The Community Deserves a More Honest, Comprehensive, and Equitable Analysis

In my last blog post I wrote about my take on the report that Public Works provided to commissioners in response to their request for timeline and cost estimates for potential inclusion of local access roads (LARs).

Here is a second take on the report – an excellent analysis by Liz Porter, who is a homeowner on a Santa Clara local access road:

Analysis of the TrAC LAR Report (May 2026)

Purpose of the Work Session: The Board directed TrAC to determine the projected timeline for potential inclusion of all Eugene  Local Access Roads (LARs) into the Lane County Road System.

Impression of Report:

The report frames this assignment through a narrow lens, requiring all LARs to meet current urban road standards before acceptance. This interpretation is not mandated by state law and is inconsistent with how Lane County treats other roads. The solutions offered in the report are untenable.

1. Critical Omission: Tax Inequity and Decades of Non-Disclosure

In Section II (“Background/Implications of Action”), the report fails to acknowledge the central issue driving this entire discussion:

• Lane County has known for decades that many homeowners live on LARs.

• The County never informed these homeowners of the LAR classification or its fiscal implications. Estimates are that about 700+ properties are on LAR roads in the Eugene UGB.

• Most of the affected households still do not know today.

This omission is not minor — it is the core reason the Board is addressing this issue at all. The County’s long-standing failure to disclose LAR status created a structural inequity that now requires correction. Ignoring this context distorts the problem and misleads decision-makers.

2. Disproportionate Impact on River Road/Santa Clara (RR/SC) Neighborhoods

The report also omits the demographic reality:

• The RR/SC area contains a higher proportion of working-class residents, seniors, and disabled individuals.

• The concentration of LARs in these neighborhoods creates a textbook environmental justice and social equity issue.

The Board is not addressing LARs because of a technical road classification problem. They are addressing it because a community — largely vulnerable and historically overlooked —

has raised a legitimate equity concern and is preparing formal avenues of redress. This context is nowhere in the report.

3. Section B (“Policy Issues”) Misstates Law and Ignores Alternatives

Section B presents a misleading interpretation of state law by implying that full urban upgrades are required before acceptance. This is incorrect.

• No statute requires LARs inside the UGB to meet full urban standards before inclusion in the County Road System.

• Many existing County roads do not meet current standards.

• Many LARs already meet or exceed the condition of accepted County roads.

The community’s request is simple and reasonable: Adopt all LARs into the County Road System and place them into the same maintenance and upgrade queue as every other road, using the same criteria. The report offers no analysis of this option — only the most expensive, least equitable path.

The statement that “annexation shall continue to be the highest priority” underscores the long-standing tug-of-war between the City and County. This stalemate is not a justification for perpetuating inequity.

4. Section C (“Board Goals”) Selectively Quotes Only One Goal — and the Least Relevant One

Section C cites only one Board Strategic Priority: “Our People and Organizational Health,” specifically the bullet about County financial stability. This selective citation is striking, because the other three goals are omitted and are far more relevant to the LAR issue:

Goal 1: Deliver equitable and integrated services

This goal should have been central.

Whereas, the report’s recommendations:

• Deepen inequity

• Undermine housing goals (RR/SC is where UGB housing capacity is planned)

• Create confusion and barriers to public safety access

Goal 2: Vibrant Communities

This goal emphasizes inclusive community support and fair access to services. How does treating a small, uninformed group of vulnerable homeowners differently — and expecting them to pay for basic infrastructure no other residents must fund — align with this?

Goal 3: Robust Infrastructure

This goal is directly relevant, yet it is omitted. If the County is serious about robust infrastructure, it must address the systemic exclusion of LARs from the road system.

Goal 4: People and Organizational Health

The report cites only the county’s financial stability, ignoring the broader objective of goal 4:

“Enable County residents to experience a more effective government.”

The report’s narrow framing, lack of empathy, and disregard for equity contradict this objective.

5. The $80+ Million Price Tag: A Callous and Misleading Framing

The report’s suggestion that residents should bear an $80+ million burden — without acknowledging the County’s role in creating the problem — is deeply out of touch with the communities affected. This framing:

• Ignores the County’s decades-long failure to disclose LAR status

• Ignores the demographic vulnerability of the impacted neighborhoods

• Ignores the fact that no other County roads are held to this standard

• Ignores the Board’s own strategic goals

• Ignores feasible, lawful alternatives

The solutions offered in the report are untenable and disregard the social and health equity of Lane County residents. The community deserves a more honest, comprehensive, and equitable analysis.

– Liz Porter, Santa Clara Local Access Road Homeowner