Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the effort of Reps. Brian Clem (D-Salem) and Vicki Berger (R-Salem) to put a hold on big Measure 37 subdivisions before they do irreparable damage to Oregon's farm and forest lands.
But this bridge to the November vote on HB 3540, a much-needed Measure 37 fix, goes too far. I'll explain.
My wife and I are leading a fight against a Measure 37 claim that seeks to put 42 homes on groundwater limited farmland near our home. Independent experts hired by Marion County agreed with us that there isn't enough evidence of water availability to justify approving the Measure 37 subdivision.
But Marion County commissioners Sam Brentano and Patti Milne did anyway, because they were worried that Leroy Laack, the claimant, wouldn't be able to get his development vested before the November vote on the Measure 37 fix.
This is why a hold on large subdivisions is needed.
Too often between now and November political gamesmanship, like what Brentano and Milne played, is going to trump the law, like Marion County's own groundwater ordinance, which they ignored (it requires that a one to two year Hydro Study be conducted under these circumstances).
So it makes sense to put a hold on large Measure 37 claims that lack building permits until the voters have had a chance to express their opinion on whether Oregon's farmland, forestland, and groundwater limited areas should be paved over with subdivisions.
House Bill 3569 does more than that, however. Rep. Berger touted the best part about her bill in a Statesman Journal story:
"This puts a hold on the most valuable land in the (Willamette) Valley," Berger said. "Let's hold off on those big developments in those farmlands where the results are permanent."
Three cheers for that. The problem is, HB 3569 includes some changes to the state's land use laws that are a permanent structure, not a temporary bridge. Here's a summary of the legislation. Download house_bill_3569_summary.doc
Note that:
Rights to develop 1- 3 lots in an approved waiver located outside urban growth boundaries are transferable. Section 2(1), 2(2).
No matter what happens to HB 3540 on the November ballot, transferability approved for 1 - 3 lot waivers under HB 3569 remains valid.
Transferability lets a Measure 37 claimant transfer development rights on a lot to a buyer. Without transferability, it's very unlikely that buyers could get financing in order to build a home. Currently, courts have ruled that a Measure 37 right stays with the claimant, not the property.
The Measure 37 fix would change that, which is good for claimants. But to get transferability it's fair that some of the worst aspects of Measure 37 be done away with—such as the ability to build large subdivisions on irreplaceable farm and forest land.
HB 3569 offers permanent transferability for 1-3 lots with no corresponding permanent fix for Measure 37 problems. This makes the bill one-sided.
Claims greater than 10 lots are limited to 10 lots until December 6, 2007. Then the limit is lifted unless voters approve HB 3540. In fact, all of HB 3569 "sunsets" on December 6, aside from the transferability that has been granted to 1-3 lot waivers.
So a part of the bridge that benefits Measure 37 claimants remains in place, while the parts that benefit the much more numerous neighbors who would be affected by Measure 37 claims go away. That doesn't make sense.
If HB 3569 has any chance of passing (Oregonians in Action and 1000 Friends of Oregon both dislike the bill) it's got to be simplified and made a true bridge to the election.
I'd strip out everything but a hold on claims for over 10 lots. That accomplishes the goal stated by Rep. Berger in the newspaper quote: preserving farmland from permanent destruction.
Comments