The AP is reporting the outline of a Measure 37 reform proposal, based on a confidential draft produced by the Oregon legislature's Land Use Fairness Committee (which obviously isn't confidential anymore).
Measure 37 claimants who want to build up to three homes would qualify for "fast track" status. Others who consider that they lost more than three home sites due to land use regulations could build up to ten homes. Supposedly, though, there would be protections for valuable farmland.
Transferability of Measure 37 waivers would be allowed—currently a legal gray area. A remaining sticky point is how to value Measure 37 claims, in case government wanted to compensate a property owner for lost value rather than waiving land use regulations.
On the whole, it looks like a halfway decent compromise between those who want to keep Measure 37 as it is (ideally, with transferability added in), and those like my wife and me who'd like to see the whole misguided law disappear.
Ten homes, though, is on the upper end of what reform legislation should allow. That's a small subdivision. However, we're fighting a proposed 43-home Measure 37 subdivision near us, trimmed down to 27 by a Marion County Planning Commission decision.
So ten homes is an improvement over 43, or 27. But three to five would be even better.
It'll be interesting to see what finally emerges from the Land Use Fairness Committee. It's good to see some progress after all the heated committee hearings, some of which Laurel and I testified at.
Well that sucks.
(not necessarily the proposal, mind you--I mean that I sat with one of Prozanski's people for several minutes yesterday, and while somebody in that group was giving the AP a draft proposal, I was getting little to nothing in the way of decent information. Boo.)
Posted by: torridjoe | March 29, 2007 at 07:09 AM
I am confused I have heard so many different stories....that you get 3 parcels...but could get 10 if you apply and I have heard that there is a grid...if you have so many parcels you get this...and if you have more...you get that...up to 10 parcels. I also have heard you get transferablity...but when you sell the new owner has only 4 years to build, or loses the right to ever build. What is the logic in that. Who is right...does anyone really know what is going on.
Posted by: bellstar | March 30, 2007 at 01:25 AM
I don't think anyone should have a right to transfer those supposed 'grandfather' rights. This whole thing is a huge mess and these people claiming they have been cheated out of millions in profits are not measuring them from the time the zoning changed. They also are not going to be offering to pay back the reduced property taxes they benefited from over all those years.
Posted by: Rain | March 30, 2007 at 10:19 AM
This proposal is an absolute DISASTER:
1. This proposal gives development rights to people who purchased their property before 1994! This basically expands the boundary to so many other people. 1994!!!!!
2. Existing claims are STILL valid.
3. Claimants could use these options, or just go through the regular M37 course. There are no changes in that regard. Basically, this gives claimants more options, and expands the # of people who can develop.
Posted by: Peter Bray | March 30, 2007 at 02:42 PM
We have been paying RR-5 taxes on our property for over thirty (30) years, even though the state decided, in their grand wisdom, to change our entire 23 acreas to Open Space. You folks think we pay "cheap" taxes. Do some homework.
Posted by: Liz | April 11, 2007 at 08:49 PM