Regional growth management regime: The case of Portland, Oregon

Journal of Urban Affairs

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 363-394

  Leo, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032270959     PISSN: 07352166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.1998.tb00428.x     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Friends of Oregon. (1995a, January). People for planning. Landmark, 18-19. Portland, OR: Author.
2. Friends of Oregon. (1995b, January). Planning for healthy communities. Landmark, 20-21. Portland, OR: Author.
3. Friends of Oregon. (1995c, January). The importance of neighborhood vitality. Landmark, 22-23. Portland, OR: Author.
4. Friends of Oregon. (1997). Making the connections: A summary of the LUTRAQ project. Portland: Author.
5. th century city. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
6. Abbott, C. (1991). Urban design in Portland, Oregon, as policy and process: 1960-1989. Planning Perspectives (6), 1-18.
7. Abbott, C., & Howe, D. (1993). The politics of land use law in Oregon: Senate Bill 100, twenty years after. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 94(1).
8. Abbott, C., Howe, D., & Adler, S. (Eds.). (1994). Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
9. Alinsky, S. (1969). Reveille for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
10. Baker, K., Hinze, S., & Manzi, N. (1991). Minnesota's fiscal disparities program. St. Paul: Minnesota House of Representatives, Research Department.
11. Baldassare, M. (1986). Trouble in paradise: The suburban transformation in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
12. Beauregard, R. A. (1989). Atop the urban hierarchy. Lanham, MD: Rowman.
13. Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14. Bordieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15. Chandler, J. A. (1996). Fun things to do with planners: Comprehensive statewide land use planning. Land Development (Fall), 17-20.
16. City of Portland. (1972). Planning guidelines: Downtown Portland plan. Portland, OR: Author.
17. City of Portland. (1988). Central city plan. Portland, OR: Author.
18. City of Portland. (1995). Comprehensive plan goals and policies. Portland, OR: Author.
19. Clark, T. N., & Goetz, E. G. (1994). The anti-growth machine: Can city governments control, limit or manage growth? In T. N. Clark (Ed.), Urban innovation: Creative strategies for turbulent times (pp. 105-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Comprehensive land use planning coordination. Oregon, revised statutes. (1993). Chapter 197.
21. Cox, K. R., & Mair, A. (1988). Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(2), 307-325.
22. Daniels, T. L., & Nelson, A. C. (1986). Is Oregon's farmland preservation program working? Journal of the American Planning Association, 52(1), 22-32.
23. DeGrove, J. M., & Miness, D. (1992). The new frontier for land policy: Planning and growth management in the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
24. DiGaetano, A., & Klemanski, J. (1993). Urban regime capacity: A comparison of Birmingham, England, and Detroit, Michigan. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(4), 367-384.
25. Downs, A. (1988). The real problem with suburban anti-growth policies. Brookings Review, 6(2), 23-29.
26. Downs, A. (1994). New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
27. Elkin, S. L. (1987a). City and regime in the American republic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Elkin, S. L. (1987b). State and market in city politics: Or, the "real" Dallas. In C. N. Stone & H. T. Sanders (Eds.), The politics of urban development. (Chapter 2). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
29. Friedman, E. S. (1993). The facts of life in Portland, Oregon. Portland: Portland Possibilities, Inc.
30. Gurr, T. R., & King, D. S. (1987). The state and the city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Hales, C. A. (1991, September 12). Higher density + certainty = affordable housing for Portland, Oregon. Urban Land, 12-15.
32. Keating, M. (1991). Comparative urban politics: Power and the City in the United States, Canada, Britain, and France. Aldershot, Hants, England: Gower House; Brookfield, VT: E. Elgar.
33. Knaap, G., & Nelson, A. C. (1992). The regulated landscape: Lessons on state land use planning from Oregon. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
34. Knaap, G. (1987). Self-interest and voter support for Oregon's land use controls. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 92-97.
35. Knaap, G. (1994). Land use politics in Oregon. In C. Abbott, D. Howe, & S. Adler (Eds.), Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation (pp. 3-23). Corvallis: Oregon State University.
36. Krumholz, N., & Clavel, P. (1994). Reinventing cities. Philadelphia: Temple University.
37. Langdon, P. (1992, November). How Portland does it: A city that protects its thriving core. The Atlantic Monthly, 134-141.
38. Lauria, M. (1994). Waterfront development, urban regeneration and local politics in New Orleans and Liverpool. Conference paper. Bristol, England: University of Bristol, School for Advanced Urban Studies.
39. Lauria, M. (Ed.) (1997). Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating local government in a global economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Leo, C. (1994). The urban economy and the power of the local state. In F. Frisken (Ed.), The changing Canadian metropolis: A public policy perspective (vol. 2) (pp. 657-698). Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies.
41. Leo, C. (1995). Global change and local politics: Economic decline and the local regime in Edmonton. Journal of Urban Affairs, 17(3), 277-299.
42. Leo, C. (1997). City politics in an era of globalization. In M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy (pp. 77-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Leo, C., Beavis, M., Carver, A., & Turner, R. (1998). Is urban sprawl back on the political agenda? Local growth control, regional growth management, and politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34(2).
44. Leo, C. & Fenton, R. (1990). "Mediated enforcement" and the evolution of the state: Development corporations in Canadian city centres. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 14, 185-206.
45. Leonard, H. J. (1983). Managing Oregon's growth: The politics of development planning. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
46. Lewis, P. G. (1996). Shaping suburbia: How political institutions organize urban development. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
47. Little, C. E. (1974). The new Oregon trail. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
48. Logan, J. R., & Zhou, M. (1989, June). Do suburban growth controls control growth? American Sociological Review, 54, 461-471.
49. Looking Forward. (1996a). November/December. Tigard, OR: Oregonians in Action.
50. Looking Forward. (1996b). September/October. Tigard, OR: Oregonians in Action.
51. Lynn, M., & Matthews, K. (1991, October 25). Super cities. Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, 42-43.
52. Metro. (1995, Spring/Summer). Frameword 2040. Portland, OR: Author.
53. Molotch, H., & Vicari, S. (1988). Three ways to build: The development process in the United States, Japan and Italy. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24(2), 188-210.
54. Moshofsky, B. (1995). Oregon's private property rights movement picks up steam. The Business Journal, 12(2), 39.
55. Multnomah County, (nd). Citizen involvement handbook. Portland, OR: Author.
56. Nelson, A. C., & Milgroom, J. H. (1995). Regional growth management and central-city vitality: Comparing development patterns in Atlanta, Georgia, and Portland, Oregon. In F. W. Wagner, T. E. Joder, & A. J. Mumphrey, Jr. (Eds.) Urban revitalization: Policies and programs (pp. 1-37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Northwest Pilot Project. (1994). Nineteen ninety-four downtown Portland affordable housing inven-tory. Portland, OR: Author.
58. Oregon, administrative rules. (1991). Interpretation of Goal Two: Exception process. Chapter 660, Division 4, Land Conservation and Development Commission. March.
59. Oregon, administrative rules. (1994). Agricultural land. Chapter 660, Division 33, Land Conservation and Development Commission. August.
60. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. (1994). Oregon's statewide planning goals. Salem: Author.
61. Oregon Department of Transportation. (1995). Western Bypass study: Alternatives analysis. Portland: Author.
62. Oregon Farm Bureau, (nd). The foundations of Oregon Farm Bureau land use policies. Typescript. Salem: Author.
63. Oregon Forest Industries Council. (1995). OFIC policy statements: Land use planning goals. Salem: Author.
64. Painter, J. (1997). Regulation, regime and practice in urban politics. In M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy (pp. 122-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Pease, J. R. (1994). Oregon rural land use: Policy and practices. In C. Abbott, D. Howe, & S. Adler (Eds.), Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation. Corvallis: Oregon State University, 163-188.
66. Pecorella, R. F. (1987). Fiscal crises and regime change: A contextual approach. In C. N. Stone & H. T. Sanders (Eds.), The politics of urban development (Chapter 3). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
67. Peirce, N. R., & Guskind, R. (1993). Breakthroughs: Re-creating the American city. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research.
68. Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago.
69. Portland Organizing Project. (1995, January 31). Broken covenant/new covenant. Portland: Author.
70. Portland Organizing Project. (1995, March 28). Our Lenten message. Portland: Author.
71. Portland Organizing Project. (nd). What Is the Portland Organizing Project? Portland: Author.
72. Reitzes, D., & Reitzes, D. (1987). The Alinsky legacy: Alive and kicking. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
73. Rosentraub, M. S., & Helmke, P. (1996). Location theory, a growth coalition, and a regime in the development of a medium-sized city. Urban Affairs Review, 31(4), 482-507.
74. Shefter, M. (1985). Political crisis fiscal crisis. New York: Basic Books.
75. Smith, P. J. (1996). Restructuring metropolitan governance: Vancouver and BC reforms. Policy Options, 17(7), 7-11.
76. Stoker, G., & Mossberger, K. (1994). Urban regime theory in comparative perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 12, 195-212.
77. Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
78. Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(1), 1-28.
79. Stone, C. N. (1995). Political leadership in urban politics. In D. Judge, G. Stoker, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Theories of urban politics. (pp. 96-116). London: Sage.
80. Town planning: Where it works. (1990, September 1). Economist, 316(7670), 24-25.
81. Turner, R. S. (1990). New rules for the growth game: The use of rational state standards in land use policy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 12(1), 35-47.
82. Update. Various issues. Salem: Oregon Small Woodlands Association.
83. Walth, B. (1994). Fire at Eden's gate: Tom McCall and the Oregon story. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press.
84. Whelan, R. K., Young, A. H., & Lauria, M. (1994). Urban regimes and racial politics in New Orleans. Journal of Urban Affairs, 16(1), 1-21.
85. Whelan, R. K. (1987). New Orleans: Mayoral politics and economic-development policies in the postwar years 1945-86. In C. N. Stone & H. T. Sanders (Eds.), The politics of urban development (chapter 11). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
86. When city hall learns to think like a business. (1991, October 25). Business Week, 136.