I Once again, the response brief neither acknowledges nor directly <br />2 responds to this subassignment of error. The scope and nature of the inquiry <br />3 that is permissible under Goal 14, Factor 3 "[c]omparative environmental, <br />4 energy, economic and social consequences" and McMinnville Step Two to <br />5 conclude that higher priority land is "inadequate to accommodate" identified <br />6 land need is not entirely clear to us. We seriously doubt that property owner <br />7 opposition to having their property included in the UGB could ever be a social <br />8 consequence that might allow a local government to apply Goal 14, Factor 3 to <br />9 conclude that those property owners' higher priority land under ORS <br />10 197.298(1) is inadequate to meet an identified land need. However, we are not <br />11 presented with a case where we need to definitively answer that question. <br />12 Based on this record, we conclude respondents have not even come close to <br />13 doing so here. <br />14 This subassignment of error is sustained. <br />15 f. Landowner Preference (North Area 5) <br />16 In addition to rejecting Area 5 based on the social consequences of <br />17 property owner opposition under Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor 3, <br />18 respondents speculated that property owner opposition might lead those <br />19 property owners to refuse to redevelop their lands for higher density residential <br />20 uses, with the result that North Area 5 should be viewed as "inadequate to <br />21 accommodate" identified residential land need for that reason as well: <br />22 "Coburg's process included numerous opportunities for public <br />23 involvement and comment. Property owners from the Stallings <br />Page 31 <br />