A one-time fix to the Metro region's urban growth boundary quagmire might be a tempting fruit, but a more permanent solution would be better, councilors indicated at a work session Tuesday.
The council spent the last week debating its agenda for the 2014 Legislature, particularly focusing on a bill that would, as drafted, set in stone Metro's 2011 urban growth boundary expansion and bypass legal challenges against it.
Developers have warned that without the bill, homes that could otherwise start construction by the end of the year might not break ground until as late as 2019.
There was little support Tuesday for the bill as introduced, particularly with one line: in Section 2, the bill says the Legislature "establishes" the urban growth boundary of Metro as the boundary the Metro Council adopted in 2011.
Councilors didn't feel it was appropriate to create a precedent where the Legislature established the urban growth boundary. Instead, the Legislature should simply finalize Metro's decision and affirm the choices of the Metro Council and Land Conservation and Development Commission.
"The idea of having the Legislature being the final say of what the UGB should be is abhorrent," said Councilor Craig Dirksen. "The bill, if it's supported and if it goes through, needs to affirm our decision, not create their own decision."
But the council still was undecided about whether to support the bill and theoretically end the legal appeals of the 2011 decision, or simply to find a way to get the Oregon Court of Appeals to expedite review of UGB expansions.
As they went one-by-one around the table expressing their opinions on the bill, their collective voice started to more and more resemble a Jackson Pollock painting. Opinions ranged from support for the bill with the aforementioned amendments to full-throated opposition from Councilor Bob Stacey.
Councilor Kathryn Harrington suggested neutrality. "If the Legislature is going to consider any land use legislation, they should do so with great restraint and care, because we have a system that is familiar to so many people and has served our state pretty darn well," she said.
Metro Council President Tom Hughes and Councilor Carlotta Collette expressed frustration with the delays in the current system, but supported a new option from Metro staff, calling for a time limit for judicial review of UGB decisions.
Hughes said many of the legal challenges to urban growth boundary decisions are the result of parties simply wanting to delay a decision.
"Some of this would move toward that issue, of not allowing the courts to become this sort of sinkhole where ideas and projects go to die because they can't be sustained long enough to carry out a 10-year appeals process," Hughes said. "This is something we can do that's actually proactive."
The council is unlikely to reach a specific endorsement on the draft UGB bill anytime soon. It's scheduled to vote on its legislative policies and principles at its Thursday meeting.