HB 3136
Removes a requirement that a maximum of two real estate professionals may serve on a city or county planning commission for commissions with more than five members.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
48%
Oppose
52%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill removes a restriction on the number of real estate professionals who can serve on city or county planning commissions. Currently, commissions with more than five members were limited to having no more than two real estate professionals as voting members. This change allows for a broader range of professionals to participate in these planning bodies.
Key provisions
- Removes the limit of two real estate professionals on planning commissions with more than five members.
- Specifically addresses restrictions on members engaged in buying, selling, or developing real estate for profit.
- Updates ORS 215.030 (county planning commissions) to reflect the change.
- Updates ORS 227.030 (city planning commissions) to reflect the change.
- Allows for a wider variety of professionals to serve on planning commissions.
- Maintains the requirement that commission members reside in the various geographic areas of the county.
- Governing bodies can establish alternative rules.
- Members can be removed for misconduct or nonperformance of duty.
Who is affected
- City and county residents
- City and county planning commission members
- Real estate professionals
- Local governments (cities and counties)
- Citizens interested in local planning decisions
Notable changes
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsors
Cosponsors
David Brock Smith
E. Werner Reschke
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of the legislation advocate for removing the real estate-specific restriction on planning commission membership to promote occupational diversity and ensure representation of various interests in the county. They argue that this change would bring critical expertise to inform policies, particularly in addressing Oregon's housing affordability crisis, by allowing real estate professionals to serve on planning commissions without limits. Proponents also emphasize the need for fair representation and the current law's unfair distinction between different occupations, which they believe limits the expertise available to planning commissions. By removing this restriction, supporters aim to enhance policy-making and encourage housing production, while maintaining occupational diversity on planning commissions.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of HB 3136 express concerns that lifting the cap on real estate professionals serving on planning commissions could lead to conflicts of interest, undermining public trust and compromising commission integrity. They argue that this change would favor real estate interests over community interests, tilting decisions in favor of developers rather than promoting thoughtful development that safeguards the public's interests. The current requirement is seen as essential for ensuring a fairer and diverse commission, promoting balanced representation on commissions, and allowing planning commissions to make informed decisions based on public interest rather than personal relationships or economic gain.