Land use control in the U.S. has in many places been elevated to higher, more extensive levels of government, causing considerable controversy as to whose interests such reform serves. This article offers a political economic analysis of statewide land use controls, focusing on the land use program of Oregon. Using empirical evidence based on the state's population characteristics, industries, and elections featuring referenda to repeal the land use statutes, the author suggests that statewide land use controls in Oregon are supported by identifiable private interests: amenity-based industries, high-income professionals and technicans, and citizens in urban areas. The article suggests how changes in the structure of Oregon society—reflecting the development of the state's economy—led to the development of statewide land use controls.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Law Institute
. (1976). A model land development code. Washington, DC: American Law Institute.
2.
Bosselman, F.P.
, & Callies, D. (1971). The quiet revolution in land use control (Prepared for U.S. Council on Environmental Quality). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3.
Bureau of the Census
. (1983). 1980 census of population. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
Castells, M.
(1978). City, class and power. New York: St. Martin's Press.
5.
Davis, J.
(1963). Economic elements in municipal zoning decisions. Land Economics, 39, 375-386.
6.
DeGrove, J.M.
(1984). Land growth and politicsWashington, DC: Plannes Press.
7.
Delafons, J.
(1969). Land use controls in the US. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Edel, M.
(1972). Planning, market, or warfare? Recent land use conflict in American cities. In M. Edel & J. Rothenberg (Eds.), Urban economics, New York: Macmillan.
9.
Ernst, R. L.
, & Yett, D. E. (1985). Physician location and specialty choice. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
10.
Ervin, D. E.
, Fitch, J. B., Godwin, R. K., Shepard, W. B. & Stoevener, H. H. (1977). Land use controlCambridge, MA: Ballinger Press.
11.
Gustafsen, G. C.
, Daniels, T. L., & Shirack, R.P. (1982). The Oregon Land Use Act. Journal of The American Planning Association, 48, 365-373.
12.
Harvey, D.
(1978). Labor, capital, and class struggle around the built environment in advanced capitalist societies. In K. R. Cox (Ed.), Urbanization and conflict in market societies. Chicago: Maaroufa Press.
13.
Hoover, E. M.
(1974). An introduction to regional economics. New York: Knopf.
14.
Knaap, G. J.
(1985). The price effects of urban growth boundaries in Metropolitan Portland, Oregon. Land Economics, 61, 26-35.
15.
Little, C. E.
(1974). The new Oregon Trail An account of the passage of state land-use legislation in Oregon. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
16.
Markusen, A.
(1985). Profit cycles, oligopoly, and regional developmentCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Mills, E.
, & Oates, W. (Eds.). (1975). Fiscal zoning and land use controlsLexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
18.
Nourse, H. O.
(1977). The political economy of land use regulation. Unpublished manuscript.
19.
Oregon Department of Economic Development
(1984). Oregon: A statistical abstractSalem, OR: Oregon Department of Economic Development.
20.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
. (1984). The new state land use laws. Oregon Planning News, 1 (1).
21.
Oregon does an about-face and welcomes outsiders
. (1983, February 23). Christian Science Monitor, 75, p. 3.
22.
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
. (1974). Statewide planning goals and guidelinesSalem, OR: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.
23.
Oregon turns into Mecca for high tech
. (1984, August 28). Wall Street Journal, p. 25.
24.
Oregon's environmental zeal is yielding to economic needs
. (1981, October 13). Wall Street Journal, p. 35.
25.
Paulus, N.
(1982). 1982 general election: Summary of contribution and expenditure reports. Unpublished report, Office of the Secretary of State of Oregon, Salem.
26.
Rosenbaum, N.
(1976). Land use and the legislature The politics of state innovation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
27.
Saxenian, A. L.
(1984). The urban contradictions of Silicon Valley: Regional growth and restructuring of the semiconductor industry. In L. Sawyers & W. Tabb (Eds.), Sunbelt/snowbeltNew York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Silicon Valley moving north
. (1980, August 9). New York Times, p. 25.
29.
Walker, R. A.
, & Heiman, M. K. (1981). Quiet revolution for whom?Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71, 68-83.
30.
Willhelm, S. M.
(1962). Urban zoning and land use theory. New York: The Free Press.
