Measure 49: a future altering event for Oregon

Yesterday I attended my first Salem City Club meeting, because the program was on Measure 49. It was called "SB 100, Measure 37, Measure 49: Where does Oregon Land?" (nice play on words)

State Representative Brian Clem got in the best line of the noon hour. Referring to the November 6 special election on Measure 49, which will fix many Measure 37 flaws, he said:

This is a future altering event in Oregon's history.

Absolutely. Lane Shetterly, who until recently headed up the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), started off with a review of how Oregon's land use system evolved to its current state.

I moved to Oregon in 1971. By that time the state already had passed a beach bill that guaranteed public access to Oregon's ocean shore (1967) and had celebrated the nation's first Earth Day (1970).

In 1973 Senate Bill 100 further established Oregon's green credentials. This legislation established urban growth boundaries and protected farm and forest land from sprawl.

Numerous times Oregonians affirmed SB 100. But eventually Oregonians in Action brought out Dorothy English and made her the poster child for the deceptions of Measure 37. Voters thought they were allowing people to build a home or two on land that had been rezoned after they bought it.

But Shetterly said that of the 7500 Measure 37 claims, 58% are for subdivisions (defined as four or more homes). There are 2854 claims on farmland and 944 on forestland.

Measure 49 will limit developments to 10 homes, and prohibit commercial/industrial uses like gravel pits and WalMart stores. Unfortunately, some Measure 37 claimants who have building permits may have done enough construction to be "vested."

In that case, they could continue development under the provisions of Measure 37 even if Measure 49 passes. Shetterly was asked who will decide whether a claim is vested under Oregon's common law.

He said this is in the purview of courts. After Measure 49 is approved by voters, Shetterly said that vesting will be decided on a case by case basis using common law precedents.

The good news for people like us who are fighting to protect their neighborhood from being harmed by Measure 37 subdivisions is that the common law has a key "good faith" criterion. Any Measure 37 claimant who started construction after June 15 (when Measure 49 was referred to the voters) likely is acting in bad faith and can't become vested.

Brian Clem said that this is Oregon's one chance to rein in Measure 37. There won't be anything better than Measure 49 coming from the legislature.

So vote "Yes" on Measure 49. And be sure you know the truth about Measure 49 opponents.

(Here's a Salem Statesman Journal story about the City Club program.)

Comments

[Peter Bray]

Brian, your hometown newspaper is about to recommend a No vote. Please consider contacting them. Check my blog for more info.

[Brian]

Peter, we've been working since late last night to do just that. I've written several messages to Dick Hughes and the editorial board. We've notified lots of people, who are submerging the Statesman Journal with support for Measure 49 and criticism of the draft editorial. Soon I'll post my most recent message to the newspaper.

[Ben]

Yes, because the best place to find the unbiased truth on those who oppose a measure, and their motivation, is from the group pushing said measure. What rubbish.

[Rob Wilcox]

Brian,
I am amazed that someone on the left, which I assume you are by your rhetoric, can tolerate so much collateral damage with your dreams of utopia. Many elderly, most applicants are, have spent 10's of thousands of dollars following the law(M37), and your ilk could care less. Most have done nothing illegal trying to complete their small subdivisions which we as citizens voted to allow. You are willing to basically throw them under the bus because of a few larger developments. Of course as you state in your letter there are many controls to limit these developments. These elderly tax payers you dismiss don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want with their land. Current zoning ordinaces may not apply, but all the other restrictions certainly do, driveway site distance, fire protection, water table depletion, etc, etc, etc. If you have a problem with county or state entities not doing their jobs don't take it out on our elderly landwoners, some of which have spent their retirement following the law. They don't deserve to be collateral damage. I'm sure if you were the collateral damage you might think differently. And c'mon Stripmines or grapevines, who's trying to scare who?

[Brian]

Rob, under Measure 49 the small claimants you mention will be able to have 1-3 home sites easily. For 4-10 they'll have to provide documentation of an equivalent loss in value.

So Measure 49 treats them well. Much better, in fact, than Measure 37 -- under which there is no provision for transferability and inheritability of waivers. So every Measure 37 claimant should vote for Measure 49, aside from the few who want to put large subdivisions on Oregon's most precious farm and forest land.

[Rob wilcox]

Brian,
My Mother has a legal 4 lot subdision in proccess under measure 37, it is surveyed, the road is in and all utilites stubbed out to each lot,when she started this project three years ago she wasn't told she was going to have to pay for further documentation to finish her lots,which from what I understand will require her to pay for additional appraisals, hers and the states. She is almost 80 years old and nearly out of money, she should not have to be forced through the hassel,and take who knows how many more years to do what she was told she could do in the first place, you don't agree. Four lots is not a major subdivision.

Don, an elderly gentleman outside of Molalla leaglly divided his property through minor partions in the early 90's for his retirement, since he has little else but his land. He luckily sold one, I say luckily because his land was re-zoned EFU and the County wouldn't let him sell addtional lots. Let me remind you this was legal ahd he paid for all permits, surveys, septic approvals, etc. When measure 37 came along, Don now in his seventies, started over again with attorney fees, appraisals, etc. and guess what, you want to throw the old guy under the bus again. I know he only has seven lots, but now he will have to start all over again so he can cluster his lots and can proboably only have three. It appears a lot pro 49rs are hoping most of these people die before they can do what they were told they could legally do. Do you really believe Don is being treated fairly, or is he collateral damage?

[Brian]

Yes, I believe both of the people you mention will be treated fairly by Measure 49 -- in the same way that I'm treated fairly when I have to park a bit further away from a store than the people who get to use a handicapped parking space.

Government has a perfect right to make rules that benefit the common good. That's what a speed limit is, also. It "takes away" our individual right to do whatever we want on a highway, because society has decided that helping to assure safety for everybody is more important.

Your mother can reduce her claim to three lots and have a free pass under Measure 49. If she wants four, yes, she'll have to provide an appraisal that proves she's lost an additional lot of value by some land use regulation.

The appraisal fee counts as part of the value she's lost, so it really doesn't cost her anything. As for Don, same thing. He doesn't have to "start over," as you mistakenly said. But he also will have to submit an appraisal to document that the loss he's claiming actually has been incurred.

Earth to Rob: this is a nation of laws. There are limits put on just about everything that we do. If you want to build a house, you'll have to get all kinds of permits. That's just the way life is.

Measure 49 puts some limits on Measure 37 claims. But it also frees up Measure 37 claimants by allowing transferability and inheritability of waivers. Like I said before, your mother and Don are going to make out much better under Measure 49 than under Measure 37.

[Rob Wilcox]

Brian,
Don has 140 acres, this is the second time Don has been run over by the governments Give and take away. It's More like Earth to Brian, you are so sold out on you're utopian world that you can't see the real people, Don is only doing what he was legally permitted to do twice. He is a real human being, If you can't see where he is being hurt by M49 you have your head so far up in the clouds looking down your nose at these people you can't distinguish right from wrong. Somehwere way down deep you know Don is getting walked on. He has not been going afowl of the law, he has been following it. Why must he pay all these fees over and over and over, and yet you believe he is being treated fairly. Speed limits are for public property, I can go as fast as I want on my 10 acres, which I purchased knowing what I could do with it. also as I stated there has never been a fast track with the government yet, and with all the new changes etc. most of these applicants will pass on by the time things are finally done, happy? Also the pro 49rs rant that they were deceived by M37, I don't recall M37 as being promoted as 1 or a few homes on the farm, this is plain hyperbole and you know it. I was fairly involved with M37 and never once did I here 1 to several homes, I knew what is was and so did you. Please give me a copy or point me to a copy of an ad stating this was for just a few homes on the family farm. True, some people wanted it for that purpose and may have said so, but to believe that that is how it was proposed you would have to have had your head in the sand.

[Local farm family]

Thanks Pal,

Thanks to people like you, my brothers and I will never be able to build a home on the family farm.

You have stolen our land and our future.