Portland Oregon's highly praised (by central planning advocates) land-use planning system is breaking down. Residents are fed up with the increasing congestion, the diversion of funds from schools, fire, police, and other services to rail transit and high-density developments, the insider dealings and no-bid contracts, and unaffordable housing caused by the urban-growth boundary and restrictive land-use rules. The question is whether the region can find a way out of the hole it has dug for itself. One answer may come in upcoming city council elections.

My hometown of Portland Oregon is often used as a shining example of how well "smart-growth" planning works. Planners, elected officials, and journalists from all over the world visit Portland to look at the light rail, the streetcar, transit-oriented development, and other ideas they want to implement in their cities.

From the inside looking out, however, Portland is not so attractive. Consider some of the events of the past few months:

• Last October, after nearly ten years of giving tax waivers to high-density housing projects, the Portland city council put a moratorium on tax breaks for such housing, saying they divert taxes from schools without really doing any good for the city
• In January, the idea of putting light rail on the city's downtown bus mall was widely criticized by, among others, bus drivers who say it will be very dangerous
• In February, ballot measure 37, which restored property rights to people whose land was regulated by the planners and which was supported by 61 percent of Oregon voters and a majority of voters in every county in the Portland area, is unanimously endorsed by Oregon's ultra-liberal Supreme Court
• Also in February, after going over budget by nearly 300 percent, an aerial tram under construction between a new high-density development and Oregon Health & Science Univeristy is widely acknowledged as not only a waste of money but simply an extension of the money previously wasted on light rail and streetcars, not to mention high-density housing that few really want
• In March the region's business leaders, from the owner of Powell's Bookstore to the president of the Port of Portland, agitate about the cost of congestion to Portland area industrial, commercial, and retail operations
• The upcoming city council election, to be held in May, has turned into a battle between public employees unions who resent the diversion of tax dollars from schools, fire, and police to light rail and high-density housing, and the remains of the "light-rail mafia" that was put together by former Portland mayor and Oregon governor Neil Goldschmidt.

All of this suggests that the planners have lost their dominance over Oregon politics and that the consensus that once held Oregon's land-use planning system together is breaking down. The turning point may have been the revelation in 2004 that the previously revered Neil Goldschmidt had molested his 14-year-old babysitter when he was a 35-year-old mayor. This led to follow-up revelations that Goldschmidt had masterminded (and profited well by) no-bid contracts to construct light-rail lines and similar insider deals.

If the voters are perceptive, they will vote against anyone associated with Goldschmidt in the May election. Several candidates are challenging incumbents in the city's first experiment with "clean-money politics" (i.e., a system in which candidates who get $5 contributions from 1,000 people get $150,000 from taxpayers to finance their campaign). That experiment has also failed, as at least two candidates are strongly suspected of having forged numerous signatures from supposed $5 donors to qualify for the "clean money."

An excellent daily report of Portland politics can be found at Lewis & Clark law professor Jack Bogdanski's blog. Like most Portlanders, Bogdanski is well left of center, so his disgust with the planners is just one more sign that their reign is ending.