity of opinions and interests in new policy (this can't be right based on my criticism above about lack of diversity) - OR -

2. Kulongoski will steer this in the direction he favors and he can sign off on the conclusions for implementation with the credibility of having had opposing viewpoints represented, though ignored, on his panel.

I predict the latter will be the case, but we'll see, won't we!