Bill to make state-owned land available for housing narrowed to urban growth boundaries amid mixed reaction

Representative Kevin Mannix opened the committee’s public hearing on House Bill 2316 on March 26 and described a series of revisions that narrow and expand the bill’s scope. The dash-2 amendment restricts designation to lands within urban growth boundaries (UGBs) while expanding allowed housing types beyond single-family homes to include duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes and other middle-housing types. The bill also allows developers to propose combining multiple state parcels for housing projects under Department of Administrative Services (DAS) review.

Mannix said the bill would identify state-owned lands not needed for essential government functions and make them available for housing. “This will make state land available for housing that is not being used for other necessary purposes of state government,” he told the committee.

Gov. Tina Kotek testified in support of the dash-2 amendment, calling the approach “creative” and noting administration work to publish an online tool showing state lands that could be buildable. She said the bill aims to “turn over every rock” to increase housing production and described the proposal as a tool to expedite housing on public lands where appropriate.

Speakers from multiple stakeholder groups voiced support for narrowing designations to UGBs, but raised technical and procedural questions. Renee Tekash, conservation director at Friends of the Columbia Gorge, said Friends opposed the base bill and the dash-1 amendment because those versions could designate land outside UGBs and “override existing land use laws,” but that the dash-2 limitation to UGBs makes the proposal acceptable.

Patty Williamson, a Salem-area realtor, described HB 2316 (earlier amendment language) as a tool to provide affordable homeownership opportunities with 30-year affordability covenants and urged rapid implementation; she also cautioned against adding overlays that would slow production. Rory Isbell of Central Oregon Land Watch said his group is neutral on dash-2 but recommended clarifying language so only properties inside UGBs could be nominated by local governments and proposed that appeals of designations use the Land Use Board of Appeals rather than writs in circuit court.

The League of Oregon Cities and 1000 Friends of Oregon said they appreciate the dash-2 changes but asked for technical clarifications. Alexandra Ring of the League welcomed overlays that ensure adequate sewer and other infrastructure, but flagged concerns that the bill, as written, may unduly restrict local flexibility on density by limiting cities to “middle housing density” on designated parcels.

Representative Mannix said the bill currently references roughly 350 parcels nominated for review; he acknowledged he had not seen a consolidated acreage figure. The committee heard discussion of property-tax treatment and transition: Kotek described an approach where new housing would initially be taxed only on structures and the land would receive a delayed property-tax assessment for up to five years to ease local fiscal impacts while construction and occupancy ramp up.

Several witnesses asked for clarifying statutory language, including limits on which lands could be proposed by local governments, clear pathways for appeals, and technical definitions for adequate infrastructure and minimum densities. Mannix indicated further technical amendments may follow and the bill could see a dash-3 for clarifications.

No formal committee votes occurred during the hearing; the hearing closed and the committee moved on to the next scheduled bill.