Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
PORTLAND (AP) -- Oregon's system of land use and environmental laws has been thrown into uncertainty by passage of a ballot measure that demands governments pay landowners for value lost to restrictions on development.
While the Legislature still has to work out details, passage Tuesday of Measure 37 sends Oregon into a new era where zoning, the preservation of farm and forest land, and logging restrictions taken for granted the past three decades are no longer guaranteed if landowners owned their property before those restrictions went into effect.
With 89 percent of the vote counted early Wednesday, Measure 37 had 880,708 yes votes, for 60 percent, to 588,526 no votes, for 40 percent.
Supporters downplayed the potential upheaval, saying few properties have been owned long enough to qualify for claims, and owners who do qualify could be counted on to do the right thing, but opponents predicted a morass of litigation, unbudgeted expenditures, and a loss of control over development.
"We believe if you give people the choice and give people the opportunity and give people the freedom, people make the right decisions, not the wrong ones," said David Hunnicutt, executive director of Oregonians In Action, the property rights group that sponsored Measure 37.
"We said all along it's only fair that when a regulation benefits society, that society ought be willing to share the cost of that regulation," Hunnicutt added. "Twice now in the last four years, voters have said they agree with that."
Though opponents vastly outspent supporters, the margin of victory for Measure 37 was even greater than that for Measure 7, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2000 but struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court for including too many issues in a single measure.
Bob Stacey, executive director of the land use advocacy group 1000 Friends of Oregon, said he could not imagine a legal challenge that would wipe out Measure 37. As a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, it is not vulnerable to the same challenge as Measure 7.
However, there will likely be a lot of lawsuits filed by landowners claiming compensation as well as landowners who want restrictions enforced, Stacey said.
"There will be a lot of litigation and a lot of confusion, but certainly no clear answer coming out of that litigation," Stacey said.
Tim Josi, a Tillamook County commissioner named six months ago to the state Land Conservation and Development Commission, said the state law enacted in 1973 to curb urban sprawl and protect forest and farmland from being subdivided needs some fixing, but Measure 37 goes too far.
"I see Ballot Measure 37 as almost like a bulldozer going that systematically wipes out our land use system in Oregon," said Josi. "The people of Oregon, I don't think, recognized this will systematically dismantle our land use system."
Senate Democratic Leader Kate Brown of Portland said because Measure 37 is a statute, the Legislature can change it, but whether it will remains to be seen.
"I'm certainly concerned about the impact Ballot Measure 37 will have on the Oregon land use system, but the primary financial impact is on local government," Brown said.
State estimates put the cost of administering Measure 37 claims at $18 million to $44 million for the state and $46 million to $300 million for local governments.
Josi said neither the state nor cities and counties have money to pay claims, so face the prospect of having to waive development restrictions.
"It's been a long time since the people of Oregon had to reaffirm their land use system," Josi said. "The people of Oregon I don't think recognized this will systematically dismantle our land use system."
Some counties have already begun taking inventory of lands to see when ownership last changed.
Key dates are 1973, when the Land Conservation and Development Act was enacted, 1971 when the Oregon Forest Practices Act became law, 1959, when Washington County adopted zoning and Portland enacted key zoning changes, and the early 1970s, when zoning came to much of the Willamette Valley, said Stacey.
"I think the only way to honor this measure and protect people's expectations about living in their neighborhoods with some certainty and peace and quiet will be to come up with some expectation of making compensation a reality, and that will be a big job for the Legislature," Stacey said. "The people who put this on the ballot are going to have to be there too."
While the Legislature still has to work out details, passage Tuesday of Measure 37 sends Oregon into a new era where zoning, the preservation of farm and forest land, and logging restrictions taken for granted the past three decades are no longer guaranteed if landowners owned their property before those restrictions went into effect.
With 89 percent of the vote counted early Wednesday, Measure 37 had 880,708 yes votes, for 60 percent, to 588,526 no votes, for 40 percent.
Supporters downplayed the potential upheaval, saying few properties have been owned long enough to qualify for claims, and owners who do qualify could be counted on to do the right thing, but opponents predicted a morass of litigation, unbudgeted expenditures, and a loss of control over development.
"We believe if you give people the choice and give people the opportunity and give people the freedom, people make the right decisions, not the wrong ones," said David Hunnicutt, executive director of Oregonians In Action, the property rights group that sponsored Measure 37.
"We said all along it's only fair that when a regulation benefits society, that society ought be willing to share the cost of that regulation," Hunnicutt added. "Twice now in the last four years, voters have said they agree with that."
Though opponents vastly outspent supporters, the margin of victory for Measure 37 was even greater than that for Measure 7, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2000 but struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court for including too many issues in a single measure.
Bob Stacey, executive director of the land use advocacy group 1000 Friends of Oregon, said he could not imagine a legal challenge that would wipe out Measure 37. As a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, it is not vulnerable to the same challenge as Measure 7.
However, there will likely be a lot of lawsuits filed by landowners claiming compensation as well as landowners who want restrictions enforced, Stacey said.
"There will be a lot of litigation and a lot of confusion, but certainly no clear answer coming out of that litigation," Stacey said.
Tim Josi, a Tillamook County commissioner named six months ago to the state Land Conservation and Development Commission, said the state law enacted in 1973 to curb urban sprawl and protect forest and farmland from being subdivided needs some fixing, but Measure 37 goes too far.
"I see Ballot Measure 37 as almost like a bulldozer going that systematically wipes out our land use system in Oregon," said Josi. "The people of Oregon, I don't think, recognized this will systematically dismantle our land use system."
Senate Democratic Leader Kate Brown of Portland said because Measure 37 is a statute, the Legislature can change it, but whether it will remains to be seen.
"I'm certainly concerned about the impact Ballot Measure 37 will have on the Oregon land use system, but the primary financial impact is on local government," Brown said.
State estimates put the cost of administering Measure 37 claims at $18 million to $44 million for the state and $46 million to $300 million for local governments.
Josi said neither the state nor cities and counties have money to pay claims, so face the prospect of having to waive development restrictions.
"It's been a long time since the people of Oregon had to reaffirm their land use system," Josi said. "The people of Oregon I don't think recognized this will systematically dismantle our land use system."
Some counties have already begun taking inventory of lands to see when ownership last changed.
Key dates are 1973, when the Land Conservation and Development Act was enacted, 1971 when the Oregon Forest Practices Act became law, 1959, when Washington County adopted zoning and Portland enacted key zoning changes, and the early 1970s, when zoning came to much of the Willamette Valley, said Stacey.
"I think the only way to honor this measure and protect people's expectations about living in their neighborhoods with some certainty and peace and quiet will be to come up with some expectation of making compensation a reality, and that will be a big job for the Legislature," Stacey said. "The people who put this on the ballot are going to have to be there too."
