Suggestion for dealing with Measure 37 (land-use laws)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Please refresh my memory on this point, but is the legislature required to refer proposed tax increases to the voters? Or is it just customary?

If not, and if the Dems get control of the state government, here's what they should do, oh-so-innocently.

They should hold a big news conference in which they say that they are required to uphold the will of the people AND maintain a balanced budget. Since they can no longer cut state services without endangering the health and safety of the people to an intolerable level, they are going to pass a 5% sales tax to fund the costs of Measure 37 as long as it is in force. If the voters repeal 37, then the sales tax will disappear. However, they are not going to let Oregon turn into Strip Mall Hell (cf. most of the newer Minneapolis suburbs).

I wonder how long 37 would last under those circumstances. :evilgrin:

[0rganism]

1. Nope. Such a tax would be repealed by referendum in the next election

How are we going to pay for the retroactive litigations? I don't know. Should be interesting.

[bobaloo2]

2. Not the way

The problem is that the land use laws are implemented at the city and county levels, that's where the money would have to come from. Since they don't have the money they have to do away with the rules.

To give a concrete example, I had a local farmer ask to annex 400 acres to build a 1000-home subdivison on his farm. Under current law that's clearly not allowed. Under Measure 37 we would either have to allow the homes to be built or pay him the difference in value. Farmland, about $3,000 per acre or $1.2 million total, subdivision about $30,000 per acre or $12 million total, for an out of pocket price of $10.8 million for just one example.

At this point the only hope I can see is a court challenge, similar to measure 7.

[kostya]

8. Furthermore, there is additional pressure in the first place

for the local jurisdictions to allow such re-valuations as it brings in lots of tax money. - K

[mia_placidus]

21. Brings in tax money

But. But. For years they have been saying the tax revenue does not cover the tax expenditures, therefore green space is tax-positive.
Since farmers are paying $3 in taxes for every dollar in services, who wouldn't want to be a farmer? We've got to save thes guys so they can continue to exist in tax inequity, and profit negative condition for our benefit!

[mia_placidus]

15. Measure 37

Measure 37 doesn't do away with the rules, doesn't apply to any property purchased after the rules went into effect. It only means that a waiver must be granted for that property unless the county wishes to pay for the disadvantageous cost.

All zoning laws are required to be for the public benefit. If the county can't come up with the money, or isn't willing to in order to keep it's green infrastructure, then your example merely proves that the ordinance is not for the public benefit, and should never have been allowed to begin with.

Now suppose the farmer had been allowed to build on his farm, and was already annexed. If he proposed to demolish those homes and put up a more dense development, that would be applauded as smart growth, even though it would still cause local infrastructure costs.

I own property in the city and in the county. The city plans to devalue my city property by creating a glut of high density homes that people don't want and will live in only because the county is devaluing my rural property by preventing me from building. In the city I have no recourse because, strictly speaking they haven't done anything to "my" property. In the city I have no recourse because, if I try to build a hundred peple will show up at the hearing claiming I am somehow damaging "their" properties.

All measure 37 does is say that you can't have it both ways.

[Blue Topaz]

3. I am so depressed this passed

There is no way that city and county govts can hope to pay off even a small handful of these cases. Result: say buh-bye to our land use laws. If the local govts can't pay out they have to waive the land use regulations.

I can't believe that the people of Oregon are willing to trash our nationally acclaimed land use laws.

Oh, and BTW, the Dems picked up some seats and now control the State Senate. That's a decent bright spot in a veritable feast of bad news.

[mia_placidus]

16. Land use laws

The land use laws are still in effect, this only means that
you cannot apply the rules retroactively. To the considerable
extent that people support the land use laws, you have nothing
to worry about, nothing says anyone has to file a claim if
they support the current law. 

Waivers will be granted only in the cases where the county
decides it is uneconomic to make restitution. A neighbor once
came to me with a petition to keep another neighbor from
subdividing 100 acres into 25 acre lots. "Why not just
buy it and not subdivide it?", I asked. "Oh, I
couldn't afford that", she said. "Well, what makes
you think the owner can afford that?" 

If it's too expensive for everybody, it's probably too
expensive for the owner, and the ordinance should not have
been enforced to begin with. The money the county would have
to spend is your money, how much are you willing to pay?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. However, the land-use laws are statewide, are they not?

Maybe some bold municipality needs to raise its taxes to cover the costs.

If I were to reform the initiative system, I would insist on two ironclad rules:

1) No paid petitioners, not by the hour, the month, or the year. Any petition that cannot gain volunteers is not "the will of the people."

2) Any measures that will require any unit of government to spend money must include either a revenue measure or a statement of which government services will be reduced or eliminated to pay for that measure.

The most irritating thing about the current initiative system is that ignoramuses deluded by crackpot millionaires can create messes for other people to deal with.

[bobaloo2]

5. Not really

There are statewide Goals, that describe ideals, then it is up the local governments to implement local Comprehensive Plans that meet the statewide goals. Finally, local planning and zoning ordinances are implemented, which have to be consistent with the adopted local Comprehensive Plan.

In other words, the statewide Goals give an overall policy, but the counties and cities are responsible for having the laws which implement the policy. It will be the local governments which bear the burden of Measure 37.

I'm a land use planner for a small town, needless to say we're scrambling trying to figure out what can be done to save what weve worked for the last 30 years.

[0rganism]

6. Any chance this law will be smashed in the courts?

It seems poorly written, and sufficiently complicated that it may need to go to court just for clarification. Are there any direct legal injunctions in the works?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. I wouldn't be surprsied if 1,000 Friends is pondering that same question

:eyes:

[mia_placidus]

22. Smash measure 37

Sure, lets use the courts to smash a proposal that has been suppported by 60% of the voting population - twice.

Now that is democracy in action.

[mia_placidus]

17. Initiative.

By corollary to your item 1, I would add no paid lobbying groups. that would eliminate the groups that got the land use laws passed that caused this mess.

I'd support your item 2 also provideed that it incuded a provision that the government not take money from the citizens unless they can show unequivocally that it is for the best economic good of the people.

Remember, the original land use law was supposed to contain a method of providing restitution for damage caused by land use laws, but the government (us) couldn't agree on a revenue measure to support the land use costs. It took us thirty years to realize that we had ripped ourselves off.

It's hard to call Dorothy English a crackpot millionaire.

[depakid]

9. Depends. The cities and counties are handling it differently.

Lane county is probably going to follow the state's lead or punt to LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals).

Beaverton is going to fight back HARD- the Council is establishing a claims process (with fees) that requires property owners to submit proof- and make it a part of the public record- which they plan to PUBLICIZE to members of the community. Kind of a shame game-

I expect that the legislature and the courts will also take into account the DECADES of tax breaks given to affected farm & woodlot owners in determining just compensation.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/09/ed.edit.measure37taxes.phn.110.html

Here's What Governor K had to say:

November 16, 2004
Governor Announces Initial Steps on Measure 37

(Salem, Ore.) – Governor Ted Kulongoski today announced six steps he has directed the state to undertake to develop a plan for implementing Ballot Measure 37. The measure becomes effective on December 2, 2004. Since before the election, the governor and his staff have been analyzing the potential effects of Measure 37 and preparing for its possible adoption.

“It is my sworn obligation to see that the laws of the state are fully and faithfully executed,” said the governor. “Although I continue to have concerns about this measure’s potential impact on our communities, our economy, and our quality of life, the measure has been passed into law by Oregon voters.”

Governor Kulongoski is working closely with Attorney General Hardy Myers, affected state agencies and local governments to identify a comprehensive plan that meets the requirements of the recently passed measure. Today, the governor announced the following six steps that are currently underway at his direction.

1) The governor has instructed state agencies to have a process ready by December 2, 2004 for persons who wish to file a state claim under Measure 37. The process will include a claim form and instructions for requesting compensation. Individuals requesting compensation under Measure 37 should complete and submit the state's claim form after December 2; claims submitted to the state prior to December 2 will not be processed.

2) At the governor’s direction, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) is working with the Department of Justice and other affected state agencies to implement a centralized, statewide system for receiving and processing claims involving state government. The process will be implemented by administrative rule and will include a mechanism for tracking data associated with responding to claims filed under the measure.

3) The governor has designated Lane Shetterly, the director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, to coordinate the state response to Measure 37. Shetterly will work closely with Mike Carrier of the governor’s staff to guide state policies related to the measure.

“Lane’s history of strong leadership in the state legislature, his position as DLCD Director, and his expertise in land use laws combine to make him the best person to lead us through this challenging period,” said the governor. “The passage of Measure 37 is a defining moment for Oregon’s nationally-recognized land use system. I am confident that the voters did not intend to unravel land use planning in Oregon and that they are depending on us to ensure that does not happen while we address their desire to incorporate a compensation measure into the system.”

4) The governor’s staff, assistant attorneys general and Shetterly are meeting with representatives from local governments to address waiver provisions under the measure and to establish coordination of the process to file claims.

“Cooperation and coordination between state and local government is imperative for effective implementation of the measure,” said the governor. “This measure does not grant local government the ability to implement blanket waivers of all land use laws. We need to ensure that any local waiver process does not result in an effective repeal of state land-use regulations.”

5) The governor’s office will continue to receive advice related to implementation of the measure from the attorney general’s office. Governor Kulongoski is also asking all state agencies requesting legal advice related to Measure 37 to coordinate requests through his Office of General Counsel in order to help with prioritization of the different legal issues associated with implementing the measure.

6) If there are elements of the measure that need to be addressed legislatively, the governor intends to work with legislative leadership to establish an expedited process to identify necessary changes to the new statute. The governor stated that any such process would be broadly representative, including both proponents and opponents of the measure, representatives of local government and other interested parties. He also stated that he will insist that their evaluation employ a consensus-based approach. He has instructed Shetterly to begin identifying potential people to participate in the process.

Governor Kulongoski and Attorney General Myers will continue to apprise Oregonians of the state’s progress towards implementation of Measure 37 in the coming weeks.

[0rganism]

11. It's actually funny -- now the anti-regulation zealots are pissed off

They thought they were going to destroy Oregon's land use laws pretty much entirely with this measure. Instead, the government is going to abide by the law and "pay up", and they now have a whole new legal process to wade through to establish "real" potential losses. And that thing with Beaverton publicizing the plaintiffs, that's gonna be fun.

This is all very interesting, in a circussy kind of way.

[mia_placidus]

18. Tax breaks

What decades of tax breaks? If they were prohibited from building and they got taxed as farm or woodlot (which is what they were) how is that a tax break?

Land use people are forever saying that farms pay $3 in taxes for every $1 in services they use. Even at land use rates that is not a break, that's tax inequity.

Even if building was allowed, and an owner voluntarily stayed in land use, he would be eligible for the lower tax rate. However, he might be subject to rollback, but that is usually just for five years.

I wouldn't count on seeing any substantive changes to measure 37: a sixty percent plurality - twice - is a pretty heavy hit. Land use proponents should be happy to be included in a "broadly representative process".

Be careful what you wish for here, if you get what you want, you will probably get the bill as well. Everybody is in favor of conservation as long as they don't have to pay for it.

[depakid]

24. You obviously don't understand the scheme

which is fair enough, since it's quite different than the dysfunctional system you are used to.

The tax breaks are in the form of what's called "expenditures" that exempt property from being taxed and provide incentives that provide for the financial viability of various "farm uses." There are also partial exemptions in the form of special rates of assessment that are well below market value for the land.

This is the tradeoff that rural landowners with qualifying property or uses receive. Unless you are a libertarian who doesn't understand why taxes are necessary or who simply thinks that rural improvements just pop-up like muhrooms in the spring, then you'll see that urban and suburban owners essentially subsidize farm and woodlot owners via their own property and income taxes that they pay at higher rates.

And, not being from Oregon, I think you underestimate the will and ability of the state and its public servants to deal with the law and make appropriate modifications so that people aren't being handed windfalls at the expense of the rest of us- which is the goal of many people who plan to file claims.

Oregon has no intention of looking or acting like Virginia- and thank God for that! Something to think about while you're stuck in traffic on some two lane highway headed toward the city.

On edit: If you're interested, here's a document that spells out much of the property tax scheme:

http://www.dor.state.or.us/statistical/ExpR0103/Chapter2.pdf

[fabius]

10. Our suggestion

My wife and I just sent this suggestion to our new State Rep:

Ok, the property owners affected are due compensation for "reductions in value" of their property based on zoning and other regulations adopted.

I guess each property owner will want to roll back the regulations to whatever year they (or their ancestors) first bought the property.

Well, let's turn back the clock to the same date, and assess them for all public improvements that have added to the value of their property, since that same "regulatory date", including but not limited to: roads, flood control, water, sewer, etc. Apportion their fair share of these public improvements as a tax payable on all capital gains from said property when they sell or subdivide it.

Then, put a tax surcharge on all capital gains from land development in general just to help pay administrative costs.

[mia_placidus]

19. Surtax

Haven't those people been paying their share all along? Isn't it a given among land use proponents that farms pay $3 in tax for every dollar in services?

Anyway, if you go that route, shouldn't everyone chip in a portion of their profit when they sell?

Should the owners of developed properties pay a larger share? After all it is well known that the value of properties is enhanced when they are adjacent to vacant land. Should the owners of undeveloped land get a cut when the developed landowner sells?

Isn't that what measure 37 does, more or less?

Why is it that an environmentalist is the last SOB to get a cabin in the woods and a developer is the next one?

[cattleman22]

12. Not from Oregon

As an out of stater I am curious about how liberals in Orgeon are taking this Measure. I am torn. I understand why planning if effective. However, coming from a farm background, i can see how some land zoning and regulations can ruin some families.
One way that farmers get through tough times or through retirement is by selling off a few small lots to build houses. However, in VA at least one county has regulations that say the minimum lot size to build a house is 50 acres. That effectively ruins this option for farmers. For many farmers, their land is their retirment fund. How would most people like it if government made the decision that all 401k's were going to be worth only 10% of their total value and that the government would not reimburse people for their loss. To many farmers, this is exactly what government zoning has done.

[depakid]

13. If you're from Virginia

and especially Northern Virginia- then you can see why we have land use laws in place. No. Va. (and in fact much of the southeast) is a hodgepodge of often corrupt little counties that spread generic suburban sprawl out endlessly without any rhyme or reason- frequently without adequate public transportation or even adequate roads for the increasing traffic.

Keeping Oregon's farm and woodlands from falling prey to that has been one of the State's greatest accomplishments- It's just tragic what has happened to Virgina's countryside- due mostly to developers and people who want to sell out and get rich quick.

I think you'd be surprised at how many farmers and woodland owners support- if sometimes grudgingly- Oregon's land use laws. They don't want what happened to Virginia to happen to the place that they've lived and loved all their lives.

Of course, as in any land use system- there are some problems- and that's part of what fuled the yes on 37 folks- but mostly it's not the farmers and woodlot owners (who've had hefty tax breaks for their lands compared with others)- it's their no good grubby heirs that want to mess things up.

Whenever I go visit relatives down south they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS complain about the loss of their farmland and open spaces to sprawl and they ALWAYS complain about the traffic. Yet paradoxically, they also seem- as a general rule- to oppose the very land use laws that might prevent that kind of thing from happening to them.

Go figure.

[mia_placidus]

23. From Virginia

I have two neighbors who mved out here and bought farms or farmettes with the money they got from selling their homes in close in Northern Virginia. they could retire with the change they had left over. The resulting pressure on farms has prompted a number of farmers, including the chairman of the planning commision in Loudoun county to sell out and buy a larger, more profitable farm elsewhere.

After years of fighting rural land development one of our county board members retired to a 20 acre lot in the country.

People WANT to live in the country. I own a house in Alexandria, but I live on the farm and commute. The Alexandria is gaining equity far faster than the farm, mainly because the land use laws in Alexandria were overrun by the exigencies of posulation. Yes, I'm one of the grubby heirs, and so were my wifes parents, and their parents, and their grandparents, and great-grandparents. Through all that time the farm has been getting progressively smaller, and more people have come to enjoy pieces of it. Sprawl is not new.

We have sunk $250,000 into rehabilitating "the farm" and it will never produce profit enough to justify the expenditure. Even having inheritied the farm, our retirement plan would be better off without it.

Any nuclear power plan has "some problems". But if those problems are visited on you by your neighbors, then it's a catastrophe, not a problem.

If you want to really anger a farmer, just try to explain why paying $3 in tax for $1 in services is a "tax break". It's only a tax break in comparison to the value that would be charged if the land was developable. If development is prohibited it's no longer a tax break.

Sure, we have more traffic, but it's not all due to sprawl. For one thing we have more destinations: how many soccer moms were there 25 years ago? How many women in the workplace?

Sure every time I get stuck in traffic, it costs me money. I could sit in traffic for the rest of my life and it wouldn't cost me as much as land use rules are costing me. It also wouldn't cost me as much as sitting on a railway car.

The county claims that agriculture is our biggest business, so we need to keep agriculture. They don't say that the profit from agriculture here works out to an average $2000 per farm loss. They don't point out that the loss is made up from off-farm income brought home by commuters(sprawlers), in fact they count it as part of the farm economy because it is spent on farm stuff! They don't say that the payroll for agriculture in this county is smaller thant the payroll for arts and entertainment, and this is no entertainment megalopolis here, we're talking ballet instructors and his scholl orchestra teachers. They don't say that the counties with the most agriculture are the most poverty stricken. They don't say that our surrounding counties have a per capita income $20,000 higher than ours.

Is greenspace worth keeping? Absolutely, but I can tell you it's not worth it to the people who own it unless they are very wealthy. Is that what land use laws are for, to preserve land for the wealthy? As far as I'm concerned they can buy twenty house lots and have a farm if they want. If we want to keep green space we will have to pay for it.

The problem with land use laws is that they mean get rich never, break even never, profit never.

Nine per cent of American farms make 95% of the profit and almost all of that comes from farm subsidies. We are exporting soybeans so cheap that Chinese farmers can't afford to grow them. They leave the farm and go manufacture goods that put our manufacturers out of business.

Hard as it may be to believe, the best thing we can do for the next hundred years or so is let our farmers stop farming. Remember, only 55 years ago 75% of farmland was needed just to pasture and feed the draft animals it took to run the farm. When the Ford 8N come out in 1952 it effectively made 75% of our farmland obsolete. When you add in the tremendous increases in productivity you see that 2% of our population lives on farms and we only need 15% of them to meet our agricultural needs.

Sprawl doesn't go on endlessly, without rhyme or reason. It stops when there are no jobs to be had. Construction is one of the largest industries in the nation and one of the last forms of manufacturing we have. Would we prefer no sprawl and no jobs?

[depakid]

25. How it works here

We have something called LCDC- the Land Conservation & Development Commission. It's a statewide agency that sets broad goals to assist local planners in putting together coherent sets of regulations that tie rationally back to commonly held values. These are embodied (as sort of mission statements- or objectives- if you're familiar with business plans) in the Statewide Planning Goals.

Currently, we have 19 of them. They are both substantive and procedural.

You can find them here:

http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml

There's an overview statement, which I'll copy & paste, so you get the general idea- and maybe see why it's different (better?) than other piecemeal systems.

"Since 1973, Oregon has maintained a strong statewide program for land use planning. The foundation of that program is a set of 19 Statewide Planning Goals.

The goals express the state´s policies on land use and on related topics, such as citizen involvement, housing, and natural resources.

Most of the goals are accompanied by ´guidelines,´ which are suggestions about how a goal may be applied. As noted in Goal 2, guidelines are not mandatory.

Oregon´s statewide goals are achieved through local comprehensive planning. State law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive plan and the zoning and land-division ordinances needed to put the plan into effect.

The local comprehensive plans must be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. Plans are reviewed for such consistency by the state´s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). When LCDC officially approves a local government´s plan, the plan is said to be ´acknowledged.´ It then becomes the controlling document for land use in the area covered by that plan.

Oregon´s planning laws apply not only to local governments but also to special districts and state agencies. The laws strongly emphasize coordination -- keeping plans and programs consistent with each other, with the goals, and with acknowledged local plans."

So, many of the concerns you raise and the issues and tradoffs you discuss we deal with here- inside the scheme- with much transparency and public involvement. We don't do like Virginia, North Carolina and the other Southeastern states. We don't hodgepodge- we choose to go deductive first- like any good business plan would- and then work out the finer details as exigencies arise.

We create urban growth boundaries and make sure there's adequate public transportation and other infrastructure. Sometimes, that requires the creation of additional local entities that include multiple counties- in recognition of the economic interdependence of certain regions. In Portland- we have Metro- which formally ties three counties' collective interests- and hence our planning decisions- together.

Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense; it creates efficiencies and cuts corruption out of the system.

And it's hard to argue with the results. Come to Oregon sometime and see- then drive up to Washington.

[doubleplusgood]

26. "Sprawl doesn't go on endlessly"

Ummm...ever been to L.A. ? Mindless sprawl there DOES go on endlessly & will only end when the suburbs of L.A. finally run into the suburbs from Phoenix & Las Vegas.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Another libertarian apology for sprawl

The "soccer moms" are the result of sprawl, not the cause of it. If families lived where kids could walk to school and run around their neighborhoods, there would be no need for five days a week of organized sports, and the moms would not be carting their kids from one suburb to another.

Sprawl causes increases in traffic simply because every member of the family over 16 has to have a car, it being impossible to go anywhere on foot, a bicycle, or transit. Whereas I grew up in a traditional city, with my parents owning one car, my brothers, living in the suburbs, have two or three cars. This can only result in more cars and therefore more traffic.

Judging from what I learned while working as a temp in a variety of suburban businesses near Minneapolis, one of the prime motivations for moving into office "parks" and industrial "parks" instead of redeveloping vacant land in the city was racism: the employers and co-workers spoke quite openly of not wanting to hire black people.

[0rganism]

14. Liberals are taking it in stride

To the disgruntlement of the measure's proponents, the state is now preparing to set up a process to compensate the "disadvantaged" landowners, rather than scrap zoning laws altogether.

as to your other gripes...
> i can see how some land zoning and regulations can ruin some families.

Of course, this measure applies to damn near all land zoning and regulation, not just "some" of it. Damn that land use law that prevents me from logging those trees next to the river! Guess I'll just sue the state for the price of that wood, and all future wood. What, now you're saying I can't build a 20-story waterfront apartment complex on those freshly-logged wetlands? Get real! Time to sue, again. And again. And again. And so on, and so forth.

Of course, you still couldn't build an adult book store or a strip club using this law, because that would just be... you know, wrong, and all that. Strip malls are fine, strip clubs are not.

> For many farmers, their land is their retirment fund.

They could consider selling it to other farmers, of course. Is that entirely out of the question for many farmers?

> How would most people like it if government made the decision that
> all 401k's were going to be worth only 10% of their total value

Don't be too surprised when the government does exactly this by hyperinflating the dollar to pay off its astounding debt.

[mia_placidus]

20. Out of state, too.

It's worse than that. Ostensibly the minimum lot size is fifty acres, but in fact because of other overlapping regulations it may be effectively or economically impossible to subdivide at all. My wife owns 180 acres, the only way she can access any of her wealth is to sell it all, including the only home she has ever known.

If we put a modest equestrian oriented rental home on the farm it would bring in more income than the rest of the farm together, but the county prohibited that. It's no wonder you get big developments that everyone hates, they won't let the little guy build a home that he would actuallly want to live next door to.

In her case, her father died when she was young, her mother spent years in a nursing home. Some of the farm had to be sold to meet their needs. The law states that the farm may not be reduced below 85% of the size it was in 1986. Therefore she can sell or move out.

When the land use laws were introduced, they included three administrative lots that could be sold off. Those provisions have since been eliminated, along with many others. It's the creeping crud of land planning.

At present, the only way for her to get out is to sell it at wholesale prices to someone who is far wealthier than we are. We will effectively subsidize an estate farm for the wealthy. In turn, he can afford to turn around and place a conservation easement on the property and get a tax break equivalent to over $900,000.

Compared to most people, the worst thing that can happen to us is still pretty good, but our neighbors get the benefit of what is damaging to us. It is also a lot less than the best thing that can happen.

As far as I am concerned, if some wealthy idiot thinks he wants to have a farm, at which he can only lose money, then he can afford to buy 20 10-acre house lots and have a farm on that.

People don't realize, that one way a farmer is compensated for the many risks he takes, is that he can fall back on the land. By eliminating that option PDR plans cripple the farmer.

Historically, central planning has proven that it produces bigger disasters than individual decisions. Many individual decisions amount to a kind of delphi process in which the conventional wisdom comes to light. It is the most fundamental kind of public participation. It's not perfect, as sprawl shows, but it's the best we've got.

Who would suggest that Stalin control our land plan? How about a central committee? A state land board? A local land board? The owner? now there's a concept.