An associate at a Portland research firm says Metro area residents have nuanced views of the region's urban growth boundary, the topic of a recent survey via Metro's Opt In panel.
DHM Research, which conducted the survey of Opt In members in late July, released the results of the survey on Friday. DHM's Rebecca Ball said the results show a nuanced view of the urban growth boundary review that's underway at Metro.
"It's how you talk about things, and people having more understanding and education about what it means to expand the urban growth boundary and when that land will be used," Ball said.
Two surveys were conducted – 1,139 people took a survey on industrial land, and 1,275 participated in a survey about residential land; 693 took both. In each survey, participants expressed opposition to early questions about expanding the urban growth boundary.
For example, in the industrial lands survey, 65 percent of participants said they thought there was enough land within the urban growth boundary to accommodate job growth in the region over the next 20 years; 59 percent said they opposed expanding the UGB to provide more industrial land.
But 42 percent of participants said the region needs flexibility in meeting future employment needs, compared to 40 percent said that no expansion of the UGB for employment is needed right now.
By the time participants answered the next question, their opinion had seemingly changed – 52 percent said they supported a 310-acre urban growth boundary expansion near Hillsboro "to accommodate industrial employers, like tech manufacturing sector employers, who require 50-acre sites or larger."
"When we're talking about future planning, that's where we started to see a little bit of a shift," Ball said.
Opinions shifted similarly on the residential survey. Sixty percent of respondents said they opposed expanding the UGB for housing right now.
But when asked about specific expansion areas, such as a proposed 1,063-acre development south of Hillsboro, support grew. Forty-nine percent of participants said they supported the area after being told that developers and large property owners have made commitments to pay for some of the public services needed for developing the area.
The survey asked participants about seven proposed expansion areas, then asked them, in multiple-choice form, which expansion areas should be added to the boundary. South Hillsboro's support grew to 53 percent in that question.
No other proposed expansion area drew more supporters than opponents.
Interestingly, there wasn't tremendous variation between the three counties in terms of support for proposals; more residents of all three counties supported the South Hillsboro proposal than opposed it. The same was true for the Hillsboro industrial expansion, although there was a 13-point difference between Multnomah and Washington county residents in terms of support for an expansion.
Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to support urban growth boundary expansion – 68 percent of Republicans favored the Hillsboro industrial expansion, compared to 48 percent of Democrats. The South Hillsboro residential expansion had an 18-percent swing by party.
There was one other number that stood out from the survey – people want to see farmland preserved. Seventy-five percent of participants oppose an expansion onto farmland for industrial purposes; 69 percent of participants said they'd support a small urban growth boundary expansion if it would keep more farmland in production.
"The idea of protecting farmland is really important, regardless of whether you live in Clackamas County, Multnomah County or Washington County," Ball said. "That's an issue for folks and something to think about with urban growth boundary expansion issues."
The survey was not scientific. Metro's 5,400-member Opt In online panel is periodically asked to participate in surveys such as this one on the urban growth boundary.
Republicans and suburban residents were under-represented in the survey.