The Role of Nonprofit Organizations in Growth Management:

A Case Study of 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON

Debra Korevaar ABSTRACT

Planners in North America are currently working to mitigate the effects of urban sprawl

on communities and regions. The state of Oregon is leading the way in growth

management and citizen particpation through it policy tools such as urban growth

boundaries and through its network of nonprofit groups who advocate for and monitor

this urban management. The nonprofit organization, 1000 Friends of Oregon, has

worked to generate an effective network of citizen groups and has been effective in

advocating for planning policies that reduce urban sprawl, protect resource lands and

improve Oregonians´ overall quality of life. The organization is now serving as a model

for citizens in other states to manage urban growth and engage in the public policy

process.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Characteristics and Consequences of Sprawl 4

Oregon as a Model for Growth Management and Citizen Participation 5 “Planning for the Future” – Urban Growth Boundaries 5

Nonprofit Organizations: Roles and Characteristics 7 Nonprofits in the Role of Advocacy 8 Power of Social Capital 9

Nonprofit Organizations as Key Players in Urban Planning and Policy 9

CASE STUDY: 1000 Friends of Oregon 10 History and Objectives 10 Social Capital and Affiliations 12 1000 Friends as a Model For Nonprofit Involvement 14 Urban Growth Boundaries- 1000 Friends´ Involvement 14 1000 Friends of Oregon vs. Metro 15 Accomplishments and On-Going Efforts 16

Conclusion 18

References 20 Attachment 1 22 Attachment 2 23

3

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses the role of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in urban planning

processes and policies, specifially in urban growth management. It first provides a brief

overview of the context in which planners are operating today—the fight against urban

sprawl. The history of one planning tool, urban growth boundaries, that has been

implemented in the state of Oregon, is presented. Next, the paper discusses the role of

nonprofit organizations in American society and the concepts embedded in their

structures and activities. 1000 Friends of Oregon is presented as an example of how

one nonprofit group operates and its accomplishments and roles within the planning

framework in Oregon. The paper focuses specifically 1000 Friends´ role in monitoring

Oregon´s urban growth boundaries and its advocacy work for the preservation of natural

lands, the improvement of Oregonians´ quality of life and the management of growth.

The research paper is not a critique of the group, its structure or processes, but an

illustration of a well known, pioneering nonprofit group’s advocacy actions in urban

growth management.

4

The Characteristics and Consequences of Sprawl

When most people hear the word “sprawl”, they think of the disappearance of farmland

and open spaces on edges of towns and cities under cookie cutter suburban subdivision

development. Various authors in Squires´ book, Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences

and Policy Responses (2002), define sprawl as a pattern of urban growth and

development that “reflects low-density, automobile-dependent, exclusionary new

development” on the fringes of settled areas surrounding deteriorating cities. Other

characteristics of sprawl include: fragmented land use planning and segregated land

uses, leapfrog development, “edge cities”, low-density commercial and housing

development, reliance on private vehicles for transportation, a declining sense of

community by residents of the area, congestion and damage to the environment and an

unlimited outward extension of development. (Colorado Sprawl Action Center 2002)

Developments in open lands (or “green fields”) on city edges often have fewer upfront

costs, therefore creating greater profits for developers. However, these types of low-

density developments tend to cause communities greater problems and costs than the

revenue generated from the new growth. They require higher infrastructure costs,

increase traffic and transportation costs, destroy open space, stretch public services

(such as sewer and water) beyond their limits, and diminish community character and

identity. Towns can quickly turn into “sprawling expanses of low-density suburbs” when

municipalities and regions don’t discuss and implement community growth management

tools. These tools help ensure that new development occurs adjacent to existing urban

areas, thus preserving outlying open space and ensuring that communities stay

compact. (Colorado Sprawl Action Center 2002)

According to Squires, sprawl is the dominant pattern of urban development in the past

few decades and the issue of sprawl is likely to persist into the near future. Squires

discusses that sprawl is not just a spatial phenomenon but also a social and structural

phenomenon. It is “a cause and consequence of economic restructuring and emerging

social inequalities”... a “complex process of uneven development shaping urban and

metropolitan development”. (Squires 2002) This complex process presents an ongoing

challenge for policymakers, community groups, business leaders, citizens and nonprofit

organizations.

5

Oregon as a Model for Growth Management and Citizen Participation

The state of Oregon is leading the way in growth management and citizen participation.

Both it’s smart growth methods and its models of community involvement and regional

planning are being implemented in regions and states throughout the United States.

Oregon’s planning program opens the planning process to all citizens, ensuring

opportunities for all citizens to participate in any decisions that concern their

communities. Goal 1 of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and

Development’s (DLCD) Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines1 (2002) is Citizen

Involvement and has resulted in the establishment of citizen involvement groups all over

the state.

“Planning for the Future” – Urban Growth Boundaries

In an effort to fight sprawl, urban growth boundaries (UGBs) were created in the mid-

1970s as part of Oregon’s statewide land use planning program addressing future

growth. The new guidelines under Goal 14 Urbanization of the Oregon Land

Conservation and Development’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines (2002) [See

Attachment 1] required all cities and counties to use urban land wisely and protect

natural resources, as well as draw urban growth boundaries around their limits. An

urban growth boundary is a line drawn on planning and zoning maps to outline where a

city will allow itself to grow; where development should and should not occur over a

certain period of time. Today each of Oregon’s 241 cities is surrounded by a UGB. The

land outside the UGB remains rural with zoning prohibiting urban development or the

installation of urban services. This land is to continue to be used for farming, forestry or

low-density residential development. The boundaries are drawn based on an analysis of

local commercial, residential, industrial and recreational needs for a 20-year period and

can be reconsidered every 5-7 years to reflect changing circumstances in the

community. The city then annexes the “urbanizable” land between the UGB and the

1 Complete information on DLCD´s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines can be found online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/goals.html.

6

current city limits and allows development in these areas.2 (Colorado Sprawl Action

Center 2002, Metro 2002, 1000 Friends of Oregon 2002, Byrd 2001, DLCD 1995, DLCD

2002)

According to Metro, Portland’s regional government, and the group responsible for the

boundary planning effort since 1979, urban growth boundaries promote the efficient use

of land and public facilities and services within the boundary. Metro lists the following

benefits of UGBs. Urban growth boundaries provide:

- motivation to develop and redevelop buildings in the urban core, helping to

keep downtowns in business

- assurance for businesses and local governments to about where to put the

infrastructure needed for future development

- efficiency for business and local governments in terms of how infrastructure is

built—money can be spent improving the infrastructure already in place

(Metro 2002)

The UGB program in Portland has shown tangible and visible benefits, but the UGB´s

main value is found in the pressure it applies on municipalities to directly consider the

future costs and effects of unplanned urban sprawl. Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept

decides how the UGB is managed while protecting the community characteristics valued

by Portland residents. (Metro 2002) [See Attachment 2]

Determining the UGB is a joint effort, uniting municipal and county governments with

citizen involvement and community coordination so that growth plans do not conflict but

reinforce each other. Cities and counties play a vital role, but citizens play the most

important role and should be involved in every phase of the project, since they are the

ones who have to live with the decision in the future. They lend a voice in the location of

the boundary expansions, how much land is needed and who will manage the growth of

the boundary. Many citizens have come together in nonprofit groups to monitor and

2 Portland, Oregon’s UGB encompasses about 370 square miles (230,000 acres) and contains a population of over 1.3 million people. The UGB has been moved about 3 dozen times since its inception in the 1970s. Most of these adjustments were small (20 acres or less) but in 1998 3,500 acres were added and 380 acres were added in 1999. Over the last 10 years, expansions to the UGB have increased the land base by only 2% while Portland’s population has grown 17%. In October 2000 Metro adopted the 1997-

7

engage in the process of urban growth management. (Byrd 2001, Colorado Sprawl

Action Center 2002, Metro 2002)

Nonprofit Organizations: Roles and Characteristics

Americans address issues not just as

individuals, but also in groups, many of these

groups being classified as “nonprofit”. These

groups are known by a variety of terms (See

Figure 1) however, the term nonprofit

organization (NPO) will be used in this paper.

Nonprofit organizations in general are often the

agents of innovation in American public life.

According to the Urban Institute (UI) in its

Research Initiative on Nonprofit Advocacy, “a

vibrant nonprofit sector shapes public life and is

itself shaped by engagement with state and

market actors”. NPOs exist on every side of

almost every issue. They devote themselves

to correcting defects or injustices as they perceive them in American public life. They

are often formed in response to the government’s or other groups’ failure to deal

effectively with an issue. Nonprofit organizations use a full range of techniques to

engage with both policy-makers in government and opinion-shapers in culture and

society. (Urban Institute 2001)

NPOs are self-governing, voluntary and may not distribute profits. These groups

operate for public, not private benefit, serving both public purposes as well as common

member goals (i.e. economic interests or shared views on public policy processes).

They are initiated by citizens and represent their views, express their priorities and take

actions they support. NPOs can pursue activities without reference to government or

activities that influence government; they can represent peoples’ preferences or try to

2017 Land Needs Report, which found that there was no need for Metro to increase the UGB at that time. Metro will update the 20-year Land Supply reports and make any changes to the UGB in 2002. (Metro)

Various terms for NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS (NPOs)

Not-for-profit Interest groups – public, special, single Non-governmental Tax-exempt groups Lobbyists Philanthropic Government grantees Voluntary associations Civic sector organizations Independent sector organizations Social sector organizations (From Research Initiative… and Boris)

FIGURE 1

8

subvert the implementation of public interests. Though they only make up about 5% of

all organizations/businesses/groups in the United States, NPOs play prominent political,

economic and social roles in society. They voice their concerns to government, monitor

the impact of government, business and other nonprofit activities on the public and

provide various services to the public.3 (Boris 1999, Urban Institute 2001)

Nonprofits in the Role of Advocacy

Advocacy has long been part of the mission of nonprofit organizations. The Urban

Institute discusses how NPOs pursue a wide range of activities which constitute

advocacy in the broadest sense. Betsy Reid, a presenter for the Urban Institute’s

Research Initiative on Nonprofit Advocacy, says that advocacy has multiple meanings

depending on the context in which it is used. It “broadly describes the influence of

groups in shaping social and political outcomes in government and society, both

representational and participatory aspects of groups as intermediaries between citizens

and decision-makers, types of organizations and their capacity to advocate and

strategies of action in different venues.” (Reid 2000, Urban Institute 2001)

The Urban Institute differentiates between society-focused advocacy (efforts to shape

public opinion, norms and values and the institutions that uphold them) and government-

focused advocacy (efforts to influence government policies). NPOs do not exist directly

between society and government but are separate, with their own roles based on

interactions with society and government. It is the forms of advocacy and the

organizations´ activities that “define the distinctive place of nonprofit organizations in

public life”. (Urban Institute 2001)

Nonprofits engage in the role of advocacy because they need to in order to achieve their

goals and/or to enhance the representation of the policy process through citizen

participation. In the role of advocacy in the public policy realm, nonprofit groups often try

to educate the public and encourage individuals to sign petitions or to contact their

representatives directly. Reid lists several other types of advocacy activities that NPOs

3 Most research has been conducted on NPOs who work for charitable and social purposes - which make up the majority of NPOs. There are divergent views on the subject of how to analyze nonprofit groups

9

are involved in: communication with regulators, grassroots lobbying, direct contact with

legislators, public interest litigation, researching and suggesting preferred solutions, and

agenda setting and policy design. (Boris 1999, Hill ___, Reid 2000)

Power of Social Capital

NPOs use volunteers as staff, fundraisers and members of their boards, who bring

expertise and resources from communities, businesses and the government. These

individuals work together toward mutual goals and to solve problems. Nonprofits can

use their resources in various methods of bargaining and social exchange in their

relationships with other parties. (Boris 1999, Urban Institute 2001)

Nonprofit organizations create cooperative networks and relationships with other groups

and institutions- relationships of trust and reciprocity that build social capital. These

networks allow nonprofit groups to function more effectively and gain greater power

towards achieving their objectives; social capital enhances groups’ abilities to help

themselves without government. Social capital is used as a “means of contesting with

economic power for influence within the political system.” (Urban Institute 2001)

Nonprofit Organizations as Key Players in Urban Planning and Policy

Urban communities often depend on NPOs to provide public services, form coalitions

and promote community partnerships to solve a wide variety of urban problems.

Nonprofit organizations are a major way through which ordinary citizens can participate

in political policy and processes, providing a type of grass roots democracy by allowing

people with similar goals to group together and have a stronger voice than they would as

individuals. The participation of these neighbourhood, citywide, region or statewide

groups aids in the planning and overview of many municipal services. As a group,

people can support the urban government and even provide services that the

government may not have the funds or manpower to do on its own.

through various theories and models. There has been no agreement on the social and political implications of the roles of groups. (Boris1999, Urban Institute 2001)

10

Community, regional or state-wide nonprofit groups involved in urban planning and

policy can take on a variety of structures and roles and their purposes can change over

time.4 Citizens participate by joining together to accomplish various goals such as:

- fostering community participation and engagement

- promoting and preserving civic or family values

- enhancing quality of life for community residents

- generating knowledge through education and research

- creating community economic and social infrastructure

- advocating for or against public policies

- providing services to other nonprofit groups

(Boris 1999, Urban Institute 2001)

Several examples of nonprofit organizations active in the American urban planning realm

are: the Urban Institute, the Smart Growth Network, the American Planning Association

and, at a statewide level, 1000 Friends of Oregon.

CASE STUDY: 1000 Friends of Oregon

History and Objectives

In the early 1970s Governor Tom McCall passed Senate Bill 100- a landmark legislation

that created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), empowered

to adopt statewide planning goals and guide the state’s growth. Soon after, Henry

Richmond, a young attorney, asked for Governor McCall’s help in creating a “state-wide,

full-time, professionally staffed, citizen organization whose sole purpose was to urge

state and local bodies of government to make good land use planning decisions.” (1000

Friends of Oregon) The governor knew it would take more than government action for

the LCDC and the new statewide planning goals to succeed; it would take the vigilance

and support of Oregon’s citizens. [See Attachment 1] Therefore, 1000 Friends of

Oregon was incorporated on January 8, 1975 and Oregonians were now able to have a

4 “Principles of commonality by which groups define themselves and under which individuals affiliate with particular groups are virtually unconstrained by legal rules”. (Urban Institute 2001)

11

part in governing their own growth rather than be governed by it. (1000 Friends of

Oregon 2002, Louv 2000)

1000 Friends of Oregon is one example of an effective nonprofit organization involved in

advocacy work on urban planning issues. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a private, nonprofit,

charitable organization aimed at common sense planning and managed growth. It was

founded as the citizens’ voice for land use planning—a group that would help protect

Oregon’s quality of life from the effects of growth by advocating responsible land use

planning across Oregon. It has a staff of attorneys, planners, education specialists and

community organizers who work to oppose urban sprawl, protect farm and forest lands

and promote liveable communities.5 1000 Friends promotes compact cities with

affordable housing, transportation choices and greenspaces, aims to protect natural

resources and scenic areas in Oregon, and defends the opportunity for citizens to

participate in planning decisions that affect Oregon’s communities. (1000 Friends of

Oregon 2002, Louv 2000)

1000 Friends of Oregon began its work as a “watchdog” organization. It made sure that

political or local interests did not undermine land use laws. 1000 Friends staff read

hundreds of draft plan policies, zoning regulations and subdivision controls to make sure

that they carried out the law and goals of the state and collected information on how

these plans could be improved. Their work at this time was highly technical and time-

consuming but was completely necessary. But by 1986 the last local land use plan had

been adopted; the politics of planning in Oregon was changing and 1000 Friends’ role

within that domain had to change along with it. 1000 Friends needed to do more than

supervise the implementation of planning laws—the group shifted to monitoring the

entire system and proposing new policies and programs. (1000 Friends of Oregon 2002,

Oliver 1992)

Figure 2 illustrates some of 1000 Friends of Oregon´s roles and objectives.

5 Today 1000 Friends of Oregon has over 5000 members, 16 board members, a 13-member staff in Portland, a range of 20 to 100 volunteers and four regional offices: Southern Oregon, Willamette Valley, Lane County and Central Oregon. Its assets for the 2001-year totaled $374,654 and its income that year was $1,253,784. 1000 Friends´ financial profile and tax information is available at www.guidestar.org. (Guidestar 2002)

12

Social Capital and Affiliations

1000 Friends´ objectives are carried out in conjunction with other local, regional and

state-wide land use efforts with whom 1000 Friends has signed affiliation agreements.

The organization´s evolving and expanding role meant that it could not effectively

monitor the over 20,000 annual land use decisions made in Oregon´s counties and

cities. Therefore, in the 1990s 1000 Friends concentrated efforts on helping local

citizens create their own independent “watchdog” organizations.6 The affiliate network is

mutually beneficial. 1000 Friends assisted the groups with education and expertise,

support and information, while they provided 1000 Friends with knowledge of land

conditions and local politics. 7 8 These local groups could monitor community plans and

regulations, educate their public, research the implementation of statewide planning

goals in their local context and continue to challenge the deliberations of the Land

6 1000 Friends of Oregon is also a founding and active member of the Coalition for a Livable Future, a diverse coalition of over 60 organizations who “work together to create a more equitable and sustainable Portland metropolitan region”. The Coalition advocates for the environment, affordable housing, the social and economic vitality of poor neighbourhoods and transportation alternatives. The Coalition’s web site can be found at http://www.clfuture.org/.

7 Citizen participation is one of the major goals of Oregon´s state wide planning initiative [See ATTACHMENT 1]. The involvement of citizens is essential in order to provide a level of scrutiny that exposes potential violations of government action by providing local factual information.

-         defend and improve state regulations and land use laws-         develop new policies/programs to help Oregon manage growth at the local, regional and state levels-         get involved in litigation to enforce existing laws and establish legal -         hold annual Citizens Conference on Land Use-         provide technical and legal skills training programs on a variety of topics-         participate in public forums, making speeches on current issues-         publish Landmark newsletter and other informational materials-         analyze progress and achievements in farm and forest protection-         ensure adequate land supplies for a wide variety of housing types-         develop a land use alternative to a proposed bypass highway-         digitized mapping of rural development patterns

Research

FIGURE 2 1000 Friends of Oregon – Various Roles and Objectives

Advocacy

Education

FIGURE 2

13

AFFILIATES of 1000 Friends of Oregon

1000 Friends of Oregon coordinates a statewide network of local and regional organizations with a strong interest in land use and growth management.

Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County Columbia County Citizens for Orderly Growth Friends of Eugene County Friends of Linn County Friends of Yamhill County Hood River Valley Residents´ Committee Jackson County Citizen’s League Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition

(adapted from 1000 Friends of Oregon)

Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Oregon Legislature. (1000

Friends of Oregon 2002)

The organization now rarely gets involved in

local issues, but concentrates on major county

level or statewide land use issues that affect

significant areas. 1000 Friends operates on

the belief that local citizens have the power to

influence and change Oregon´s statewide

planning tools. According to Evan Manvel, the

1000 Friends staff planner who currently works

with the organization’s affiliated groups, all the

groups have been successful in gaining public

recognition and influence. He says, “Local

citizens have the knowledge and the passion

to defend their communities and they really put

themselves on the line... Their energy and

dedication inspire us and make it possible for

us to be effective around the state in a way

we never could otherwise.”9 (1000 Friends of

Oregon 2002, Oliver 1992)

The work of 1000 Friends offices is funded by membership contributions, foundation

grants, major donations and gifts from other sources. Partnerships and affiliations have

translated into the group obtaining greater influence in policy debates and litigation

suits.10 (1000 Friends of Oregon 2002, Guidestar 2002)

8 1000 Friends also has strategic alliances with groups which are frequently at odds with conservationist ideals. When necessary, the organization has cooperated with groups such as the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Oregon Forest Industries Council and the Home Builders of Metropolitan Portland.

9 Quote from Richmond, founder of 1000 Friends. “Planning is not an ad hoc operation and citizen involvement should not be that way either. The counties have had to change and we’ve got to get citizens to change too. We need people to grab hold of their comprehensive plans and say ‘this is mine’”. Quote from Henry Richmond, founder of 1000 Friends of Oregon. (1000 Friends of Oregon 2002, Oliver 1992)

10 Litigation is only a small part of 1000 Friend´s activities and is only undertaken as a last resort. 1000 Friends of Oregon has won 90% of the lawsuits it has been involved in.

FIGURE 3

14

1000 Friends as a Model For Nonprofit Involvement

Several states have adopted growth management programs using Oregon´s laws as a

model. They also recognize that 1000 Friends of Oregon has been an essential

contributor to the success of Oregon´s growth management policies. Florida, Hawaii,

Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Washington

and Wisconsin all have their own 1000 Friends organizations.11 Other nonprofit

organizations, research institutions and government agencies look to 1000 Friends of

Oregon as a respected source of information on urban growth management. The

organization has received national exposure being featured in articles in the New York

Times, The Nation, USA Today, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune about

urban planning in Oregon. (1000 Friends of Oregon 2002, Oliver 1992)

Urban Growth Boundaries- 1000 Friends´ Involvement

Since the late 1970s, 1000 Friends of Oregon has worked to ensure that Oregon´s urban

growth boundaries are based on clear principles outlining where development is

appropriate and solid data about future growth rather than on political and financial

aspirations of elected officials and local land owners and developers. 1000 Friends has

worked in the courtroom, the Oregon Legislature, city council chambers and with the

press advocating effective and efficient urban development which protects resource

lands and saves taxpayers money. (1000 Friends of Oregon 2002)

11 Several cities and regions also have a 1000 Friends organization. For example: Fresno (California), Kaua´i (Hawaii), Metropolitan Detroit (Michigan), Cleveland (Ohio), Houston (Texas), Alexandria (Virginia) and Long Island (New York).

15

1000 Friends of Oregon vs. Metro

1000 Friends of Oregon and Washington County Farm Bureau (petitioners)

vs. Metro (respondent) and Ryland Homes, Inc. and Springville Road Joint Venture

(intervenors-respondent). (Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals 2000)

Oregon´s policies surrounding urban growth boundaries lay out a process for selecting

areas of “urbanizable” land to be included in a boundary expansion, and criteria defining

which lands could be included. Farm and forest lands would be the last resort, while

lands already impacted by development (“exception lands”) would be the first priority for

inclusion in the boundary.

In March 1997, Metro council designated almost 18,600 acres of urban reserves for the

upcoming boundary expansion. Several areas of excellent farmland and a controversial

piece of prime farmland (463 acres) near Hillsboro, owned by the Sisters of St. Mary,

were included in the designation. 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Oregon and Washington

County Farm Bureaus and several other organizations decided to fight this expansion.

1000 Friends and its partners (the petitioners) felt Metro had failed to evaluate partly

developed exception lands next to the UGB which had not been included in the

expansion, but should, by law, be the first lands included, while high value farmland was

included instead.

The growth boundary expansion decision had involved intense lobbying by major

developers, powerful attorneys and political figures. Landowners, developers, local

government agencies, farm bureaus, nonprofit organizations and state agencies all filed

briefs for the case. The case was the largest ever to come before the Oregon Land Use

Board of Appeals (LUBA). (Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals 2000)

In February 1999, the Land Use Board of Appeals handed 1000 Friends and their

partners an overwhelming victory. Not only did the ruling reject Metro´s designation of

certain parcels, but the entire 18,579 acres, reporting that Metro´s errors were so

“general and pervasive that the entire decision was invalid”. Developers, property

owners, and the City of Hillsboro joined Metro in appealing the decision. However, in

January 2000, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the LUBA´s decision and went

16

further to say that Metro had based its original boundary delineation on an inflated

projection of how much land would be needed for housing and jobs. (1000 Friends of

Oregon 2002, Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals 2000)

Accomplishments and On-Going Efforts

Figure 4 illustrates several examples of how 1000 Friends of Oregon has made

difference in how Oregon has managed its growth in the past.

The organization intends to continue to devote itself to protecting Oregon´s land use

legacy from continued challenges. Its objectives for the 21st century include:

- “increasing professional support for local land use organizations

- continuing to participate the development and implementation of Oregon’s

regional planning effort, carried out by Metro and in collaboration with its

partners

- expanding alliances to include responsible developers, tree farmers, and

local officials sympathetic to its objectives

Mid 1980s Initiated studies which revealed problems with the administration of land use laws protecting farm, forest and range lands in the counties. Led to the Legislature requiring annual reporting by each county and changes to land use laws to provide better protection of productive lands.

1989 Teamed up with Home Builders of Metropolitan Portland to evaluate the efforts of the Portland region in meeting state goals of more compact and lower-cost housing. Made recommendations for additional steps to make it easier to build this housing in the future.

1990-1997 Explored alternatives to a planned bypass highway through Washington County. By 1997 an alternative was adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation. (LUTRAQ)

1996 Conceived the idea and raised money to research the effects of current development trends on timber producers, farmers and taxpayers. Explored better alternatives to save land and money.

2001 Expanded local outreach by operating regional offices to serve individuals, communities and other nonprofit groups throughout Oregon. Protected Oregon´s land use legacy from Measure 7 which had proposed to compensate land owners for any reduction in land value that the urban growth boundaries may have caused. (Measure 7 was deemed unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court).

Examples of Work and Accomplishments of 1000 Friends of Oregon

FIGURE 4

17

- working with other groups to stop the sprawl that is destroying the beauty and

natural resources of the coastline

- playing a role in shaping state transportation policy to ensure that

transportation solutions encourage community, not sprawl, and reflect

regional differences

- increasing their educational programs and materials to guarantee that

citizens, not just lawyers or planners, can participate in land use proceedings

- carry on their research and analysis activities so they can continue providing

the relevant, high-quality information12 needed to monitor Oregon’s progress

in managing growth and creating improvements

- continue guarding against violations of state and local land use laws and of

blocking efforts to weaken the planning program in the Legislature”

(1000 Friends of Oregon 2002)

1000 Friends Executive Director Bob Stacey says, “We need to be speaking out for

development that strengthens our communities while protecting the countryside.

Oregonians rightly expect a future that is better than today. We will help them realize

that future.” (1000 Friends of Oregon 2002)

12 Some examples of publications and research by 1000 Friends of Oregon are: Myths and Facts About Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries, The Debate Over Density, and various other citizens guides to land use proceedings and appeals.

18

Conclusion

The state of Oregon has achieved successes in its growth management strategy—a

major portion of this strategy involving the use of urban growth boundaries. According to

Alternatives to Growth Oregon (2001),” Oregon´s land use planning program has been

exemplary on both a national and global level”. The city of Portland, Oregon´s liveability

is argued to have increased substantially over the past 20 years because of planning

that has tried to mitigate the impacts of growth.

Urban communities often depend on nonprofit organizations to provide public services,

form coalitions and promote community partnerships to solve a wide variety of urban

problems. Oregon´s growth management strategy could not be as successful without

the participation and activities of one particular nonprofit citizen advocacy group: 1000

Friends of Oregon. 1000 Friends has effectively generated social capital through its

cooperative network of local, regional and statewide organizations through which it

accomplishes its goals. It has also been effective in generating knowledge through

education and research, fostering community engagement, promoting civic values,

creating social infrastructure, advocating for and against planning policies and overall

enhancing the quality of life for Oregon residents.

Brent Curtis, Planning Manager for Washington County states, “I have a great deal of

respect for their role and their principles, and how they carry them out. They´re good at

what they do.” (Oliver 1992) James Howard Kunstler, author of the book “The

Geography of Nowhere” attributes the success of Portland´s growth management to its

unique emphasis on “the connections and cooperation built between organizations, city

institutions and the city´s inhabitants.” (Scheuerer 2002) Lastly, “ ´1000 Friends of

Oregon has shown how citizens can create a good statutory framework for growth and

make it stick´, says Curtis Johnson (former executive director of the Citizen’s League of

Minneapolis-St.Paul). ´Whether you agree with their approach or not, you have to

admire their effectiveness. For 20 years they’ve stood guard at the gate, preventing the

dismantling of the state’s land use law.´ ” (Oliver 1992)

1000 Friends of Oregon has been called the nation´s “premier growth management

citizen advocacy organization.” (Alternatives to Growth Oregon 2001) It has worked to

19

ensure that Oregon´s growth management strategies are based on solid data about

future growth, protect resource lands and improve residents´ overall quality of life. The

organization has enforced urban growth boundaries and aided in densifying urban areas,

thus reducing the effects of urban sprawl in Oregon. It is now serving as a model for

similar groups around the country, with citizens in other states creating their own 1000

Friends organizations to manage growth in their own communities and regions.

20

References

1000 Friends of Oregon. (2002). 1000 Friends of Oregon web site. Retrieved

September, 2002, from www.1000friendsoforegon.org/.

1000 Friends of Oregon. (2002). Holding back the tide. Retrieved November, 2002, from

www.friends.org/issues/urbandev.html.

1000 Friends of Oregon. (2002). The proper diet for healthy local watchdogs: citizen

groups translate lofty goals into local action. Retrieved September, 2002, from

www.friends.org/involve/citgroups.html.

1000 Friends of Oregon. (2002). The story of Oregon´s planning program & 1000

Friends of Oregon. Retrieved October, 2002, from www.1000friendsoforegon.org/.

Alternatives to Growth Oregon. (2001). Managing growth. Retrieved November, 2002,

from http://www.agoregon.org/growth/managing.asp

Boris, Elizabeth T., Steuerle, Eugene, C. (editors). (1999). Nonprofits and government:

collaboration and conflict. The Urban Institute. Retrieved October, 2002 from

http://www.urban.org/pubs/npag/intro.html.

Byrd, Rodney. (2001). Information on using urban growth boundaries to fight urban

sprawl. Retrieved November, 2002, from

http://ohoh.essortment.com/informationonu_rjsw.htm.

Colorado Sprawl Action Center. (2002). Planning future growth areas: urban growth

boundaries and contiguity. Growth management toolkit. Retrieved October, 2002,

from www.sprawlaction.org/toolkit/5planning.html.

ConservationEconomy.net. (_). Pattern: urban growth boundaries . Retrieved November,

2002, from www.conservationeconomy.net/textonly.cfm?PatternID=33.

Hill, Francis, R. (_). Nonprofit organizations´activities and representative democracy: a

background paper. Retrieved November, 2002, from

http://www.urban.org/advocacyresearch/background_paper.html.

Guidestar. (2002). 1000 Friends of Oregon report. Retrieved November, 2002, from

www.guidestar.org.

Land Use Board of Appeals of the State of Oregon. (2000). 1000 Friends of Oregon and

Washington County Farm Bureau petitioners vs. METRO respondent. LUBA No.

2000-02. Full opinion and order. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from

http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2000/sep00/00002.htm.

Land Use Board of Appeals of the State of Oregon. (2001). Goal 14 information.

Retrieved November 20, 2002, from http://luba.state.or.us/hnall/18.4.htm.

Louv, Richard. (2000). Slow-growth groups multiplying. The San Diego Union – Tribune.

Sept 17, 2000, column The Future’s Edge, page A-3. San Diego, California.

21

Louv, Richard. (2000). New group with vision, fire needed. The San Diego Union –

Tribune. Sept 24, 2000; column The Future’s Edge, page A-3. San Diego, California.

Metro. (2002). The nature of 2040: the region´s 50-year plan for managing growth.

Retrieved October 6, 2002 from

http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=266.

Oliver, Gordon. (1992). 1000 Friends are watching. Planning. American Planning

Association, November, 58, 11, Chicago.

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). (1995). What

Oregon’s planning program does for Oregon. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from

www.uoregon.edu/~pppm/landuse/program.html.

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). (2002).

Oregon´s 19 statewide planning goals and guidelines. Retrieved November, 2002,

from http://www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/goals.html.

Reid, Elizabeith, J. (2000). Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: a seminar series.

The Urban Institute. Retrieved November, 2002, from

http://www.urban.org/pdfs/structuring.pdf.

The Urban Institute Research Initiative on Nonprofit Advocacy. (2001). Nonprofit

organizations´advocacy activities: association, participation and representation. A

background paper for nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A seminar series.

The Urban Institute. Retrieved October, 2002, from

http://www.urban.org/advocacyresearch/.

Scheuerer, K., Jourdan, M., Durrance, J.C., Pettigrew, K. (2002). CascadeLink fosters

community connections. University of Washington. Retrieved November, 2002, from

www.cascadelink.org.

Squires, Gregory (editor), (2002). Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy

Responses. The Urban Institute Press. May. Retrieved November, 2002, from

http://www.urban.org/pubs/urbansprawl/one.htm.

22

Attachments

Attachment 1

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines:

GOAL 1: Citizen Involvement

GOAL 2: Land Use Planning- Exceptions

GOAL 3: Agricultural Lands

GOAL 4: Forest Lands

GOAL 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources

GOAL 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality

GOAL 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards

GOAL 8: Recreational Needs

GOAL 9: Economic Development

GOAL 10: Housing

GOAL 11: Public Facilities and Service

GOAL 12: Transportation

GOAL 13: Energy Conservation

GOAL 14: Urbanization

GOAL 15: Willamette Greenway

GOAL 16: Estuarine Resources

GOAL 17: Coastal Shorelands

GOAL 18: Beaches and Dunes

GOAL 19: Ocean Resources

23

Attachment 2 Map A: Portland, Oregon´s Urban Growth Boundary

Map B: Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept