Bill to loosen limits on real‑estate professionals on planning commissions draws mixed reactions

Representative Vicki Breece Iverson introduced House Bill 31 36 a to the Senate Committee on Housing and Development on May 14, 2025. The bill would remove a provision that bars more than two voting members of city or county planning commissions from engaging “principally in the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit” for commissions larger than five members; it would preserve restrictions for five‑member commissions.

Iverson said the statute (found in ORS 215.03 for counties and ORS 227.03 for cities) is confusing and has become an inequitable restriction on qualified volunteers. She told the committee the law’s intent — to ensure diversity of occupation on planning commissions — should be preserved but modernized. “The bill makes our laws clear and equitable,” she said.

Supporters from the development and real‑estate community argued the restriction was outdated and prevents local governments from assembling planning commissions with needed expertise. George Grabenhorst, principal broker with SVN Commercial Advisors and chair of the Marion County Planning Commission, said limiting participation by real‑estate professionals reduces available volunteer pools and handicaps commissions that need diverse professional perspectives.

Jeremy Rogers, general counsel and government affairs director for Oregon Realtors, said local appointing bodies retain authority to choose members and that conflict‑of‑interest rules already address situations where individuals should recuse themselves.

The Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association (OAPA) testified in opposition. Heather Rockwell, OAPA, said the limit was created after misconduct in the 1970s and that increasing the number of planning commissioners drawn from real‑estate professions could reduce representation from historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. Rockwell urged the legislature to prioritize modernization of public engagement in land‑use planning rather than relaxing membership restrictions.

Mike Koivola, a former Springfield planning commissioner and land‑development professional, also opposed the bill, arguing the change would increase over‑representation by a small employment class and reduce opportunities for broader civic participation.

Committee members asked about an attorney‑general opinion from 1978 that has been used to interpret “occupation” and about examples of recruitment challenges in Marion County. Testimony closed after both proponent and opponent witnesses spoke; the committee did not take a vote.