Oregon's Outdoors In the News

PETER WONG

Statesman Journal

November 4, 2007

Both sides of Measure 49 are trading comments about a final round of television and other ads before Tuesday's election.

Ads in support urge voters to look at the explanatory language on the ballot: "Modifies Measure 37; clarifies right to build homes; limits large developments; protects farms, forests, groundwater."

Ads in opposition urge voters to consider families who have filed claims for government compensation or waivers of land-use regulations under a law that voters approved in 2004 as Measure 37.

In a rebuttal to the pro-Measure 49 ads, opponents have cried foul about both the substance and the process of drafting what is known as a "ballot title."

"Words matter," said Ross Day of Keizer, director of legal affairs for Oregonians in Action, a group that championed the 2004 Measure 37.

"Despite what they say it does, what supporters say about Measure 49 and what it actually does are two different things."

Day said Measure 49 offers little for most landowners who have filed claims.

But Ralph Bloemers, a Portland lawyer who represents farmers and landowners fighting claims for government compensation or development rights under Measure 37, said Measure 49 "is keeping with the voters' intent" under the 2004 law.

He said the summary accurately describes the measure's proposed limits on larger projects and development of farm land, forests and areas with groundwater shortages, and its allowances for a limited number of home sites.

The explanatory language was approved by both chambers of the Legislature, which has Democratic majorities.

Ballot titles normally are written by the attorney general and can be challenged in the state Supreme Court.

But the Legislature has approved them directly for other measures in the past decade, when Republicans were in charge of both chambers, although Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber vetoed one such attempt in 1997.

Oregonians in Action sued in U.S. District Court, asserting that Measure 49's explanatory language violated federal constitutional guarantees, but a federal judge disagreed.

In a direct-mail brochure, and in TV ads, the opposition depicts several families who argue that passage of Measure 49 would deprive them of their claims under the 2004 law. Some TV ads show families identified by name in the brochure, but are not labeled on broadcasts.

Among them are Fred and Teresa Netter, who own farmland near Aurora, and who say: "If Measure 49 passes, we'll lose the value of our property. We want to see the tradition go on ... we want to farm."

Measure 49 supporters said the anti-49 advertising failed to mention that Fred Netter sought approval of a subdivision of 98 acres into multiple lots. The state denied his claim in May 2006 because the land was already zoned for farm use when he acquired it in 1977, according to a state report, so even a waiver of land-use regulations under Measure 37 would not help him.

"Measure 37 does not need to be suspended," Fred Netter testified at a legislative hearing Feb. 1. "It needs to be dealt with."

The Netters could obtain approval for three home sites under Measure 49 "and Measure 49 would preserve these rights," said Jeremiah Baumann, a spokesman for the pro-49 campaign.