|
BY BOB YOUNG, byoung@wweek.com
Illustration: MATT WUERKER
What if Don Morissette is right?
What if Portland's fabled urban growth boundary is really a funnel, managing population growth by steering almost half of it north to Clark County--creating more traffic jams, air pollution and a need for new bridges and highway lanes? That fear surfaced last week, just as Oregon land-use activists celebrated the adoption of the Regional Framework Plan, another of Metro's long-range planning blueprints for Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties. For more than two years, Morissette--the Portland home builder with the Howdy Doody looks--has warned that our snug urban growth boundary is driving people north and south in search of big housing lots at low prices. This time, he's got some numbers to support his claims. Population analysts in Washington and Oregon reported two weeks ago that 46 percent of the region's population growth last year went to Clark County, where restrictions on growth aren't nearly as rigid as they are in the Portland area. If the numbers are accurate, they represent a sharp climb over the 32 percent annual growth Clark County averaged in the last seven years. Morissette and others suggest that the migration across the Columbia River shows how constraints in Metro's 2040 Plan, aimed at promoting density within the UGB to save farm and forest land, are counterproductive. "We've got an urban growth boundary that's too tight, so people are spilling over to surrounding areas--and it's not just Clark County," says Morissette. "People are voting with their cars and driving farther and farther rather than be told how to live." Morissette's argument is bolstered by stats showing new job growth in Clark County (18 percent) lags far behind population growth. That means many people working in Portland are living across the border. This is exactly what Morissette and three Portland State University professors he hired in 1996 predicted. But the report by the so-called "PSU-3" was dismissed by skeptics, including Willamette Week, because it was paid for by Morissette, a home builder, and lacked concrete numbers to support its assertions. Morissette doesn't take any satisfaction, however, from the latest numbers. "It makes me feel sad that we're making a mistake," he says. The potential fallout from flight to Clark County is frightening: increased traffic, deteriorating roads and the creation of bedroom communities that lack the industry-generated tax revenues to support services such as schools. Morissette goes so far as to utter the ultimate dig at Metro's vaunted 2040 Plan: "2040 means sprawl." Metro Presiding Officer Jon Kvistad agrees. "We may be saving farmland in Oregon," he says, referring to the Metro Council's recent decision to expand the UGB by just 4,500 acres, "but we're screwing up Washington farmland." Others warn, however, not to make too much out of numbers--for several reasons. For one, the numbers may not be accurate. "Population estimates from year to year are just that, estimates. It's not a census," says John Fregonese, director of growth management at Metro. "It's a couple data jockeys at PSU and in Seattle trying to figure out what's going on. It's not necessarily the final word." For another, the one-year numbers, even if accurate, may be misleading. "What does one year's worth of data mean?" says Ethan Seltzer, director of metropolitan studies at PSU. "Is what happened last year going to happen 44 years in a row? I don't think so. If we leap to the conclusion that the UGB is failing and 2040 is a disaster because of one year, it's like driving a car by looking at the front right fender, not at the horizon." Fregonese adds that Clark County's share of new homes has been remarkably consistent, hovering around 30 percent for the last seven years. Therefore, he says, there's no evidence to conclude that a tight land supply in the three-county region is suddenly driving people north in search of affordable housing. "I don't see a trend there," he says, adding that schools and taxes may have as much to do with the migration as the UGB. Finally, things are happening that may reverse the trend if it does materialize. "We did expand the boundary," Fregonese says, "and when that new land comes on line, it should make for some better balance between both sides of the river." Clark County also has its own UGB and is moving toward a 2040-like plan, which should equalize housing markets on both sides of the river. "It's not right to call it a funnel," says Robert Liberty, executive director of 1000 Friends of Oregon. "But if it is a funnel, it's not going to last very long." Regardless of who is right, Clark County's growth raises a problem, says Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton. "The jobs-housing imbalance is not good," Burton says, referring to the disparity between Clark County's 18 percent annual job growth and the much higher population growth. The population boom in Clark County--whether 46 percent or not--shows how difficult it is for Metro to manage growth in a two-state area with rules that apply only to one. Burton says the solution is to work more cooperatively with Clark County on transportation, land-use planning and economic development--which may mean funneling new industries to Clark County to cut down on its jobs-housing imbalance. "I don't entirely disagree with Morissette," Burton says. "But it's like they're saying, 'We told you so,' and I'm more like, 'So what next?' We have to address these issues." |
