When Andy Kerr, president of a group called Alternatives to Growth in Oregon,
travels around the state giving talks on limiting population growth in the state,
he always stands in front of the crowd and asks this question:
"Who wants Oregon to become another California? Raise your hand!"
Hardly anyone ever does.
It’s easy for most Oregonians to agree that they don’t want to see
Oregon become more like its more crowded neighbor to the south. But it is much
more difficult to agree on what to do about population growth.
Oregon is far from the most crowded region in the world, but our population
is growing relatively fast. The number of people is increasing in the Pacific
Northwest at twice the national rate and 50 percent more than the global rate.
According to a projection on Alternatives to Growth in Oregon’s web site,
by 2025 the state’s population will be 4.3 million—almost a million
more than now. This projected increase equals about two more Portlands, eight
more Salems or Eugenes, or 28 more Bends fitting somewhere into Oregon.
Some say Oregon’s population is already too high and that we need to put
a stop to Oregon’s fast growth. Others say we can’t close our borders
or force people to have fewer children.
Is continuing population growth inevitable? What are some concerns of Oregonians
about an ever-expanding number of residents?
Many people link a rapidly growing population with negative impacts— more
traffic, dirtier air, loss of farms and wildlife habitat, higher crime rates,
a less representational democracy and more crowded schools.
Others associate population growth with opportunity—a thriving business
economy, more jobs, better amenities and a more diverse culture.
In either case, growth
means having to plan for a future that may be better, worse or just different.
Land use planning laws were established in the 1970s to protect Oregon farm
and forestland from uncontrolled urban and suburban expansion.
In 1975 then-Gov. Tom McCall founded 1000 Friends of Oregon, a nonprofit watchdog
and education group, as a citizens’ voice for land use planning that would
"protect Oregon’s quality of life from the effects of growth."
Today, Oregonians seem to want to have more say about growth in their communities.
Small- and medium-size cities in the fast-growing Willamette Valley, including
Corvallis, Salem and Albany, now require voters’ approval of annexations
to the city. Supporters say they are fed up with city councils and planning
commissions rubber-stamping the wishes of developers and builders, then asking
citizens to pay more taxes for the schools, water and sewer systems required
to serve new housing.
Homebuilders and state agencies that enforce Oregon’s strict planning rules
argue that annexation elections increase the price of housing and invite chaotic
planning.
"One of the best ways to moderate growth is to stop subsidizing it,"
said Eben Fodor, a Eugene community planning consultant and author of the 1999
book Bigger Not Better—How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve
Your Community.
"Surveys around the country show most citizens want growth to pay its own
way," said Fodor. "Development impact fees can be used to recover
some of these costs."
According to Fodor’s calculations, the approximate cost to the public for
providing public facilities to a single new house was $24,500 (as of 1996).
"Oregon’s present population and consumption are environmentally unsustainable,"
said Kerr, making the case for no more growth. But other groups, such as 1000
Friends of Oregon, advocate growth management rather than ending growth.
Others worry that increasing population growth is "diluting democracy."
"For those who still believe that numbers of people are of no consequence,
consider that it would take 8,700 members of the U.S. House, currently with
435 state representatives, to restore the original representational ratio,"
asserts M. Boyd Wilcox, Corvallis resident and founder of the National Optimum
Population Commission. "How much more diluted can democracy get? And yet
we depend on each individual’s faith in the democratic process to solve
our nation’s most serious problems."
Some criticize optimal population movements as racist, classist and unethical.
For example, the Political Ecology Group, a San Francisco, multiracial volunteer-based
organization working for environmental justice, says that environmental degradation
is not directly related to population size but to consumption rates, and that
any way of determining an "optimal population" would discriminate
against those not in power—the poor, people of color and immigrants.
Not everyone considers population growth a problem. In his 1994 book Scarcity
or Abundance, A Debate on the Environment, Julian Simon, an economist
and University of Maryland business professor, wrote that society should "look
optimistically upon people as a resource rather than as a burden.
"The population restrictionists say we should be sad and worry," continued
Simon. "I and many others believe that the trends suggest joy and celebration
at our newfound capacity to support human life—healthily, and with fast-increasing
access to education and opportunity all over the world. I believe that the population
restrictionists’ hand-wringing view leads to despair and resignation. My
‘side’s’ view leads to hope and progress, in the reasonable expectation
that the energetic efforts of humankind will prevail in the future—as they
have in the past—to increase worldwide our numbers, our health, our wealth,
and our opportunities."
Though citizens may feel they might be able to ameliorate or influence the effects
of population increase here in Oregon, world population problems are difficult
to ignore. The Earth holds 6 billion humans.
In 1993, more than 600 of the world’s most distinguished scientists, including
a majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, signed a World Scientists’
Warning to Humanity, which states:
"The earth is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers is finite.
And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits.... Pressures resulting
from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can
overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the
destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.... "