David Bragdon, infill, and the need for better land use laws (and politicians)

April 6th, 2008

This article in today’s Oregonian expounds on various grumblings about infill in Portland. What’s perhaps noteworthy are the nature of some of the complaints:

Chasse often hears from Powellhurst-Gilbert neighbors upset about developers cutting the towering Douglas firs that grace much of outer Southeast Portland.

And while this particular area may be outside of Metro’s reach, what’s striking is that Metro, rather than apparently expanding regulations that require certain types of development standards, holds a silly design contest:

Metro, the regional government, tried to address that with a winter design contest called “Integrating Habitats.” Contestants entered designs in three categories: A “big box” store, a mixed-use development or an infill project for a city block.

The challenge was to go beyond energy-efficient buildings and come up with designs that retained trees and enhanced streams and wildlife habitat.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with a brainstorming session, or even a contest. But what would be nice is if these contests and sessions actually led to regulations and safeguards enacted by Metro and other governments that retain trees and protect streams and habitat. After all, there really are few developers who will voluntarily do these things unless there is some financial or reputational incentive.

But such is par for the course for anti-environment Metro head, politician David Bragdon, who apparently had a road-to-Damascus conversion a few years ago with his tail-between-knees retreat in the face of property rights opposition to some of his regulatory proposals. Now, when he is not giving speeches to Oregonians In Action, he apparently loves to push daft “market solutions” things like this contest.

Bragdon, of course, fails to connect the dots and realize that pimping design contests won’t compel developers to build better. He will be left with a bunch of fancy balsa wood models (or maybe recycled bamboo?)… but so what? Without development standards and safeguards, these things will only rarely happen, if at all.

(For the remainder of his term, I expect worthless Bragdon will do nothing bolder than this little contest. Well, maybe he will be bold. Maybe he will, as others have suggested, push for more “market solutions” in the Big Look task force report. Or maybe he will go and hand-feed a condor chick at the zoo breeding program.)

Government cannot simply allow for subdivision of 10000 square foot lots without also providing regulations to protect neighboring property owners. Such protection, among other things, should include preservation, maximization, or establishment of native flora… and incorporation of other ameliorations that doubtlessly that contest helped reveal!

Oh, and if Mr. Bragdon and others don’t quickly do just that, what will end up happening is hinted at in this rather poor explanation for better design:

“Both Oregon and Washington have urban growth boundaries,” she says. “There’s increased pressure to use land more efficiently. If you can’t go out because of a growth boundary, then how do you fill in?”

(Lack of government regulation = crappy infills = push to expand or eliminate UGBs.)

Related posts: Property rights and killer bees, Damascus voters ruin Damascus, Is Angie's List right-wing? On the environment and eminent domain...