The impact of Oregon's Special Use Assessment (SUA) program was analyzed in relation to farmland values in six regions. Data for the study were obtained from the Oregon Landownership Survey. Data were based on 1975 assessment and ownership characteristics. Farmland value per acre, including improvements, was believed to be influenced by the following factors: special use assessment, gross farm income, population growth rate, income of owner, occupation of owner, distance to the nearest urban area, size of tract, and improvements value. Ordinary least squares was used to test the impact of these factors on farmland value per acre. Tax savings, if any, resulting from SUA were expected to be capitalized into higher farmland values. Study results indicate that SUA did increase farmland values in four of the six regions. In the Coastal region, SUA on unzoned farmland increased values by $932 per acre. In the Valley region, SUA on exclusive farm use (EFU) zoned and unzoned farmland increased values by $977 and $1721 per acre, respectively. SUA increased unzoned farmland values by $1226 per acre in the Southwestern region but had no significant impact on zoned farmland. The value of zoned and unzoned farmland in the Northcentral region was increased by $453 and $865 per acre, respectively. SUA did not have a significant impact on zoned or unzoned farmland values in the Southcentral or Eastern regions. Therefore, it is assumed SUA does not provide tax relief in these regions. This result may be due to the large agricultural tax base in these regions. A large portion of the tax base is reduced by SUA, which necessitates an increase in the tax rate to maintain the same level of county revenues. Therefore, little if any tax relief is realized by the participating farmland owners. The restrictive effect of EFU zoning was expected to offset tax benefits resulting from SUA. As indicated above, there was a difference in the impact of SUA on EFU zoned as compared to unzoned land in the Valley, Southwestern,and Northcentral regions. The impact on zoned land was consistently smaller than on unzoned land in all regions (except the Southcentral where both were not significant). Most of the other variables in the model had the expected signs. Those that did not were not significantly different from zero (except for the distance variable in the Valley region which was explained after closer analysis). Tax savings and the resulting increases in farmland values represent a redistribution of income from nonparticipants to participants in the SUA program. In order to determine who was benefiting from SUA, participants were compared to nonparticipants on a number of ownership characteristics. Participants and nonparticipants did not differ on all characteristics in all regions. However, where there were differences, participants were more likely to be residents, farmers, own land further from urban areas, not have plans to sell their land, own larger acreages, and be in higher income and net worth classes compared to nonparticipants. The tax saving resulting from SUA may be sufficient to prevent a farmer from being forced out of farming. However, the program is not designed to prevent farmland conversion if the owner desires to change use. A circuit-breaker tax program for farmers and EFU zoning merit closer attention as possible alternatives of providing tax relief and farmland preservation. / Graduation date: 1979

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, 2008. / Adviser: Susan Lawrence. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1963. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

published_or_final_version / Urban Planning / Master / Master of Science in Urban Planning

LL.D. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-51).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-51).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-51).

Theoretical literature on the politics of land use is so limited that original research into the problem was required. The drafting and enactment of Senate Bill 100 by the Fifty-seventh Session of the Oregon Legislature provided the basis for researching my premise of need equals want. The bill designated state land use planning organizational structure. The Land Use Policy Committee minutes and Legislative minutes were merged with information attained through personal interviews from a variety of participants in the drafting of the Senate Bill 100. Theoretical literature was equally available in Public Administration, Law and Land Use Planning. The Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oregon plus the Oregon Revised Statutes were fundamental in the research. The research material on the politics of land use was found by sifting through public and private records and four separate libraries: Oregon State Archives, the Oregon State Law Library, Multnomah County Law Library and Portland State University Library. Personal interviews provided valuable additional data. The politics of land use is the lengthy saga of the enactment of Senate Bill 100 (1973) by the Oregon Legislature. It is the story of the bill’s conception, conflicts and compromises. The Land Use Policy Committee (LUPC), Created and chaired by State Senator Hector Macpherson, drafted the original SB 100 in 1972, which was assigned to the Oregon Senate Environment and Land Use Committee (SELUC) in January, 1973. The LUPC bill was designed of, by and for proponents of land use planning. When the opponents to the planning concept were heard by the SELUC, need vs. want made passage of Senate Bill 100 a political impossibility. The issues that surfaced generated a series of conflicts which required political compromises. In addition to the primary conflict, need vs. want, there were provocations concerning localism vs. regionalism; economy vs. environment and who holds what reins of power. The Drafting Subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee of the SELUC made six significant changed in SB 100 to insure legislative enactment of the bill in 1973. The changes, while resolving most of the conflicts, still did not equate need and want, so the SELUC added a Statement of Legislative Intent, not to SB 100, but to the Senate Journal as a limit on administrative power. The last political compromise was made during the Senate Floor Debate on SB 100 when the emergency clause was removed from the bill. To all intents and purposed, need equaled want with Senate passage.

Bibliography: leaves 103-106. This research is concerned with rural land sharing communities in South Australia. The state's planning system is examined to see what mechanisms it possesses for dealing with communal or any other unconventional development, and what the main planning constraints are. A case study of an actual development application for a rural land sharing community is examined.