Bulletin E-Edition:
The results are in; voters approve Measure 49
Oregonians weigh in on land use reform, tobacco tax increase
By James Sinks / The Bulletin
Published: November 07. 2007 4:00AM PST
more photos | order photo
Volunteer Terry Davis, 81, of Bend, checks signatures on ballots Tuesday afternoon at the Deschutes County Clerk’s Office in Bend.
Rob Kerr / The Bulletin
advertisement:
A scaled-back version of M37 limits development on private property
SALEM — Oregon voters, who three years ago opened the door to commercial development and housing subdivisions on farm and forestland, on Tuesday abruptly shut it again.
But not all the way.
In a victory for supporters of Oregon’s statewide planning system, voters on Tuesday were passing Measure 49 convincingly, 67 percent to 33 percent.
In Central Oregon, the results were narrower. In Deschutes and Jefferson counties, the measure was passing with 55 percent and 59 percent support, respectively. In Crook County, it was passing with 52 percent support.
The bruising campaign was the latest round in what has been a three-decade wrestling match over land use in Oregon, and the successful measure scales back, but does not overturn, the Measure 37 property rights law that passed in 2004.
In an interesting footnote, Measure 49 was passing by a wider margin than the measure it replaced. Measure 37 won with a 61 percent vote — a victory that its authors said showed Oregonians were no longer supportive of the land use system.
But the greater level of support for Measure 49, which was championed by land use activists, undercuts that position.
Measure 37 allowed longtime landowners the ability to either seek compensation from government or be exempted from zoning regulations, if regulations reduced their property value.
But with no money to pay demands for compensation, officials gave the preliminary green light to billions of dollars in development, across tens of thousands of rural farms and forests. The scale of those envisioned projects — most of which never got off the drawing board — helped to create a backlash against Measure 37, which was initially portrayed as a way to give a few longtime landowners the opportunity to build a few houses.
Now, most of the development planned under Measure 37 can’t occur.
“I think this is an indication that many people did not understand the implications of Measure 37 when it passed,” said Bruce Bowen of Sisters, whose neighbor caused a stir by proposing 500 houses on 500 acres under a Measure 37 claim. “Many of our neighbors who voted for 37, voted for 49 this time.”
Under Measure 49, landowners can build as many as 10 houses — or up to three houses on prime or irrigated farmland — but cannot pursue large-scale subdivisions and commercial developments.
Landowners who have already started projects under Measure 37 will be allowed to continue, as long as they have invested enough money to be considered “vested.” It will be up to counties and ultimately the courts to decide who is vested.
Tuesday’s victory doesn’t figure to end the debate over development and where it should occur, and also won’t offer finality to a recurring question when it comes to the Oregon landscape: What is fair?
To activists like Gene Prete, who is building a house near Sisters and was a petitioner for the original Measure 37, the new law is wrongheaded because government can limit what people can do on their own land.
“I still go back to basic property rights,” he said. “You either have them or you don’t.”
Measure 49 was written by Democrats in the 2007 Legislature after attempts to broker a bipartisan deal broke down. It was sent to the ballot on a party-line vote — and in an unusual move, lawmakers also wrote the ballot title and did not allow for the language to be appealed.
Opponents say that stunk.
“It is a monumental failure on a systemic level for Oregon politics, and an open admission that the land use system is broken,” said Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, whose district includes Jefferson County.
“If the thing worked, you wouldn’t have to lie and cheat to make it pass.”
Legislators who wrote the alternative say it is a fair compromise that balances the desires of landowners to add a few houses to their land, while also taking into account the need to protect farmland, forests and wineries, and contain rural sprawl.
In addition, the new law settles some of the vagaries of Measure 37, which spawned stacks of lawsuits over potential developments, and whether those development rights could be sold.
But it would be a mistake to say Measure 49 will end the legal wrangling, said Redmond land use attorney Ed Fitch.
He said Tuesday that many of his clients will seek to continue the developments they planned under Measure 37.
And he also expects another round of ballot measures or legislation, as people continue to argue over what level of development is appropriate in rural Oregon.
“On both sides of the aisle, people recognize that Measure 37, the way it is written, is problematic,” he said. “But I also think Measure 49 is fairly punitive and will leave a lot of open sores, and if we don’t get a comprehensive resolution or reform we will end up right back where we were.”
The debate about the land use system now figures to return to a task force known as the Big Look Committee, which was convened to consider reforms but was put on a forced hiatus during the Measure 49 campaign.
That panel will be reconvened by lawmakers in February, said Sen. Ben Westlund, D-Tumalo.
Dave Hunnicutt, the author of Measure 37, said people on all sides will be watching with interest to see what the Big Look Committee advances. In preliminary findings, members already signaled that the state should give more flexibility to counties when it comes to development, he said.
If lawmakers don’t address those reforms, they can expect yet another ballot measure, he said.
“Measure 49, win, lose or draw, doesn’t even attempt to address the problems that led to the passage of Measure 37 in the first place,” he said. “The system isn’t working.”
But Russell Hoeflich, Oregon director of The Nature Conservancy, which was among the chief backers of the Measure 49 campaign, said voters had a chance to keep the policies sought by Measure 37 backers — and selected a more reasoned approach.
Measure 49 was the “pressure relief valve the land use system was crying out for,” he said.
“Oregonians have voted loud and clear that they want to protect our land and water supplies,” he said. “The language was very clear about what was at stake, and through Measure 49 we have a mandate to ensure the protection of those resources.”
James Sinks can be reached at 503-566-2839 or at jsinks@bendbulletin.com.
ARTICLE ACCESS: This article is among those available to all readers. Many more articles are available only to E-Edition members. Sign up today!
comments powered by Disqus
