Oregon's Outdoors In the News

Depending on whom you listen to, Ballot Measure 49 is either The Salvation of Oregon As We Know It or Tyrannical Government Taking Away Your Rights — Again. Actually, it's neither.

As we see it, Measure 49 is a somewhat flawed but still serviceable middle ground that protects those property rights most Oregonians think ought to be protected, while reining in the clear excesses of unfettered Measure 37 development.

Measure 37, approved in 2004 by 61 percent of voters, allows property owners to petition the government for compensation if land-use rules adopted after they bought their property restricted their ability to develop it. The government can either pay them for the lost value or waive the offending restrictions.

In practice, of course, there isn't enough money in the state to pay off the billions of dollars property owners say they've lost. So, under Measure 37, the state or local government issues waivers that permit the desired development to move forward.

It's what kind of development, how much and where that prompted lawmakers to draft Measure 49.

Measure 37 was sold to voters as a way to allow individual property owners to build a house or two on their land, either for themselves or for their children or grandchildren. In many cases, people had bought land years ago with exactly that in mind, only to find that land-use restrictions enacted since their purchase barred them from building.

In practice, Measure 37 allows waivers for everything from commercial and industrial development to subdivisions of hundreds of homes, often in rural areas where farming and ranching are still the norm.

Measure 49 sets up two processes for Measure 37 claimants. One allows a property owner to build one, two or three homes if homes were allowed when the property was purchased. No new application would be required, and state officials say in most cases, the information filed under Measure 37 would be enough to gain approval.

The second process, for four to 10 homes, requires the property owner to pay for appraisals to prove the land has lost value as the result of land-use rules, and not all property is eligible.

Opponents of Measure 49 are making a big deal out of language in the measure that requires applicants to show that land-use rules "prohibited" building before they could get a waiver. Measure 37 used the term "restricted."

Opponents say the use of "prohibited" was deliberate and in practice will make it nearly impossible for anyone to obtain a waiver. We're not convinced of that, but we would be among those calling for a legislative fix if it is truly an obstacle.

Measure 49 also makes development rights transferable if you obtain a waiver and then sell the property, and gives surviving spouses the right to inherit a waiver. Measure 37 does neither.

Commercial and industrial development would no longer be eligible for waivers, nor would residential developments of more than 10 homes.

All of this is laid out in more than 20 pages of dense legalese. Land-use rules are not a simple matter.

But the choice for voters is fairly straightforward. If you think private property rights mean anyone can build anything anywhere, regardless of rules and regulations adopted since they acquired their property, you should vote no on Measure 49.

If you think individual property owners should be able to build a house or two on land that's been in the family for years, but huge subdivisions, strip malls or industrial sites in rural areas are a bad idea, vote yes.

We recommend a yes vote on Measure 49.