Abolition no panacea.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Only Sen. Bill Morrisette's dissent kept the Oregon Senate from achieving Politburo-style unanimity in support of a bill to abolish the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Approval is likely to follow in the House. Once it is gone, however, the commission's work will need to be done by other government agencies - and their decisions will be no less difficult.

Lane County's boundary commission is the only remaining agency of its kind in Oregon. Multnomah and Marion counties got rid of their boundary commissions years ago. The Legislature created the three commissions in 1969 to review annexations and the formation or dissolution of special service districts. The intent was to ensure that such actions are consistent with state law and local land use plans, a role that became less vital with the advent of statewide land use planning in 1973.

Senate Bill 417, sponsored by Sen. Vicki Walker and Reps. Chris Edwards and Phil Barnhart, all Eugene Democrats, would kill the last holdout. Abolition is supported by 11 of Lane County's 12 municipalities; the city of Eugene is neutral. The League of Oregon Cities and the Special Districts Association of Oregon support the legislation. Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexation, which seeks greater citizen control of the annexation process, has long sought to abolish the commission.

The energy behind SB 417 comes from the River Road-Santa Clara area, represented by Walker and Edwards, where annexations have been a source of bitter controversy for decades. With or without the boundary commission, they're likely to remain controversial for decades longer. Indeed, the demise of the commission would leave the city of Eugene in control of the area's annexations. If any unit of government is less popular in the River Road-Santa Clara area than the boundary commission, it's the city of Eugene.

Still, Walker, Jerry Ritter of Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexation and others say SB 417 would bring welcome accountability. The boundary commission is technically a state agency whose members are appointed by the governor. Its abolition would put decisions regarding annexations and special districts in the hands of elected local officials. In Ritter's view, even the prospect of an enhanced role for Eugene is softened by the city's recent retreat from an aggressive pursuit of annexations.

Walker contends that laws governing cities' annexation policies are more restrictive than the ones governing the boundary commission. But the real change would be that while the commission is insulated from the political repercussions of its decisions, city councils - and, in the case of special district formation, the Lane County Board of Commissioners - are not. The danger is that accountability will come at the expense of consistency, and that technical legal and land use matters will become politicized.

It's even possible that some supporters of abolition will one day miss the boundary commission. It is, to be sure, an added layer of government - but it is also a one-stop agency. It can approve an annexation, for instance, while simultaneously withdrawing the property from the districts that formerly provided fire, water and other services. Such coordination will no longer be built into the boundary change process.

All other parts of Oregon manage to get along without boundary commissions; Lane County can do the same. But supporters of SB 417 shouldn't set their hopes too high. Abolition won't change the difficult and controversial nature of local government boundary changes, and might make the process less smooth. SB 417 is on a fast track toward approval - but if it were derailed somehow, there would be little cause to mourn.