2025 legislative recap

During this year's long session, which ran from January 21 to June 30, a record number of bills were introduced (over 3,400), and 1000 Friends tracked more than 450 of those bills. We testified directly on or in coalition with others on about three dozen bills. We send out many alerts in favor of or opposing specific bills, and your responsiveness was impressive. We deeply thank everyone who took the time to send an email to or call their legislator – it does make a difference. 

1000 Friends of Oregon led the advocacy on bills to advance agricultural and forest land protection, produce more diverse and affordable housing options for all Oregonians, and fund wildfire mitigation and resiliency efforts. We also supported other bills to protect natural and marine resources, support carbon sequestration on agricultural lands, fund working lands easements, and provide funding for affordable housing. And, we opposed bills that sought to undermine Oregon’s land use laws.

Farmers, ranchers and forest land managers from around the state turned out in great numbers and testified in support of two committee bills in the Senate Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee and a third bill dealing with energy facility siting. While none of these bills moved out of their committee, it was a great victory to get as far as we all did and these bills and others will be back!  We will need everyone to join us in our ongoing campaign to better protect Oregon’s agriculture and forest lands.

Coalition work was a large part of our legislative activity this session, as we worked together with allied organizations Thrive Hood River, Better Housing Together, Portland: Neighbors Welcome, and Central Oregon Landwatch on a suite of housing bills that all passed. Thanks to a shared and experienced organizer who kept all up-to-date with ongoing communications, informed and persistent testimony from staff and volunteers from all organizations, and experienced 1000 Friends staff in the Capitol, we were successful in getting legislation passed in all areas our coalition targeted. These are the first four bills listed in this recap.

We were also part of the Move Oregon Forward coalition, which researched, educated, organized, communicated, and advocated throughout the session to bring a powerful and united message that the transportation package must serve all Oregonians. Despite the transportation package failing to pass in the final hours of the session, we are committed to continue organizing within this coalition to meet long-haul goals for accountable, fair, climate-smart, and affordable transportation statewide.

Overall, we had a successful session: important housing bills were passed that will make it easier to build more diverse and affordable housing where people need and want to live - in every neighborhood, in every town and city. Together with those who farm and forest, we brought to the legislative forefront the precarious state of Oregon’s agricultural and forest lands, due to pressure from sprawl, retail operations, and other uses that have nothing to do with growing food or fiber but do cause multiple conflicts and increase the cost of farm & forest land. As we begin to prepare for the 2026 short session, we are looking out for potential speed bumps in housing production and working lands protections, and strategizing on filling the major gaps left by unrealized transportation legislation.

Below are the key bills we followed this session organized under our advocacy areas. To see a full list of bills we testified on, view our 2025 legislative overview.

Housing Production

HB 2138 Middle and infill housing production

Supported and passed

What it does: Oregon passed groundbreaking legislation allowing middle housing (duplexes, three- and fourplexes, cottage clusters, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, often called ADUs) in most neighborhoods, which other states and regions are now following. However, as that legislation has rolled out, some local barriers remain that need to be removed or changed to truly allow these housing choices. This legislation does that. HB 2138 will:

• Add flexibility for the various “plex” homes to be attached or detached.
• Increase the home size for cottage-cluster developments.
• Provide a density bonus for housing that is affordable or meets “Type A” accessibility requirements.
• Simplify the path to retain an existing house on a lot while locating middle housing on the remainder.
• Make it easier to develop small homes with shared communal facilities.
• Remove private and economically exclusionary restrictions and hurdles to middle housing development.
• Make it easier to site manufactured middle housing types and ADUs.
• Remove or simplify various local procedural hurdles.

Why it matters: Producing middle and infill housing in existing neighborhoods means all sorts of families – people with middle and lower incomes, older folks, small families, and more – have the opportunity to live closer to schools, stores, parks, and jobs. It means teachers, utility workers, medical technicians, and others can live in the communities they serve. And it’s better for the climate when people don’t have to drive as far or as often, because what they need is close by. Yet local cumbersome processes and unnecessary requirements are proving a hurdle to actually building this housing. This bill removes or modifies those hurdles, allowing more infill and middle housing.

Testimony: Read our March 3 hearing testimony, our March 26 hearing testimony, and our one pager on the bill.

HB 3145 Innovative housing types

Supported and passed

What it does: This bill advances the development of innovative housing-construction materials and methods in Oregon, thereby enabling housing to be built and sited quickly, especially housing for people with moderate and lower incomes. The bill includes funding for training throughout the building industry about these more efficient methods. The original funding proposed for the actual home manufacturing elements of the bill was cut from $50 million to $25 million, but that is sufficient to launch this impactful program.

Why it matters: Many innovative housing-construction methods and materials are being developed – such as modular, mass timber, and factory-produced – that allow housing of different sizes to be built, generally offsite, and assembled onsite at costs less than conventional homebuilding methods, yet blending in with those conventional homes. Investment in this industry, in Oregon, will help produce housing quickly, refine these innovative methods, and provide Oregon jobs. 

Testimony: Read our March 10 hearing testimony and our one pager on the bill.

HB 3031 Infrastructure for residential development

Supported and passed

What it does: Oregon’s cities have thousands of acres designated for residential use inside their urban growth boundaries (UGBs), but many of these lands lack some or all infrastructure or need upgrades – roads, sewers, water, sidewalks. This bill establishes a state-level structure to provide loans, grants, or forgivable loans to local governments and tribal governments, to build some of this infrastructure, pursuant to a formula to ensure both small and large cities benefit. The housing must meet specified minimum densities and affordable housing will receive the funding in grants.  However, the original funding proposed for this bill was cut from $100 million to $10 million.  It is a start, but a small one.  We are hopeful that establishment of this program specifically for infrastructure to support residential development means it will receive additional funds in the future.

Why it matters: Almost every city in Oregon – from very large to very small – has land the community has already decided is good for housing, yet no homes have been built there because extensions or upgrades of water and sewer lines, local roads, and sidewalks are expensive. These areas are well located near things like schools and stores. Decades ago, this infrastructure was commonly funded by federal, state, and local funding sources, but those have significantly dwindled. This long-term neglect has negatively impacted building the housing Oregonians need. Housing advocates, builders, cities, and many others agree that investing in these lands is the most important step the state can take now to unlock large parcels to quickly produce the housing we need, where we need it.

Testimony: Read our February 26 hearing testimony and our one pager on the bill.

SB 51 Preservation of existing affordable housing

Supported and passed

What it does: SB 51 provides two programs to preserve existing affordable housing and to keep residents in their homes. First, it establishes a program at the Oregon Housing & Community Services agency to coordinate efforts toward, collect data about, and incentivize preservation of existing affordable housing. This includes manufactured dwelling parks, properties with expiring rent assistance contracts, and properties in need of significant repairs.  Second, it provides  funding to support property management staffing, operations, training, and capacity building.

The requested funding to establish this program was cut approximately in half, to $3.3 million. And the cost to actually preserve the housing itself – to make major repairs and upgrades – was funded at a fraction of the need.

Public and nonprofit developers have built tens of thousands of homes across Oregon that provide long-term affordable housing for people with lower income, including seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, families, and people on fixed incomes, often paired with supportive services. Many of those buildings are reaching an age where they need major repairs, just like any home. SB 51 is a good start, and we hope to see additional investments from the legislature in the future.

Why it matters: Repairing and upgrading existing buildings is more cost efficient than building new ones. These investments also keep people in the homes, schools, and communities they know, rather than uprooting them.

Testimony: Read our March 26 hearing testimony and our one pager on the bill.

HB 3589 Senior housing initiative

Supported and passed

What it does: This bill establishes a senior housing-development initiative to incentivize creating housing for older adults and people with disabilities, including housing that prioritizes accessibility.

Why it matters: Senior homelessness is on the rise, Oregon’s population is aging at a faster rate than the national average, and our current housing supply already underserves people who need accessible solutions as they age or to accommodate disabilities. We need to address current gaps in our housing options for seniors, and start now to provide safe, accessible, appropriate, and affordable housing for older Oregonians of tomorrow.

Testimony: Read our March 5 hearing testimony.

HB 3939 Infrastructure funding for housing in rural towns and cities

Supported but did not pass

What it does: This bill would have provided the infrastructure funding needed to bring to the finish line more than 3,000 new homes in 10 rural towns and cities, with 30 percent being available for sale or rent to people with moderate incomes.

Why it matters: Many Oregon towns and cities have land ready for housing, but providing the pipes and roads to enable actual development is expensive, and getting more so. HB 3939 would have helped close that funding gap, while ensuring that enough of the housing is available for people who form the working backbone of our communities.

Despite bipartisan support, this bill did not fully pass before the session ended. However, some of the named infrastructure projects  were funded through end-of-session budget bills.

Testimony: Read our April 7 hearing testimony.

SB 444Accessible housing 

Supported but did not pass

What it does: This bill would have established important first steps to meet the need of many Oregonians for accessible housing. It would have:

• Required that 10 percent of housing built with state funds complies with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS).
• Required that in buildings with 10 or more units, 10 percent of the project meet Type A accessibility standards.
• Triggered Fair Housing Act design and construction requirements at three units (this is currently triggered at four units).

Why it matters: The US Census estimates that 15 percent of Oregonians have one or more disabilities. While people of all ages and all sorts of families need accessible housing, we are an aging population, meaning this percentage is projected to significantly increase. Many are on fixed incomes. We need to start building accessible units now, not just for today but for the future. However, the state’s current building code requires accessibility features in only 2 percent of units in buildings with over 20 units. That means we are significantly failing to meet the housing needs of Oregonians with disabilities. No city in Oregon has even close to a sufficient amount of housing to meet the needs of its current and future residents with disabilities. 

Testimony: Read our February 5 hearing testimony.

SB 684Revolving loan fund for mixed-income residential projects

Supported and passed

What it does: The original bill would have provided a new and needed funding source for mixed-income housing developments – a tool new to Oregon but proven in other jurisdictions. It would have established and seeded public-private partnerships with below-market-rate loans to develop housing that integrates affordable, work-force, and market-rate units, while providing long-term affordability for the affordable units. The fund would be self-sustaining, with the loans being repaid and then reinvested into new projects.

However, SB 684 was trimmed back.  It directs OHCS to conduct a study of how to structure and implement a revolving loan fund  for mixed income housing projects and report back by November 15, 2025.  It also directs OHCS to adopt rules on lending strategies for this program.  However, the legislature did not provide any funding to kick-off the program.  We expect to be joining others in a future session to obtain funding for this promising housing and community building program.

Why it matters: In other states where this type of revolving loan fund for mixed-income projects has been in place, it has been successful both in building new projects and bringing private projects to the finish line with public dollars, in exchange for inclusion of affordable units. The Construction Revolving Loan Fund provides a powerful new financial tool for building both market-rate housing and affordable housing.

Testimony: Read our March 12 hearing testimony.

Natural and Working Lands

SB 73 Ends case-by-case rezoning of agricultural and forest land for residential and industrial development

Supported and stalled

What it does: This bill would have required local governments to use an existing statutory planning process when rezoning designated agricultural and forest land for residential or industrial development, rather than allowing case-by-case rezoning of individual properties outside a planning process. Unlike property-by-property rezonings, the state planning process requires careful consideration of the impacts of exurban sprawl on groundwater, wildlife habitat, and more, as well as future urbanization and agricultural and forestry productivity. 

Why it matters: Counties across Oregon are allowing landowners to rezone individual tracts of agricultural and forest land for rural residential and industrial development without adequate oversight and direction. This case-by-case rezoning is converting thousands of acres of valuable resource land into a crazy quilt of harmful development in the middle of large blocks of agricultural and forest land. This opportunity for speculative development drives up agricultural and forest land prices; introduces expensive and disruptive conflicts for farmers, ranchers, and forest land managers; and breaks up the large blocks of resource land Oregon’s agricultural and forest economies need to operate. 

SB 77 Prevent elite development abuse of “home occupations” on agricultural and forest land

Introduced for 1000 Friends of Oregon and stalled

What it does: A loophole in the statutory provisions for “home occupation” businesses in rural homes is being abused to allow large-scale hospitality and entertainment facilities on land designated for agricultural and timber production. This legislation would have closed the loophole by clarifying the definition of “home occupations” and providing clear and objective standards to ensure the primary use of a rural home is residential and not commercial. 

Why it matters: Oregon land use law allows people living in exclusive farm and forest use zones to operate small businesses, called “home occupations,” within their homes, such as bookkeeping services or small-scale childcare facilities. But the home occupation provision is vaguely written and has become a loophole to allow hospitality, entertainment, and other commercial uses in exclusive farm and forest use zones, evading the legislature’s specific requirements for such nonfarm and nonforest uses.

SB 77 was given a hearing, at which almost all the testimony was in support of these common sense reforms to the “home occupation” statute. However, it did not move further through the legislature.

Testimony: View our presentation at the March 6 hearing.

SB 78 Common-sense reform of “replacement dwellings” provision on agricultural and forest land

Introduced for 1000 Friends of Oregon and stalled

What it does: Oregon land use laws authorize “replacement dwellings” for homeowners in farm and forest zones who have lost their homes to natural disaster or decay. This is a narrow hardship exception designed to help homeowners quickly and reliably replace the home they lost, and it does not require the standard review process for siting new homes in exclusive farm and forest zones. However, wealthy landowners and speculators are abusing this lack of review criteria to tear down modest homes and build large, expensive country estates unrelated to growing food and fiber. This bill would have helped address this misuse by limiting the scale of “replacement dwellings,” thereby reducing the speculative attraction of agricultural and forest lands for luxury homesite development.

Why it matters: Oregon agricultural and forest land is being lost to luxury home developers who are misusing the limited authorization for “replacement dwellings” in Oregon’s exclusive farm and forest zones. This both takes land out of production and drives up the price of nearby agricultural and forest land. Oregon’s farmers, ranchers, and forest land managers – especially people who are just growing their businesses – are finding it increasingly difficult to locate land they can afford to lease or purchase. 

Oregon is losing nearly 300 tracts of agricultural and forest land every year for high-end residential development in the form of replacement dwellings. That hurts family farmers, ranchers, and forest land managers who need large blocks of undeveloped agricultural and forest land for efficient food and fiber production.

SB 78 was given a hearing, at which much of the testimony was in support of these common sense reforms to the "replacement dwelling” statute. However, it did not move further through the legislature.

Testimony: View our presentation at the March 6 hearing.

SB 79 Limits new homes unrelated to agricultural and forest management in critical groundwater areas, wildlife habitat, and high-value farm land areas

Supported and stalled

What it does: This bill would have prohibited new houses that have nothing to do with agriculture or forest management from being built in critical groundwater areas, on priority wildlife habitat and migration corridors, and on high‐value farm land.

Why it matters: In exclusive farm and forest use zones, Oregon counties are annually approving an average of 697 new houses that have no relationship to agricultural or forest management. Rural residential sprawl not only threatens our agricultural and forest land base, it also negatively impacts groundwater supplies and critical wildlife habitat and priority connectivity areas. It makes no sense to continue the expansion of residential development in these state-designated areas of concern.

SB 936 Bypass land use laws to allow $2 billion water-treatment facility

Opposed and did not pass

What it does: The bill would have given government agencies a pathway to supersiting infrastructure projects in communities across the state. The bill would have permitted development outright – whether new facilities or alterations – in any zone in response to an agreement or rule issued by the Oregon Health Authority, the Department of Environmental Quality, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency.. Local governments would be allowed to bypass LCDC rules and land use planning goals when approving applications for such developments.

Why it matters: The bill would have allowed government agencies to decide where and how they build major infrastructure projects without regard for who’s living there now or what’s there now. The bill would have enabled government agencies to build in communities and pave over our environment without addressing the direct harms or spillover impacts that come during demolition, construction, and operation of the facilities. This bill was an attempt to bypass a recent ruling by the Land Use Board of Appeals that halted construction of a $2.1 billion water-treatment facility because local officials failed to consider impacts on area natural resources.

HB 3131 Oregon Agricultural Heritage Program (OAHP) funding

Supported but did not pass*

What it does: The legislature created the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Program (OAHP) in 2017 but did not fund its operation until 2022. Since then, the program has provided millions of dollars (and attracted millions more in federal funding) for willing farm and ranch landowners to create easements that permanently protect their land and ensure it remains in production. This bill provided continued funding. 

Why it matters: OAHP is not a land use program; rather, it is another tool to help Oregon achieve the goal of preserving farm land by placing working lands easements on the land of willing property owners. The program also helps farmers with transition planning to keep their land in agriculture for the next generation of farmers. 

*While this bill did not move forward, funding for the OAHP was provided in the budget for the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB).

Testimony: Read our January 27 hearing testimony.

HB 3422 Ensures all large-scale energy facilities are subject to the same siting criteria

Supported but did not pass

What it does: This bill would have required the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) to use the same land use standards as counties for siting energy facilities. Most energy facilities are permitted at the local level by cities and counties, but bigger facilities requiring large acreages of high-value or cultivated farm land require EFSC permitting, which has laxer siting criteria. 

Why it matters: Unlike counties, the EFSC is not required to consider alternative sites before approving an energy facility on a protected class of farm land. This bill would create parity and subject all energy facilities to the same siting criteria.

Testimony: Read our March 25 hearing testimony.

HB 3858 So-called remainder parcels

Opposed and did not pass

What it does: This bill invented its own convoluted problem – so-called remainder parcels – on all rural and urban land across the state, including farm and forest land, and natural areas. Experts on all sides don’t even agree on the foundational definitions of this bill. “Remainder parcels” are a solution looking for a problem: When you divide a property, you end up with two or more new lots and parcels. There is no remainder.

Why it matters: This bill would have confused and complicated land use matters by creating a new type of land unit eligible for development, with the ultimate effect of eradicating essential protections on agricultural and forest lands and opening an untold amount of land to non-farm and non-forest development.

Testimony: Read our March 26 hearing testimony.

Transportation

HB 2025 Transportation Reinvestment Package (TRIP)

Supported and did not pass

What it does: The introduced version of HB 2025 includeds increasing the gas tax and indexing it to inflation, increasing registration and title fees, increasing the weight-mile tax, establishing a Road Usage Charge program (paying per mile you drive) for electric and hybrid passenger and delivery vehicles, and establishing a new one-time transfer tax on all vehicles at the time of purchase. These funding streams would have supported historic investments in safety programs like Great Streets, Safe Routes to School, and wildlife crossings. There was also a significant amount taken off the top of the State Highway Fund for freeway megaprojects leftover from the 2017 transportation package. A majority of the remaining revenue would have gone toward operations and maintenance at the state with the rest distributed to cities and counties. HB 2025 included enough increased funding to prevent cuts to public transit. It also included a sustainable source of ongoing revenue for passenger rail operations.

Notably missing from HB 2025 was funding for transportation electrification and Oregon Community Paths. Additionally, most of the accountability policies were focused on efficient delivery of major freeway projects, rather than on accountability to Oregon's climate and safety goals. Due to transit funding being increased only enough to maintain current service levels, funding for Youth Pass was also not included. The -23 amendment added several studies on ideas we support, including Youth Pass, a WES extension to Salem/Eugene, electrification investment needs, and accountability policies that meet climate goals. It also put in statute a very small amount of revenue that has been dedicated from the ODOT budget to Oregon Community Paths over the last few years. The -28 amendments changed funding mechanisms and amounts for State Highway Fund programs, but otherwise kept everything else the same, including transit funding levels to prevent service cuts. It removed the transfer tax on car sales and increased the vehicle dealer privilege tax instead, as well as reduced gas tax and vehicle fee increases.

While HB 2025 wasn't perfect, it could have been a huge step in the right direction.

Why it matters: The legislature historically passes large transportation funding packages only every eight years. This was the opportunity to close the funding gap and meet the level of demand for popular but underfunded safety and climate programs. Without a deep investment in public transit this session, communities across the state will start to see near-immediate service cuts, due to the increased costs of service operations and improvements since 2017.

We are at the table with Move Oregon Forward, championing investments in a more sustainable, accessible transportation system that meets the needs of all Oregonians. 

Testimony: Read our June 11 hearing testimony

HB 3402 Transportation Package Replacement

Opposed and did not pass

What it does: This bill would have increased the gas tax by three cents along with vehicle title and registration fees by modest amounts to cover ODOT budget shortfalls.

Why it matters: This bill was put forward as a replacement for HB 2025, the comprehensive transportation package, because the legislature could not get the votes needed to pass HB 2025. It would have prevented the layoff of 800 ODOT workers. While it would keep ODOT afloat, it does not have kept transit afloat, or the transportation projects and departments of cities or counties, meaning local workers around the state would still experience layoffs. 

Testimony: Read our June 27 hearing testimony

HB 3453 WES to Salem (and beyond)

Supported but did not pass

What it does: This bill would have established a Westside Express Service (WES) Authority to transfer operational responsibility away from TriMet. It lays out how the WES Authority would operate and lays out direction to extend the service to Salem and Eugene, and increase frequency of service. 

Why it matters: Commuters have limited options to travel between the Portland and Salem metro areas. Extending WES to Salem (and beyond) would change that – allowing travelers to skip sitting in traffic that adds to greenhouse-gas emissions. It would ease congestion on I-5 and make our state’s capitol more accessible to people who can’t or don’t drive. It would even help legislators and their staff get to work without worrying about carpools and paying for parking. 

Status: This bill did not move forward. 

Testimony: Read our March 11 hearing testimony.

HB 2184 Hood River–White Salmon bridge replacement

Supported but did not pass*

What it does: This bill would have authorized funding for Oregon’s portion of matching funds for the replacement of the Hood River–White Salmon Bridge.

Why it matters: The Hood River–White Salmon Bridge is a crucial link between interdependent communities to access employment, education, daycare, shopping, healthcare, recreation, and more. The current bridge is more than 100 years old, and just last year was struck and damaged by a semitruck because it is narrow and has minimal height clearance – not ideal for modern freight needs. When the bridge is closed from events like this, it forces people to detour more than an hour to the nearest bridge, in The Dalles. The current bridge also prohibits people from crossing by walking or rolling, because there is no shoulder. For seismic resilience, increased accessibility, and strong connections between these communities, replacing this bridge is an essential bistate priority.

*Status: While this bill did not pass, funding for the replacement of the Hood River-White Salmon Bridge was included in a larger budget bill that did pass.

Testimony: Read our April 1 hearing testimony in partnership with our affiliate Thrive Hood River.

Wildfire preparedness and resilience

HB 3172Making homes wildfire safer

Supported. The bill did not pass but the program was funded*

What it does: This bill establishes and funds the Wildfire Prepared Structure grant program, which funds retrofitting homes and accessory structures to reduce their vulnerability to wildfire, thereby making homes and communities more wildfire prepared and resilient.

Why it matters: Oregon’s land use program provides a wide range of tools to help Oregonians live more safely with wildfire. This bill would have helped to ensure that all Oregonians are prepared for wildfire and that their homes and communities are wildfire resilient by: 

• funding retrofits of homes with key elements, including fire-resistant siding, roofs, and vents;
• funding education on the most important steps Oregonians can take to make their homes more wildfire prepared; and
• prioritizing grants to socially and economically vulnerable populations, Oregonians who live in wildfire-prone areas, and people whose homes have been destroyed or damaged by wildfire.

Status: While this bill did not pass, the legislature did fund this program in HB 3940, which passed.

Testimony: Read our March 6 hearing testimony.

SB 85 Wildfire mitigation and preparedness

Supported and passed

What it does: Senate Bill 85 directs the Department of Consumer and Business Services and the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), in consultation with the Oregon Department of Forestry and the insurance industry, to evaluate, develop, and report on community-based wildfire risk-mitigation actions, programs, and strategies that could reduce wildfire risk and positively impact insurance affordability and availability in Oregon.

Why it matters: SB 85 will help inform and empower property owners and communities in how to mitigate wildfire risk, and it will potentially have a positive impact on insurance availability and affordability. But it is only the first step. 

Testimony: Read our April 1 hearing testimony and April 29 hearing testimony.