Should we be growing more homes on our farmlands?
As a rural landowner and part-time farmer, I think it’s worth taking a fresh look at the case for more housing beyond our cities.
In response to the need for affordable housing in Oregon, we’re now allowing more duplexes, triplexes, and “accessory dwelling units” in our cities, raising the question: Shouldn’t we also allow second and third homes on our expansive farmlands to take advantage of cheaper land and the allure of rural living?
That’s a contentious question in any state, but even more so in Oregon because two of the goals of our vaunted land use system are to prevent sprawl and preserve farmland. Plus, advocates of our current system have been fiercely resistant to loosening farmland protections since the enactment of SB 100 in 1973. But the housing crisis has opened minds to new approaches to residential development, as evidenced by the passage of HB 2001 (2019) and SB 458 (2021) as well as the release of a new housing needs assessment by the Oregon Housing and Community Services agency (OHCS).
But there's a telling omission in the OHCS report, titled “Building on New Ground.” Despite its title, the report ignores some of the most expansive new ground available for affordable housing, which can be found in the under-used acreage of tens of thousands of family farms in Oregon.
As a rural landowner and part-time farmer, I think it’s worth taking a fresh look at the case for more housing beyond our cities. And my experience with the land use conflicts that gave rise to Measure 37 (2004) and were partially resolved by Measure 49 (2007) suggests we can develop responsible models for expanding our housing stock in rural areas.
Three quick points bolster the case for affordable housing in rural areas. First, we know there’s an urgent need for more residential units, especially affordable rentals. We’re also seeing increased migration to areas in and around small farming communities. With the expansion of rural broadband and more jobs that allow working from home, these trends are only going to accelerate.
Second, the recent uptick in auxiliary housing uses in rural areas will continue, regardless of whether it’s formally integrated into our affordable housing strategy. Auxiliary housing uses are already evident on farmland, beyond what is legally allowed, in the form of Airbnb rentals and RVs tethered to existing homes. Rather than banning such uses, we should find a way to manage them.
Third, I’m convinced that building more houses on farmland need not lead to subdivisions or sprawl. Rather, a well-designed auxiliary housing regime can promote the preservation of farmland in ways that are far superior to many currently allowed agricultural uses. And, as an added benefit, such a regime can help to keep small family farms economically sustainable.
On these last points, there were lessons learned from the success of Measure 49 (which I helped to draft and bring to the voters). Although limited to landowners who had filed earlier claims to build additional homes on their land, this Measure has shown that building a second or third home on farm holdings is possible without subdividing existing ownerships. Nor does it lead to unsightly sprawl. Rather, a bird’s eye view of multi-dwelling farms throughout the Willamette Valley shows mere dots at the corners of broad, continuous fields.
Next, when it comes to preserving farmland, it’s hard to imagine a worse practice than scraping off the top soil and building massive structures for confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), such as the chicken farm under consideration outside Scio.
Adding one or two more homes would cede only a tiny portion of land to development on most farms. But they would add an important income stream to small holdings that are currently sustained by second-income jobs off the farm. There are 32,400 small farms in Oregon with reported farm incomes of less than $100,000 per year. If just five percent of them opted to develop two additional rental homes, assuming adequate water and drainage for new septic systems, that would yield 3,240 new dwellings.
Further, such development can secure the future for family farms that are otherwise vulnerable to market forces driving the aggregation of small parcels and a shift to massive monocultures. Many small farmers are getting great value from their acreages and doing so in ways that are environmentally superior to larger farms. I’d like to see them stay in business.
Finally, there’s a win-win for communities here as well: In return for the contributions to our housing stock, more rental homes will generate additional property taxes for rural schools and county services.
When it comes to big challenges like homelessness, we’re used to invoking the need for “all of the above” strategies. But not all of the above need to be big ideas. Changes at the margins can help as well. That’s how I see the case for allowing more housing units on farmland. It’s hardly the only solution, but it’s one of a larger set of responses that can produce other benefits – like helping farmers stay on their land, welcoming new families to rural areas and bridging the urban-rural divide.
Tim served as Chief of Staff for Gov. Kulongoski. A former union leader, he lives near Independence and oversees a specialty apple orchard.
 | A guest post by
|