County responses to Goal 5 of LCDC planning goals and guidelines Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/9k41zk00c

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • Recent national and state legislation reflect a growing awareness of the need for comprehensive cultural resource management programs. Various pieces of federal legislation and Oregon's Senate Bill 100 demonstrate a willingness of governments to provide for such programs. The administration of local land use issues at the state government level has created much controversy in Oregon within the last decade. Controversy was brought to a climax with the enactment of Senate Bill 100. Senate Bill 100 created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1973 and gave the Commission authority to establish planning goals and guidelines to be used by local governments in the comprehensive planning process. Goal 5 requires the local planning departments to inventory various resources of the state, including historic areas, sites, structures and objects, and cultural areas. LCDC has encountered difficulties in attempting to implement Planning Goal 5 at the local government level. Problems facing the local planning departments represented here by six Oregon counties in meeting the cultural resource element of Goal 5 are also examined. Using both a descriptive treatment and systems analysis as the approach to data analysis, it is found that the many problems confronting county staffs are important factors relating to the overall quality of responses to Goal 5. County staffs' ill-preparedness to conceive of the goal, let alone respond, is a result of their lack of orientation to and training for the directed task. The vagueness of goal requirements, leading to a maze of misinterpretations, lack of understanding, and the lack of the ability to conceptualize the problems at hand, have created a conflict situation. It is concluded that the degree to which counties have managed to resolve conflicts and overcome problems contributes directly to the quality of responses, LCDC has not determined specific criteria for evaluating county responses to Goals for the plan acknowledgment process. Lack of specific criteria for evaluation has placed LCDC in the position of evaluating county responses without adequate data bases, which in turn has led LCDC to acknowledge compliance for some comprehensive plans which do not fully comply to Goal requirements.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using ScandAll PRO 1.8.1 on a Fi-6670 in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 4.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-08-13T19:36:05Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ShortSharylE1982.pdf: 750354 bytes, checksum: 3b07804e8c77a3d645eb830871e32e68 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-08-15T15:23:25Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ShortSharylE1982.pdf: 750354 bytes, checksum: 3b07804e8c77a3d645eb830871e32e68 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Katy Davis (kdscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-08-13T18:58:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ShortSharylE1982.pdf: 750354 bytes, checksum: 3b07804e8c77a3d645eb830871e32e68 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-15T15:23:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ShortSharylE1982.pdf: 750354 bytes, checksum: 3b07804e8c77a3d645eb830871e32e68 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1981-09-29

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items