Legislative deadlines have killed proposed restrictions on replacement dwellings, home occupations and retail operations in Oregon agricultural zones that were intended to stem the loss of farmland.

Exactly why the proposals fizzled, and whether their prospects will improve in the future, is a matter of diverging perspectives.

Dictating the size of people’s houses or the types of businesses they can operate was “offensive” to lawmakers, and will likely remain so, said Dave Hunnicutt, president of the Oregon Property Owners Association.

“I don’t know why the arguments would be any different in 2027 than they are today,” Hunnicutt said.

While supporters find it disappointing the bills have died in committee, at least the problems they address are now on lawmakers’ radar, said Jim Johnson, working lands policy director of the 1000 Friends of Oregon nonprofit.

“I believe this is just the beginning. The issues are out there now. They’re being talked about. We have not seen the last of these,” Johnson said. “There’s not too many ideas that make it into the Legislature that make it through the first time.”

Proponents claimed the bills were necessary to fix weaknesses in the state’s land use system that have contributed to sustained decreases in crop and livestock acreage.

Critics argued that agricultural protections were working as intended and accused the proposals of infringing on property rights and hindering farmers from diversifying their revenues.

The legislation focused on provisions of land use law that supporters claimed have been exploited by land developers, wealthy residents and non-agricultural businesses:

• Senate Bill 73 would have made it harder to change farm and forest properties to “non-resource” zones with lower hurdles to development.

• Senate Bill 77 would have restricted home occupations in agricultural zones to discourage hotels and restaurants owned by non-residents.

• Senate Bill 78 would have limited the size of replacement dwellings to prevent modest farm houses from being demolished to allow for the construction of much larger residences.

• House Bill 3133 would have tightened up what’s allowed to occur on farm stands to ensure such retail operations serve an agricultural purpose.

Lawmakers were uncomfortable prohibiting replacement dwellings that are more than 2,500 square feet or more than 10% larger than the original home, especially at a time of housing shortages, said Hunnicutt.

They were also wary of subjecting home occupations to limits on parking spaces and other business features, which would effectively require neighbors to report each other for violations, he said.

“Having a home business is crucial for rural Oregonians, including farm families,” Hunnicutt said.

Johnson, of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, said it’s reasonable to expect home occupations to be operated by people actually living on the property, rather than outside investors.

Meanwhile, people who want to build larger homes on farmland would still have other procedural paths available other than replacement dwellings, he said.

“It’s not a way to skirt for farm and forest land and build houses that are totally out of character for farm and forest land,” Johnson said.

The two sides even disagreed on the fundamental premise that Oregon has lost significant amounts of farmland in recent years.

Supporters of the new land use restrictions cited USDA statistics that state’s agricultural acreage has shrunk by more than 4% over five years, outpacing the rate of farmland loss across much of the West.

Opponents said the agency has a low threshold for what it considers a farm, likely including rural residential properties within urban growth boundaries, while the actual acreage zoned for agriculture and forestry has remained largely unchanged.

In the end, none of the proposals were approved for a Senate floor vote by a policy committee by the mid-point of the 2025 legislative session, which means they cannot move forward this year. However, the rules for farm stands will be revised by state land use regulators.