A proposal meant to increase public participation in Oregon’s land use process is raising concerns among builders about further delays to housing construction.

Proponents argue that House Bill 2950 is needed to overhaul “stale” and “outdated” citizen involvement rules that haven’t been revised in a half-century.

Though public participation is “Goal 1” of the state’s land use planning system, existing procedures often fail to include the people whose health and safety is most affected by development proposals, said Rep Thuy Tran, D-Portland, the bill’s chief sponsor.

“When we fail to engage the public properly, it costs them a voice in this process,” potentially slowing it down with appeals and lawsuits, she said during a recent legislative hearing.

The bill would require the state’s Land Conservation and Development Commission to amend the citizen involvement goal with the principles of “racial justice” and “diversity, equity and inclusion” in mind, among others.

“People with means and resources are often the only voices elevated in the planning process,” said Jonathan Harker, a representative of the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association.

LCDC would also have to consider how to overcome hurdles to public participation, including time constraints, geography, technology and language.

“We have not had that robust involvement over the past few decades by all Oregonians,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, associate director of the 1000 Friends of Oregon farmland preservation nonprofit.

An advisory committee composed of 17 members representing cities, counties, planning associations and other organizations would help LCDC amend the land use goal.

Critics say they don’t oppose greater transparency but worry that HB 2950 will exacerbate the “not in my backyard” mentality that already hinders land use decisions.

“The current system is simply not meeting the needs of our communities,” said Duke Shepard, senior policy director for the Oregon Business and Industry organization. “More meetings, hearings and appeals will not solve the housing crisis or support economic growth.”

Another concern is the advisory committee’s composition, which opponents claim is ideologically skewed and would benefit from the viewpoints of builders and landowners.

“The makeup of the committee in the bill does not include anyone who does work on the development side,” said Dave Hunnicutt, president of the Oregon Property Owners Association.

Critics said public participation procedures can be misused to obstruct “in-fill” proposals within cities that aim to spare farmland from development.

“We’re finding Goal 1 is being used to decrease density and increase the requirements on housing, which increases costs and seems to be counterintuitive to what we’re trying to do with our land use process,” said Natalie Janney, a civil engineer opposed to HB 2950.

However, some of the bill’s critics struck a conciliatory tone during the recent hearing, saying they’d rethink their opposition if the advisory committee better reflected a range of perspectives on development.

“I do believe we can sit down and come up with an amendment that is workable for everyone,” said Jodi Hack, lobbyist for the Oregon Home Builders Association.