First Advisor

Marko L. Haggard

Date of Publication


Document Type


Degree Name

Master of Arts (M.A.) in Political Science


Political Science




Oregon, Land Use Planning Law, Regional planning -- Law and legislation -- Oregon



Physical Description

1 online resource (495 p.)


Theoretical literature on the politics of land use is so limited that original research into the problem was required. The drafting and enactment of Senate Bill 100 by the Fifty-seventh Session of the Oregon Legislature provided the basis for researching my premise of need equals want. The bill designated state land use planning organizational structure.

The Land Use Policy Committee minutes and Legislative minutes were merged with information attained through personal interviews from a variety of participants in the drafting of the Senate Bill 100. Theoretical literature was equally available in Public Administration, Law and Land Use Planning. The Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oregon plus the Oregon Revised Statutes were fundamental in the research.

The research material on the politics of land use was found by sifting through public and private records and four separate libraries: Oregon State Archives, the Oregon State Law Library, Multnomah County Law Library and Portland State University Library. Personal interviews provided valuable additional data.

The politics of land use is the lengthy saga of the enactment of Senate Bill 100 (1973) by the Oregon Legislature. It is the story of the bill’s conception, conflicts and compromises.

The Land Use Policy Committee (LUPC), Created and chaired by State Senator Hector Macpherson, drafted the original SB 100 in 1972, which was assigned to the Oregon Senate Environment and Land Use Committee (SELUC) in January, 1973. The LUPC bill was designed of, by and for proponents of land use planning. When the opponents to the planning concept were heard by the SELUC, need vs. want made passage of Senate Bill 100 a political impossibility. The issues that surfaced generated a series of conflicts which required political compromises. In addition to the primary conflict, need vs. want, there were provocations concerning localism vs. regionalism; economy vs. environment and who holds what reins of power.

The Drafting Subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee of the SELUC made six significant changed in SB 100 to insure legislative enactment of the bill in 1973. The changes, while resolving most of the conflicts, still did not equate need and want, so the SELUC added a Statement of Legislative Intent, not to SB 100, but to the Senate Journal as a limit on administrative power.

The last political compromise was made during the Senate Floor Debate on SB 100 when the emergency clause was removed from the bill. To all intents and purposed, need equaled want with Senate passage.


In Copyright. URI: This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).


If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have it removed from the Open Access Collection, please submit a request to and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL

Persistent Identifier