Weigh In to Oppose Measures That Would Harm Oregon’s Rural Lands and Lead to Sprawl
Enabling sprawl on our agricultural, forest, rural lands, and public lands is not the Oregon way
Join Central Oregon LandWatch in opposing three bad bills that would allow sprawl on our agricultural, forest, and other rural lands, and even our public lands.
Urge key legislators to reject these measures.
NO on houses built for resale on our farm and forest lands (HB 2400)
NO on disorganized, haphazard upzoning of rural lands (HB 2422)
NO to development on public lands, with extensive infrastructure costs for Oregon (HB 2316)
Instead, let’s focus on smart growth inside cities and towns, where infrastructure costs are lower and where people can best access schools, jobs, and services.
With an upcoming House committee hearing, your written testimony now would help prevent these damaging bills from moving forward. Help us keep our legislators focused on priorities that safeguard working lands and help us live where we can thrive!
Who Your Comments Will Go To:
House Committee on Housing and Homelessness
What You Are Requesting:
Oppositon HB 2400, which would allow the owner of property outside an urban growth boundary to site an additional dwelling on the property for occupancy by a relative of the owner*
Opposition to HB 2422, which would require that lands zoned to allow density of one or fewer dwellings per acre to be considered a rural use
Opposition to HB 2316, which would allow designation of Home Start Lands to be used for housing
How to Submit Comments:
Through the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS) T Direct links can be found at the bottom of this page.
Fill out the relevant submission fields:
For “Position on Measure,” select “Oppose”
For “Submit text or upload a PDF,” choose “Text Testimony” to copy and paste the text below and personalize it directly in the text box provided.
Priority Deadline for Comment: Before 1 pm Monday, February 10, 2025
Final Deadline for Comment: Before 1 pm Wednesday, February 12, 2025
*Saying this bill allows for housing “for relatives” is a bait-and-switch tactic, as this bill allows and encourages resale. Any time after the application is approved, the family member can move out of the house and the owner may lease the house to anyone for 18 months. And, the owner may sell the house to anyone.
Choose one bill to write testimony for, copy the sample testimony for that bill from the text below, then click on the associated bill button at the bottom of this page.
On the testimony page, you can personalize your testimony.
-
Dear Chair Marsh, Vice-Chairs Andersen and Breese-Iverson, and Committee Members,
As a [CONCERNED / LONGTIME / NEW / etc] resident of [YOUR CITY/COUNTY], I am asking you to oppose HB 2400.
Allowing second dwellings in exclusive farm use and forest zones—as well as the nearly one million acres of land outside UGBs zoned for rural residential use in Oregon—would threaten Oregon’s farmland, puts intense pressure on our groundwater, and add to our wildfire risk.
By rejecting this measure, you can:
Protect Farms and Forests – Oregon’s land use laws exist to keep farm and forest lands productive. HB 2400 would allow additional housing on these lands without requiring that housing to support agriculture or forestry, driving up land costs and making it harder for farmers and foresters to continue their work.
Keep Groundwater Clean – More rural housing would mean more wells and septic systems, straining already limited groundwater supplies and risking groundwater contamination as nitrate pollution from septic wastewater leaches into shallow aquifers.
Help Wildlife – In Central Oregon, our mule deer populations are plummeting due to habitat loss. Increasing development in sensitive areas would worsen this crisis.
Reduce Wildfire Risk – Oregon’s rural lands are already at high wildfire risk, but fortunately Oregon’s land use laws have put us a step ahead other states when it comes to mitigating our risk. This is not the time to take a step back! More homes mean more human-caused fires and more people in danger when fires occur, straining emergency services.
Please protect Oregon’s rural lands and reject HB 2400. Thank you for your time and consideration!
Sincerely,
-
Hello Chair Marsh, Vice-Chairs Andersen and Breese-Iverson, and Committee Members:
Greetings from [YOUR CITY + A DESCRIPTION OF THE WEATHER OR SCENERY]!
I am writing in today to ask you to oppose HB 2422. Here’s what I don’t like about this bill:
Promotes Sprawl & Weakens Land Use Protections – Allow counties to bypass existing land use laws and enable case-by-case upzoning of rural lands? With the potential to double rural land density? No, thanks!
Limits Public Involvement – Oregon’s land use planning process is intentionally inclusive. This bill undermines that, making it easier for well-financed landowners to push through zoning changes without broader community input.
Threatens Resources & Infrastructure – Oregon’s land use system ensures development happens where infrastructure, transportation, and services already exist. Smart! HB 2422 disregards these safeguards, risking strain on resources and causing harm to farms, forests, and water supplies.
I’ve appreciated this opportunity to weigh in and I thank you for your consideration! With so many priorities in front of us, I hope you will protect Oregon’s rural lands and quickly reject HB 2422.
Sincerely,
-
To Chair Marsh, Vice-Chairs Andersen and Breese-Iverson, and Committee Members:
As a proud Oregonian, I love that Oregon is well-known for protecting its natural spaces while planning for smart growth.
HB 2316 would jeopardize that reputation by allowing sprawl housing development on public lands outside urban growth boundaries—costing taxpayers more while doing little to solve our housing crisis.
Sprawl Isn’t the Solution – Building homes far from cities and towns drives up costs, strains natural resources, and ignores the careful planning that has made Oregon a leader in sustainable development.
Infrastructure Costs Add Up – Before a single home is built, the state would have to invest heavily in roads, water, and emergency services—placing an unnecessary burden on taxpayers when more affordable options exist.
Better Options Exist – Instead of pushing development into sensitive areas, we should focus on surplus public lands inside our cities—places where families can walk to school, visit the doctor, and support local businesses. Oregon can meet its housing needs without sacrificing the landscapes that make this state special.
Please reject this measure. Thank you for the chance to say my piece! I appreciate you listening.
Regards,
When you are ready to add your comment, head here: