For weeks, TV viewers have been greeted by images of unhappy folks who share their fears of depleted retirement savings, seized property and vanished inheritances.
All are warning of a grim future for perhaps every Oregonian if Measure 49 passes in Tuesday’s election.
Meanwhile, remote-control-wielding Oregonians also have been told that they can help farmers protect their way of life and livelihood and contain the sprawl of subdivisions and strip malls, if they just follow the advice of farmers, firefighters and others, and pass Measure 49.
They can’t both be right, can they?
So far, the “Stop 49” and “Yes on 49” campaigns have spent millions — $2.2 million by the no side and $4.7 million by advocates. Each side is trying to convince voters of what Measure 49 — which would scale back the property rights law that voters passed in 2004 as Measure 37 — would truly do to Oregon.
The sides agree that Tuesday’s election is pivotal for Oregon land use and property rights. The barrage of conflicting images and messages are drawing sharp scrutiny. Here’s a critique of the most prominent ads:
“IF MEASURE 49 PASSES I’LL BE LOSING MY RETIREMENT SAVINGS” — Mary Holtan, one of several Measure 37 claimants who give personal testimonials in an ad opposing Measure 49.
What the ad’s sponsors say: Holtan is representative of the 7,500 Measure 37 claimants who have each spent thousands of dollars on fees, on-the-ground development work, lawyer costs and other expenses in pursuit of approval to develop their rural property. In Holtan’s case, she has dipped into her “nest egg” to pay for these costs for her claim to subdivide her Yamhill County land. If Measure 49 passes, that money will be “lost” because she’ll have to start over under the new law.
What the ad’s opponents say: Holtan is not losing her retirement savings; she and other Measure 37 claimants made a choice to spend savings to pursue development rights under the 2004 law.
Measure 49 would still allow her to subdivide her land to build up to three homes without having to prove that land-use regulations reduced her property value.
Context: Holtan has applied under Measure 37 to have one lot divided into three parcels and another lot divided into two, according to the Yamhill County Planning Department. Her family is far enough along with their claims that they have a chance to be “vested” so that Measure 49 restrictions may not apply to them.
But if they aren’t able to establish vested rights, Measure 49 was written to streamline the application process for those seeking three or fewer home sites, so there is a good chance Holtan’s family will not have to spend large, additional sums to build under Measure 49.
“MY FAMILY SPENT 45 YEARS BUILDING UP THIS FARM. WITHOUT MEASURE 49, 22 SUBDIVISIONS WILL BE BUILT AROUND US, THREATENING OUR WATER AND OUR WAY OF LIFE.” — Dayton farmer Tom Sweeney in a pro-Measure 49 ad.
What the ad’s sponsors say: Measure 37 claimants have proposed 22 subdivisions within a four-mile radius of the Sweeneys’ farm, with the resulting traffic and water demands posing legitimate problems.
What the ad’s opponents say: This claim is inaccurate, and illustrates the way Measure 49 supporters exaggerate how Measure 37 claims would change Oregon. Fewer subdivisions have been sought — and none are yet approved — under Measure 37 than the 22 claimed in the ad. And four miles, which in the Sweeneys’ case puts some of these proposed developments two towns away, is too far to genuinely threaten the Sweeneys’ water and way of life.
Context: There are 21 measure 37 claims within a four-mile radius of the Sweeneys’ farm. Northward, that four-mile span reaches beyond the towns of Dayton and Lafayette. According to the Yamhill County Planning Department, nine of those 21 claims were not for subdivisions but for a smaller number of homes, in many cases, one to three.
Whether the remaining 12 subdivisions would actually be approved and built under Measure 37 would depend on adequate water supplies and other public health, safety and welfare matters subject to government approval. It also would depend on the owners’ financial wherewithal and market demands for rural subdivisions.
“THE POLITICIANS REFUSED TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.” — Voice-over in an ad opposing Measure 49.
What the ad’s sponsors say: House Bill 3540, which was approved by the Legislature and placed on the ballot as Measure 49, received no public hearings, which meant landowners and property-rights experts had no chance to point out potential flaws or to argue against provisions before lawmakers voted the bill to the House and Senate floors.
What the ad’s opponents say: This is “absolutely false,” says Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat and one of the chief sponsors of what became Measure 49.
The Legislature spent months listening to public testimony and drafting and redrafting proposals before taking final action.
Context: House Bill 3540, which became Measure 49, received one public hearing. This was on April 17, before all its provisions were stripped out and replaced with new wording that became Measure 49. The Land Use Fairness Committee, which oversaw hearings and bill drafting on this subject, held nine public hearings and took public testimony from 369 people on Measure 37 and possible changes to that law before it took final action.
“THERE’S ONE WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE WHAT BALLOT MEASURE 49 WILL DO. READ THE BALLOT LANGUAGE.” — Voice-over in an ad supporting Measure 49.
What the ad’s sponsors say: The ballot title spells out what Measure 49 will do: it “clarifies right to build homes; limits large developments; protects farms, forests, groundwater.” Opponents challenged the title, but a federal judge upheld it.
What the ad’s opponents say: This is a biased ballot title, written by the pro-49 side and adopted by the Legislature. It bypassed the standard process, in which the attorney general writes the ballot title, both sides of the campaign comment on it, and the Supreme Court approves the final version.
Context: The Legislature did take an unusual step in authoring the ballot title. But not an unprecedented one. Democrats were in control this time, but a Republican-controlled Legislature has used the same method in the past. In 1995, a ballot title written by the GOP Legislature was vetoed by Gov. John Kitzhaber who said it was wrong to bypass citizens and the courts.
The property rights group Oregonians in Action sued the Secretary of State, seeking a court order that ballots be sent out without the Legislature-approved ballot title, explanatory statement and fiscal impact statement on the grounds that they were misleading.
Federal District Judge Ann Aiken ruled against the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, saying none of the statements “are misleading or patently unfair so as to violate plaintiffs’ rights to substantive due process.”