|
Ken Bailey represents the
Gorge on Big Look task force
Photo by Sue Ryan
The team of 10 people that make up The
Big Look task force includes Gorge resident and cherry grower Ken
Bailey. He is vice-president and shareholder of Orchard View Farms in
The Dalles. His involvement with land-use planning, economic
development, and agriculture dates back to the 1960s following his
graduation from Oregon State University.
In the past he has served on the Wasco County Economic Board and
committees for the original land-use planning in Oregon in the
mid-1970s. Currently he serves as the chairman of the Mt. Hood
Alliance, which oversees state regional strategy dollars for
Clackamas, Hood River, and Wasco counties. He also serves on the
Mid-Columbia Economic Development District board, the state Board of
Agriculture, and as the Oregon Department of Agriculture
representative on the state’s international trade commission.
He talked about his involvement and perspective on The Big Look task
force and other land-use planning issues in Oregon during an interview
Monday at his business in The Dalles. |
|
By SUE RYAN
News staff writer
December 27, 2006
HR News — How did you get involved
with The Big Look?
I think my representing agriculture, my representing as somebody from
the Scenic Area, somebody that has been involved with economic
activities: Those things helped get me picked for being on the Big 10
Task Force.
I think agriculture needs to be a major part of that (protection of
certain lands). I think most everybody agrees that we need to assess
that, how agriculture is treated in the future as well as in the past.
There certainly is not agreement among farmers in the state about what
land use planning should be but I think I’ve been involved with it
enough that I do understand a lot of different concerns the farmers
have. Not that I know what the right answer is but hopefully I have
enough broad-based experience I can help represent the concerns of all
of them and help come to a policy for most farmers, for most people in
the state of Oregon.
HR News — What do you think some of those priorities are for
agriculture? I mean some of the input you give to The Big Look that
you could share with us.
The importance of agriculture in the state of Oregon is first so that
people would understand that agriculture does need to be recognized.
The importance of the economy of agriculture and what agriculture
produces and provides the state of Oregon and the communities of
Oregon as far as of value back to the community and how that can be
affected by proper or improper land-use zoning.
If we allow conflicts to develop around farmland, the farmland may not
be able to continue as the economic engine for that community.
Just if we restrict someone’s ability to sell their property for a big
gain, we should find some way to compensate them. It (the concept)
goes back to the basic theory of Measure 37 if we’re going to restrict
what people are going to do then there needs to be some compensation.
And I’m not saying there needs to be 100 percent compensation for
somebody’s assets but (where) there are some things that all people in
the state of Oregon should sacrifice for the good of the whole it
should not be overly burdensome on one sector of the economy as
opposed to someone else. And try to find some way to find the right
balance there.
The problem with how some of that comes about is, with Measure 37, I’m
not sure anybody really knows what it is yet.
Some people thought Measure 37 was fairness to some but all of a
sudden we’re beginning to realize that fairness to some is creating
undue hardships to others.
HR News — To back up to your answer of there being differences
among farmers in the state regarding land-use planning, what do you
find those to be?
The biggest thing is most farmers tend to be somewhat conservative and
tend to be more saying that they believe in private property rights
and tend to believe the basic concepts of what is going on there with
Measure 37.
The ones that have been more skeptical of 37 or opposed to 37 or
opposed to some of those things have been farmers that have been
involved with seeing conflicts with their neighbors.
Those farmers from the high-growth areas tend to be recognizing the
need for protection and land-use regulations to protect the farmland
more so than those away from the more-rapid growth areas.
I think there needs to be an understanding with even how you develop
the rural residential (zoning). Maybe we control where and how that
develops so it doesn’t conflict with the major portion of agriculture
in the state.
HR News — So what is your goal between now and then to
contribute to that process?
This fall we divided into six work groups and are going out to
identify what are the major issues people have with the land-use
system of Oregon and try to identify those. By the first of June,
hopefully finalize and go out with a series of proposals, with some
alternative directions that could be gone on some of those issues.
We are trying our best not to come to conclusions. Even though some of
us individually may think we have the answers, we’re not trying to go
there as a group.
It’s going very well. I think it’s going the way it’s intended to be.
Our main focus right now is to identify and put into words the major
issues. Between now and the next six months, (we’ll) decide and put in
writing what those major issues are, and put them in writing in the
future land-use plan for Oregon and which need to be changed or
eliminated or whatever.
And have those issues identified and try to come up to at least two or
three, maybe four different options. And take those options with the
questions out to the general public, organizations and whoever wants
to comment.
HR News — What do you see some of those issues being for Wasco
County and Hood River County? I know it’s very preliminary but you
have a lot of expertise in this area.
For agriculture, well, how do we deal with providing for homes on
agricultural land? What are the criteria? Currently we have the
$40,000 and $80,000 income test for siting dwellings within farm
zones. Or farm dwellings.
Is that a good measure? Is that the proper measure? Or should that be
something different?
Do people want to be able to have a compensation system? To be able to
buy easements or transfer development rights or whatever compensation
system we can put together.
I guess the number one question is should we even have a land-use
program for the state of Oregon? And what if we were not to have it,
what would replace it, if anything?
My personal opinion is the group is generally seeing that the vast
majority of people do accept a land-use system but we need to see some
improvements in how it operates.
HR News — We have one thing in this part of the state that no
one else has and that is the Gorge Scenic Area. Does that factor into
the Big Look discussion at all? Or not at all because it doesn’t
affect anyone else?
I think it factors in some. The Scenic Area is mostly in addition to
what the state is and in some cases overlaps it. I think, the one
thing we might be able to do, is if we can find a better way, as I
pointed out earlier, a more efficient way of using the system so that
people go through the system and understand it a little better.
Very few people really understand our current system (Oregon’s
land-use planning). And they have to have experts to get through it
and it takes so long that the people who want to use it are getting
pretty frustrated.
If we can clean that part of it up and find a way to do that we may be
building a template that some of us can also take to the Gorge
Commission and say “We don’t disagree necessarily with some of your
basic concepts on things but the process is just killing us.”
I have always been one that has basically supported land-use zoning
and even the Scenic Act. But I can see a lot of things done in both
systems that I don’t think I would do because I don’t think it makes
any sense and it’s gone too far.
Maybe we can find a solution and maybe we can’t but I think part of
what our Big Look committee is doing is trying to make that effort to
see that we really step back and see what is really important and let
some of those details go.
HR News — That’s really it unless there is something else you
want to offer?
Dollars is a big part of the problem and I think dollars may be a big
part of the solution. Part of the solution may be for the state to
provide more dollars to the local governments to do proper planning
and also to help come up with a system of compensations for those
things that are important to the state to be preserved. The means of
the county, the city, or the state to fund to make things happen.
But if the development is required to pay its own way or its share of
the infrastructure costs to make that community work, then may be the
property values that the development is built on are not worth as much
as people think they are because that value has to go into building
the infrastructure.
If the community pays more than their fair share, that gives an
inflated value for the property and the development that really isn’t
fair. The rest of the community is subsidizing that development. The
public policy decision of the state of Oregon needs to be is “Should
the state or the local government be subsidizing that new development
or should that new development pay its share of the cost?”
HR News — Maybe the developers have to accept a narrower profit
margin?
Right now in looking at 37 claims, there appears to be a big windfall
gain for the property owner. But if that developer who was going to
buy that property, if they had to pay all those infrastructure costs
there are not going to get that property price up that much.
As a side piece of this, I think maybe a lot of people are thinking
The Big Look task force is going to help answer the Measure 37
questions. The important thing to remember is that The Big Look task
force has been specifically told by the governor and the leadership of
the legislature that we are not to deal directly with Measure 37.
Not that it isn’t the big elephant in the room, but our focus is to
maybe use 37 as the issue that brought this all to attention. Our
focus is the overall system and how it applies to everything and it’s
up to the legislature to deal with 37.
HR News — Are you going to be having any public meetings or town
halls?
Our general meetings have not really been open to the public. I mean
they are open to the public but not for testimony and that kind of
thing. We have a short public comment period but mostly we’re dealing
(now) with invited testimony.
Right now we’re still framing our specific questions and we’re
inviting testimony in from specific groups related to specifically
issues. This last meeting dealt primarily with a presentation from the
Department of Agriculture. In January, it will be forest lands and
also dealing with some of the metro/urban issue areas. In Gresham, had
several city mayors of the metro area to give us information.
After June going out with more public meeting type of things, more
surveying, that kind of thing.
During 2008, get most response back in, deliberate on recommendations
and put together final report to Legislature in 2009.
Feb. 1, 2009, on paper right now is the target date of presentation of
our report to Legislature. Task force officially together for six
months past that so that when Legislature meets we’ll be available for
consultation. |
