Bend, OR – A developer who has secured millions in state funding to build over 100 affordable homes in southwest Bend is at odds with the city’s newly adopted tree preservation code. Larry Kine, a prominent Central Oregon developer, informed city planners in December that he would not comply with several requirements of the code, including submitting a tree preservation plan. His legal team argues that the lack of “clear and objective standards” in the city’s regulations makes it impossible to follow them effectively.
The dispute has raised concerns about the compatibility of Bend’s environmental goals with the city’s urgent need for affordable housing. The tree preservation code, which was introduced to protect the area’s natural landscape, requires developers to take significant steps to minimize tree removal during construction. However, Kine’s lawyers claim the regulations are too vague and create unnecessary hurdles for housing development.
Kine’s project, which aims to provide more than 100 affordable homes in an area experiencing rapid growth, is heavily reliant on the state funding he secured. Without the ability to move forward with the planned development in accordance with state standards, the project could face delays, potentially impacting the city’s already strained housing market.
The disagreement highlights a broader challenge facing rapidly growing cities like Bend, where the pressure to accommodate an increasing population and provide affordable housing often collides with environmental concerns. Advocates for the tree preservation code argue that it is essential for maintaining Bend’s character and natural resources, while critics suggest that it could hinder necessary development.
The city’s planners, for their part, are working to navigate the tension between environmental protections and the need for more housing. They argue that the code provides essential safeguards for Bend’s urban forest, which is an integral part of the city’s appeal and ecosystem. However, they may now face legal challenges from developers who view these regulations as a barrier to progress.
This conflict sets the stage for a potential legal battle, as Kine and the city square off over the interpretation and implementation of the tree preservation rules. With housing demand continuing to rise in the region, the outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for future development in Bend and beyond.
As the situation unfolds, city officials and developers alike will need to grapple with the difficult balance between preserving the environment and meeting the housing needs of a growing population. How this case is resolved could set important precedents for similar cities dealing with the complexities of urban growth and sustainability.
