HB 3499
Requires the approval of an urban renewal plan by the electors of a municipality proposing a plan or a substantial amendment to a plan.
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
62%
Oppose
38%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill requires that any urban renewal plan or a significant change to one must be approved by the voters of the city or county where the plan is proposed. The plan must be reviewed by the planning commission and taxing districts, and a public hearing must be held before the governing body votes. It also establishes procedures for notifying residents about the plan and requires the plan to be recorded with county recorders. The bill updates existing Oregon Revised Statutes related to urban renewal.
Key provisions
- Requires voter approval for urban renewal plans and substantial amendments.
- Mandates public notice and hearings before plan approval.
- Requires review by the planning commission and affected taxing districts.
- Establishes a process for notifying residents about the plan.
- Specifies requirements for the content of the urban renewal plan.
- Addresses concurrence from taxing districts for public building projects.
- Provides a presumption of validity for approved plans after 90 days.
- Updates relevant Oregon Revised Statutes regarding urban renewal.
Who is affected
- Municipalities
- Taxing Districts
- Residents of affected municipalities
- Urban Renewal Agencies
- Property Owners
Notable changes
- Adds voter approval requirement for urban renewal plans.
- Requires detailed reporting and public notification procedures.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of HB 3499 emphasize the importance of allowing taxpayers to have a say in urban renewal projects, with many testifiers arguing that explicit approval from municipal electors is necessary before such initiatives are implemented. They believe that citizens should have control over how their taxes are spent and how their property rights are protected, and that the current system is undemocratic and unfair to individual citizens. Many support the bill's requirement for voter approval for urban renewal plans and amendments, arguing that it increases transparency, accountability, and community voice, and prevents tax increases without voter consent. Testifiers also express frustration with the state's handling of taxation and property rights, stating that they want to be able to vote on these issues, and advocate for a 'YES' vote on HB-3499, emphasizing the importance of community decision-making and local control.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of HB 3499 argue that requiring a public vote for new urban renewal plans and substantial amendments would limit the ability of local elected officials to address community needs, hinder economic development, and exacerbate the state's housing crisis. They contend that this measure would create an uneven playing field, allowing outside interests to influence policy decisions, and undermine city authority, diminishing the role of elected leaders. Critics also express concerns about the potential for citizens to make uninformed or ill-conceived decisions that could harm their own communities, as well as the complexity and vulnerability of urban renewal plans to external influence, which would hinder local decision-making and create unintended consequences.