* Robert Liberty has degrees from the University of Oregon Honors College, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School. During the 2002–03 academic year, when this Article was written, he was a Loeb Fellow at the Harvard Design School.
1 “Overall, the zoning pattern of Mount Laurel [was] neither more nor less exclusionary than that of most suburban communities . . . .” 2 Anderson’s American Law of Zoning � 8.18, at 52 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 4th ed. 1996).
2 S. Burlington NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713, 719 (N.J. 1975).
3 See 2 Anderson’s American Law of Zoning, supra note 1, � 8.02, at 8–9.
4 See, e.g., Kroner v. City of Portland, 240 P. 536, 538 (Or. 1925) (prohibition of dairy products store in a residential zone constitutional); State ex rel. Carter v. Harper, 196 N.W. 451, 452 (Wis. 1923) (upholding prohibition of a dairy and pasteurizing plant in a residential area).
5 Arthur C. Comey, Residential Zoning: Introductory Statement, in Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress on City Planning, Niagara Falls and Buffalo, N.Y.: May 26–28, 1919, at 159, 160 (1920).
6 Miller v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 234 P. 381, 387 (Cal. 1925); Brett v. Bldg. Comm’r, 145 N.E. 269, 271 (Mass. 1924).
7 See Christopher Silver, The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities, in Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows 25 (June Manning Thomas & Marsha Ritzdorf eds., 1997).
8 Ambler Realty Co. v. Vill. of Euclid, 297 F. 307, 313, 316 (N.D. Ohio 1924), rev’d 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
9 272 U.S. 365, 394 (1926).
10 Id. The Court stated:
With particular reference to apartment houses [namely residential neighborhoods made up of single family homes on their own lots], it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others . . . .
Id.
11 Fed. Hous. Admin., Underwriting Manual: Underwriting and Valuation Procedure Under Title II of the National Housing Act �� 935, 937 (1938). The manual reads:
[Section] 935 . . . Natural or artificially established barriers will prove effective in protecting a neighborhood and the locations within it from adverse influences . . . [including] prevention of the infiltration of business and industrial uses, lower class occupancy, and inharmonious racial groups . . .
. . . .
[Section] 937. Quality of Neighboring Development . . . Areas surrounding a location are investigated to determine whether incompatible racial and social groups are present, for the purpose of making a prediction regarding the probability of the location being invaded by such groups. If a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes.
Id.
12 See Fed. Hous. Admin., Land Planning Bulletin No. 1, Successful Subdivisions: Principles of Planning for Economy and Protection Against Neighborhood Blight 5, 7, 9 (n.d.); Conclusions of Community Builders’ Council, Columbus, Ohio, 14 (June 6, 1944) (manuscript, on file with Harvard University Loeb Design Library).
13 2 Anderson’s American Law of Zoning, supra note 1, � 8.18, at 50–51.
14 By contrast, the sizes of lots in the most celebrated large-scale, postwar suburban development, Levittown, were only 6000 square feet (less than one-third the size of the one-half acre lots in Mount Laurel) and the houses were 750 or 800 square feet. Lynne Matarrese, The History of Levittown New York 45 (1997).
15 141 A.2d 851, 853 (Pa. 1958).
16 447 U.S. 255, 262 (1980).
17 268 A.2d 765, 765–66 (Pa. 1970).
18 215 A.2d 597, 600 (Pa. 1965).
19 414 N.E.2d 680, 681 (N.Y. 1980).
20 406 A.2d 827, 828 (Pa. 1979).
21 See, e.g., Environmental Assessment Worksheets, EQB Monitor (Minn. Envtl. Quality Bd., St. Paul, Minn.), Dec. 27, 1999, at 1 (noting that Grey Fox Estates, a subdivision south of Minneapolis, has lots of five to twenty acres), http://www.mnplan.state. mn.us/pdf/1999/eqb/monitor/12-27-99.pdf (last visited Mar. 16, 2003); Yellowstone Creek Ranch (“Yellowstone Creek Ranch, located in beautiful Southern Colorado, is subdivided into 40-acre parcels ranging from level/fertile horse property at 7,800 feet in elevation to alpine meadows with trees at 9,400 feet.”), at http://www.jpking.com/auction_detail.php?auction_id=17301 (last visited Apr. 14, 2003); Waiki’i Ranch Homeowners Association about page (“Waiki’i Ranch is located in the middle of Parker Ranch country between 3,500 and 5,000 feet elevation. It is 13 miles from the town of Kamuela, and is nestled on the western slopes of Mauna Kea, a 13,800-foot high extinct volcano. The Ranch is over 2,000 acres in size, and consists of 10, 20, and 40-acre residential lots.”), at http://www.waikiiranchhoa.com/about.htm (last visited Apr. 4, 2003).
22 See generally, e.g., Myron Orfield, American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality (2002).
23 Dev., Cmty., & Envtl. Div., U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, EPA 231-R-01-002, Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality: Technical bulletin 4 (2001) [hereinafter Built and Natural Environments], available at http://www.epa. gov/smartgrowth/pdf/built.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2003).
24 Id. at 6 tbl.2-2.
25 Id. at 7 tbl.2-3.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 See Dana Beach, Pew Oceans Comm’n, Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States 4 (2002).
29 See Iowa State Univ. Statistical Lab., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory 36 tbl.5 (2000).
30 See Forest Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest Land and Range Lands 18 (2001) [hereinafter 2000 RPA Assessment], available at http://www. fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/rpaasses.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2003) (containing other useful references to the impacts of urban and low-density development).
31 See Built and Natural Environments, supra note 23, at i–iii.
32 See Office of Water, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Urbanization and Streams: Studies of Hydrologic Impacts (1998), available at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/ urbanize/report.html (last visited Apr. 4, 2003); see also Beach, supra note 28, at 7–12 (citing D.F. Boesch et al., Pew Oceans Comm’n, Marine Pollution in the United States: Significant Accomplishments, Future Challenges (2001); D. Booth & L. Reinelt, Consequences of Urbanization on Aquatic Systems: Measured Effects, Degradation Thresholds, and Corrective Strategies, in Proceedings of Watershed ’93: A National Conference on Watershed Management (1993); D. Booth, Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System—Impacts, Solutions, and Prognoses, 7 N.W. Envtl. J. 93–118 (1991); R. Smith et al., Stream Water Quality in the Conterminous United States—Status and Trends of Selected Indicators During the 1980’s, in U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Summary 1990–1991: Stream Water Quality, Water-Supply Paper 2400 (1992)).
33 Alan L. Weaver & Greg C. Garman, Urbanization of a Watershed and Historical Changes in a Stream of Fish Assemblage, 123 Transactions of the Am. Fisheries Soc’y 162, 162–72 (1994), noted in Built and Natural Environments, supra note 23, at 13.
34 See id., noted in Built and Natural Environments, supra note 23, at 13
35 See Built and Natural Environments, supra note 23, at 13–14.
36 See David M. Theobald et al., Estimating the Cumulative Effects of Development on Wildlife Habitat, 39 Landscape & Urb. Plan. 25, 25–26 (1997); see also 2000 RPA Assessment, supra note 30.
37 See Beach, supra note 28, at 4–5.
38 See Built and Natural Environments, supra note 23, at 10; Office of Transp. & Air Quality, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, EPA 420-R-01-001, EPA Guidance: Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities 15 (2001).
39 Office of Transp. & Air Quality, supra note 38, at 10.
40 Id.
41 See id. at 10 fig.1.
42 See id. at 15 (citing Apogee/Hagler Bailly, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature (1998)).
43 “By 1999 Western New Yorkers were driving approximately 23 million miles per year in their cars, trucks, and vans—an increase of some two million miles per year since 1997. The declining regional population throws this increase into still sharper relief: with fewer people in the region, Western New Yorkers are nonetheless logging more total miles on the road.” Inst. for Local Governance & Reg’l Growth, State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, State of the Region Report, Progress Report 2000 for the Buffalo-Niagara Region, (2001), available at http://regional-institute.buffalo.edu/sotr/repo/repo00/ 02_envi/02_8.html (last visited Apr. 4, 2003).
44 Douglas C. Porter, Transp. Research Bd., Fed. Transit Admin., Synthesis of Transit Practice 20, Transit-Focused Development 4 (1997); Robert Cervero & Kara Kockelman, Inst. of Urban & Reg’l Dev., Travel Demand and the Three Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design 2 (1996); Boris S. Pushkarev & Jeffrey M. Zupan, Public Transportation and Land Use Policy 29–35 (1977); John Pucher, Urban Travel Behavior as the Outcome of Public Policy: The Example of Modal-Split in Western Europe and North America, 54 J. Am. Plan. Ass’n 509, 518 (1988).
45 See, e.g., Metro, Concepts for Growth: Report to Council 78–88 (1994) (employing such a computer model).
46 See infra notes 86–92 and accompanying text.
47 See Metro, supra note 45.
48 Id. at 99 fig.11.8.
49 Id.
50 See id.
51 Id. at 88 fig.11.8.
52 See generally id. (providing a chart listing these environmental impacts).
53 See, e.g., supra notes 50–51 and accompanying text for land consumption figures.
54 Obviously not all higher density urban housing is lower cost, as the buyers and owners of various high rise luxury condominiums can attest. But given the cost of urban land, almost all lower cost residential development in cities is and will be higher density.
55 See generally Comprehensive Planning Responsibilities, Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.175 (2001).
56 Id. �� 197.175–.200. See Robert L. Liberty, Oregon’s Comprehensive Growth Management Program: An Implementation Review and Lessons for Other States, [1992 News & Analysis] 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,367 (June 1992) (providing a more detailed description of the legislation, its implementation, and the measurable results fifteen years after the Goals went into effect); see also John M. DeGrove, Land Growth & Politics 235–90 (1984) (giving a narrative history of the adoption of the legislation as well as its structure and early administration); Audio tape: The Battle to Keep Oregon Lovable and Livable, held by 1000 Friends of Oregon (June, 2000) (on file with 1000 Friends of Oregon) (giving the history of the passage and implementation of Senate Bill 100.). See generally James H. Wickersham, The Quiet Revolution Continues: The Emerging New Model for State Growth Management Statutes, in 1995 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook � 13.01 (Alan M. Forrest ed., 1995) (providing a very useful update on more recent efforts by states to manage growth in ways that reduce sprawl).
57 In Oregon, there are only three types of local governments—cities, counties, and metropolitan service districts. See Or. Rev. Stat. �� 201.005–.370, 203.010–.810, 221.005–.128, 268.010–.990.
58 Id. �� 197.175(2), 197.250.
59 Id. � 197.175(1).
60 See Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(1) to (19) (2003) (showing effective dates), available at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/goals.html (last visited Apr. 4, 2003).
61 Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.030.
62 Id. �� 197.075–.090.
63 Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(1) to (19).
64 Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(14).
65 Id.
66 1000 Friends of Or. v. LCDC (Curry County), 724 P.2d 268, 294–95 (Or. 1986).
67 DeGrove, supra note 56, at 242, 244.
68 Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(10). But, the reader needs to keep in mind that needed housing is to be built inside urban growth boundaries. Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(14). Housing is not to be built in the farm and forest zones, which have been set aside for farming, ranching, and timber production. Or. Rev. Stat. � 215.243 (2001). In those zones, which apply to more than 90% of the private land in the state, minimum parcel (or acreage) sizes are 80, 160, or 240 acres. Id. �� 215.740, 215.780. Houses are not allowed as of right on those parcels. Id. �� 215.262(1), 215.213(3), 215.284(1)–(4), (7). For the justifications for strict limits on houses and large minimum parcel sizes in farm and forest zones, see Liberty, supra note 56, at 10,381–83, 10,385.
69 Liberty, supra note 56, at 10,378.
70 Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(10).
71 Seaman v. City of Durham, 1 LCDC 283, 288 (1978).
72 Id. Under the appeal provisions in effect at that time, former Oregon Revised Statute 197.300(1)(d), the city’s amendment of its zoning ordinance could be appealed to the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Id. The 1979 Legislature created a separate review tribunal, the Land Use Board of Appeals, which today hears all appeals from local government and special service district land use decisions. Id. �� 197.810–.845 (2001). For an overview of the Board’s jurisdiction, standards of review, and docket characteristics see Liberty, supra note 56, at 10,373–74.
73 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975).
74 Seaman, 1 LCDC at 289.
75 Id. at 290, 293. Goal 10 was not considered in isolation. Other cases explored the link between ensuring affordable housing under Goal 10 and limiting urbanization through urban growth boundaries under Goal 14, which specifies that the “need for housing, employment opportunities and livability” are factors that must be considered in drawing and amending urban growth boundaries. Or. Admin. R. 660-015-0000(14) (2003); see also 1000 Friends of Or. v. City of Lake Oswego, 2 LCDC 138, 151 (1981).
76 That review included: (1) an analysis of the need for lower-cost housing within the city and the region; (2) an inventory of the types, amount, and suitability for development of the land the city proposed to be zoned for lower-cost housing; and (3) a scrutiny of the standards applied to applications to develop, or rezone in order to develop, lower-cost housing. The standards were reviewed to make sure they were clear and objective, so that they could not be used to block affordable housing. See generally Land Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, Acknowledgement of Compliance, City of St. Helens 25–39, 55 (1981); Land Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, Acknowledgement of Compliance, City of Happy Valley 23–43, 54 (1981).
77 Or. Admin. R. 660-008-0000 to -0040.
78 Or. Admin. R. 660-007-0000 to -0060.
79 Or. Admin. R. 660-007-0035.
80 Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.303(2)(a) (2001); Or. Admin. R. 660-007-0005.
81 See Or. Rev. Stat. �� 197.303, 197.307, 197.312.
82 Id. � 197.312(1), (2).
83 Id. � 197.314(1). The statute reads:
[W]ithin urban growth boundaries each city and county shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for single-family residential uses to allow for siting of manufactured homes as defined in ORS 446.003 (26)(a)(C). A local government may only subject the siting of a manufactured home allowed under this section to regulation as set forth in ORS 197.307 (5).
Id.
84 Id. � 197.312(2) (“A city or county may not impose any approval standards, special conditions or procedures on farm worker housing that are not clear and objective or have the effect . . . of discouraging farm worker housing . . . .”).
85 Id. � 197.320; City of Happy Valley v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 677 P.2d 43, 46 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
86 Metro, Or., Charter Preamble (1992) [hereinafter Metro Charter], available at http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=629 (last visited Apr. 4, 2003). The Metro Charter’s Preamble reads:
We, the people of the Portland area metropolitan service district, in order to establish an elected, visible and accountable regional government that is responsive to the citizens of the region and works cooperatively with our local governments; that undertakes, as its most important service, planning and policy making to preserve and enhance the quality of life and the environment for ourselves and future generations; . . . do ordain this charter for the Portland area metropolitan service district, to be known as Metro.
Id. The Charter was adopted as provided in the Oregon Constitution Article XI, Section 14, providing that “[t]he Legislative Assembly shall provide by law a method whereby the legal electors of any metropolitan service district . . . may adopt . . . a district charter.” Or. Const. art XI, � 14. Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 268 provides for and describes the role and powers of “metropolitan service districts” generally; the Portland region is the only part of the state to have implemented these provisions. See Metro, Or., About the Charter (2000) (“Metro is the only regional government in the United States with a home rule charter . . . .”), available at http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID =211 (last visited Apr. 4, 2003).
87 Metro Charter, supra note 86, � 16(1)–(2).
88 See Or. Rev. Stat. �� 268.380, 268.390.
89 Id. �� 268.380(1)(b), 268.390(5)(a)–(d).
90 Metro Charter, supra note 86, � 5, � 2(b), (c), (e).
91 See Metro, Regional Framework Plan, ch. 1, � 1.3 (1997), available at http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/land_use/frame.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2003). This plan states that:
The Metro Council shall adopt a “fair share” strategy for meeting the housing needs of the urban population in cities and counties based on a subregional analysis that provides for:
� a diverse range of housing types available within cities and counties inside the UGB;
� specific goals for low- and moderate-income and market rate housing to ensure that sufficient and affordable housing is available to households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction;
� housing densities and costs supportive of adopted public policy for the development of the regional transportation system and designated centers and corridors;
� a balance of jobs and housing within the region and subregions.
Id.
92 Id. ch. 1, � 1.3.4–.5 (1997), available at http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/ land_use/frame.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2003). These mandated changes demand adherence to certain regionwide affordable housing policies, including: (1) minimum densities shall be required in all residential zones; (2) at least one accessory unit shall be allowed within any detached single family dwelling; (3) in order to implement 2040 Growth concept, densities shall be increased in rail station areas; and (4) a performance standard requiring a density bonus shall be adopted. Id. � 1.3.4.1–.4. In addition, these changes demand that an Affordable Housing Functional Plan be developed containing requirements that cities and counties adopt numerical “fair share” targets. Id. � 1.3.4.5. These targets have been articulated in table form, assigning numbers of units needed for each of the twenty-four cities, and parts of three counties. Metro, Code, Tit. III, ch. 3.07, tbl.3.07-1 (2001), available at http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/about/chap307.pdf (last visited Apr. 3, 2003).
93 Liberty, supra note 56, at 10,367, 10,379 (citing Mark Greenfield, 1000 Friends of Or., The Impact of Oregon’s Land Use Planning Program on Housing Opportunities in the Portland Metropolitan Region 4, 6–7 (1982)).
94 Id. (citing Greenfield, supra note 93, at 7).
95 Id. (citing Greenfield, supra note 93, at 17–18).
96 Id. (citing Greenfield, supra note 93, at 23).
97 Id. (citing Greenfield, supra note 93, at 6–7).
98 1000 Friends of Or. v. City of Lake Oswego, 2 LCDC 138, 149 (1981).
99 Liberty, supra note 56, at 10,379 (citing 1000 Friends of Or. & the Home Builders Ass’n of Metro Portland, Managing Growth to Promote Affordable Housing: Revisiting Oregon’s Goal 10—Technical Report 30, 32 (1991) [hereinafter Revisiting Oregon’s Goal 10]).
100 Id. (citing Revisiting Oregon’s Goal 10, supra note 99, at app. F-1, tbl.3).
101 Id. (citing Revisiting Oregon’s Goal 10, supra note 99, at 32).
102 Sonny Conder & Karen Larson, Metro Data Res. Ctr., Metro Single Family Home Price Trends: Donuts Without Holes and Turnips Without Blood 2 (2001), available at http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/maps_data/sfrpricestudy1999_ 2000.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2003). By comparison, in one neighborhood, the average existing home was built around 1910, on a lot of 3900 square feet. Id. at 3.
103 See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Census 2000, Table QT-PL: Race, Hispanic or Latino, and Age: 2000 [hereinafter Census 2000 Table QT-PL] (Mount Laurel Township, Burlington County, N.J.).
104 See id. (N.J.).
105 See id. (Durham, Or.).
106 See id. (Or.).
107 The Portland “region” referred to in this Article is defined as the three core Oregon counties of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington.
108 See Census 2000 Table QT-PL, supra note 103 (Clackamas County, Or.); id. (Multnomah County, Or.); id. (Washington County, Or.).
109 See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Census 2000, Table DP-4: Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 [hereinafter Census 2000 Table DP-4] (Durham, Or.).
110 See id. (Portland, Or.).
111 See id. (Or.).
112 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Census 2000, Table QT-H2: Tenure, Household Size, and Age of Householder: 2000 [hereinafter Census 2000 Table QT-H2] (Durham, Or.).
113 See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Census 2000, Table DP-1: Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 (Clackamas County, Or.); id. (Multnomah County, Or.); id. (Washington County, Or.).
114 Census 2000 Table QT-H2, supra note 112 (Or.).
115 Id. (Mount Laurel Township, Burlington County, N.J.).
116 Id. (Burlington County, N.J.).
117 Id. (N.J.).
118 See id. (Durham, Or.).
119 See Census 2000 Table DP-4, supra note 109 (Clackamas County, Or.); id. (Multnomah County, Or.); id. (Washington County, Or.).
120 See id. (Or.).
121 See id. (Mount Laurel Township, Burlington County, N.J.).
122 See id. (Burlington County, N.J.).
123 See id. (N.J.).
124 See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Census 2000, Table GCT-H9: Financial Housing Characteristics: 2000 (Durham, Or.).
125 See id. (Or.).
126 See Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, Housing Opportunity Index: First Quarter 2002 (2002), available at http://nahb.org/assets/docs/files/Regional_Alphabetical_ 813200285051PM.xls (last visited Feb. 6, 2003).
127 See id.
128 Id.
129 Id.
130 Comm. to Study Hous. Affordability, Oregon Housing Cost Study Final Report, at iii (1998).
131 Id. at iii, 37. The Committee to Study Housing Affordability is a “broad-based statewide coalition with representation across the public and private sectors of the housing industry.” Id. at i.
132 Arthur C. Nelson et al., The Brookings Inst., The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence (2002), available at http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/growthmang.pdf (last visited Feb. 6, 2003).
133 Id. at Executive Summary (unpaginated). The literature specific to the Portland urban growth boundary and possible effects on home price is found later in this report. Id. at 24–26.
134 See generally Northwest Env’t Watch, Sprawl and Smart Growth in Metropolitan Portland: Comparing Portland, Oregon with Vancouver, Washington, During the 1990s (2002) [hereinafter Portland], http://www.northwestwatch.org/ press/portlandgrowth.pdf (last visited Feb. 6, 2002).
135 Id. passim.
136 Northwest Env’t Watch, Sprawl and Smart Growth in Greater Seattle-Tacoma passim (2002) [hereinafter Seattle-Tacoma], http://northwestwatch.org/press/ seattle_sprawl.pdf (last visited Feb. 7, 2003).
137 Northwest Env’t Watch, Sprawl and Smart Growth in Greater Vancouver: A Comparison of Vancouver, British Columbia, With Seattle, Washington passim (2002) [hereinafter Vancouver], http://northwestwatch.org/press/vancouver_sprawl.pdf (last visited Feb. 7, 2003).
138 See id. at 3; Portland, supra note 134, at 2; Seattle-Tacoma, supra note 136, at 3.
139 Portland, supra note 134, at 2. The report on the Seattle area unfavorably contrasted the low-density development in greater Seattle with that in the Portland metro region: “But growth does not have to mean sprawl. If greater Seattle increased the average density of its developed areas to that of greater Portland’s (excluding Clark County, Washington), suburban development would cover only a fifth as much land—saving about 135,000 acres.” Seattle-Tacoma, supra note 136, at 2. The report on Vancouver, British Columbia showed a pattern of growth far more compact than that of either Seattle or the Oregon part of Portland. Vancouver, supra note 137, at 2.
140 TriMet, TriMet Fixed Route Service and Ridership 1 (2002), http://www. trimet.org/inside/pdf/factsheet02.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2003). See generally Population Research Ctr., Portland State University Components of Population Change for Oregon’s Counties: April 1, 1990 to April 1, 2000 (2000) (citing U.S. Census data for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, within which TriMet provides transit service), http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CPRC/90–00-census.PDF (last visited Feb. 7, 2003).
141 This figure was calculated by summing the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on state highways in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties, which encompass the TriMet service area. Or. Dep’t of Transp., Oregon VMT (Oregon Vehicle Miles of Travel for State Owned Highways) (2002), http://www.odot.state.or.us/tdb/traffic_ monitoring/vmt.htm (last visited Feb. 7, 2003). TriMet’s service boundary encompasses about 600 square miles compared with the 3027 square miles in the three counties. See TriMet, Facts About TriMet 1 (2002), http://www.trimet.org/news/pdf/factsheet02. pdf (last visited Feb. 7, 2003). But because the vast majority of the regional population—and driving—falls within the urban area served by TriMet service, it is unlikely the geographic mismatch makes a significant difference in regional VMT trends.
142 Charles Schmidt observes:
[Clean Air Act] violations in Portland have dropped from an average of 100 per year in the 1970s to none since 1987. . . .
Says William Schroer, a project manager with Apogee Research in St. Paul, Minnesota, “Portland has held per-capita VMT steady over the past three years, an impressive accomplishment in an economy that is growing at twice the national average. Among other things, it means that in Portland, increases in driving are not currently eating into the decreased emissions benefits that technology has brought.
Charles W. Schmidt, The Specter of Sprawl, 106 Envtl. Health Persp. A274, A279 (1998), http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/106–6/focus.html (last visited Feb. 7, 2003).
143 Arthur C. Nelson & Thomas W. Sanchez, Lassoing Urban Sprawl, Metroscape, Winter 2003, at 13–19.
144 Special Report on the Willamette Valley Alternative Futures Project, Landmark (1000 Friends of Or., Portland, Or.), Fall 2001, at 7.
145 Id.
146 David L. Azuma et al., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Western Oregon, 1973–2000, at 35 (2002). This is consistent with prior research showing a significant drop in the conversion of forest land in western Oregon to urban- and low-density urban uses after the mid-1970s. Daolan Zheng & Ralph J. Alig, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Research Paper PNW-RP-518, Changes in the Non-Federal Land Base Involving Forestry in Western Oregon, 1961–94, at 8–9 (1999).
147 For an account of the formation of that kind of alliance, see generally Jay Walljasper, Portland’s Green Peace: At Play in the Fields of Urban Planning, The Nation, Oct. 13, 1997, at 11–15.