SALEM, Ore. — New TV ads depict elderly couples worrying that the
value of their land could be destroyed by a measure on the Nov. 6
ballot that would scale back a 2004 property rights law that opened up
new possibilities for development.
The ads are bankrolled in large part by timber companies, some of
whom have filed claims to turn forest land into housing subdivisions
under the 2004 property law known as Measure 37, and stand to benefit
if the current law is left as it is.
Campaign finance figures
show that 18 timber-related companies have contributed $1.14 million,
or 59 percent, to the $1.93 million campaign so far to defeat the Nov.
6 ballot measure, called Measure 49.
Of those timber companies, nine have claims under the 2004 law
seeking the right to convert 113,000 acres of their land to
subdivisions or $32.5 million in compensation if governments reject
those claims.
"If you follow the money, it's clear that the real opponents of
Measure 49 are timber companies that want to pave over Oregon's forests
with housing subdivisions," said Liz Kaufman, head of the Yes on 49
campaign.
But timber companies contend they have no immediate intention of
turning vast tracts of their holdings into subdivisions, and are just
keeping their options open.
Considered the farthest-reaching statute of its kind in the country,
Oregon's 2004 law allows property owners to seek compensation if
land-use actions imposed after they bought the property reduced its
value and restricted its use. Cities and counties facing Measure 37
claims must either pay the compensation sought or waive the
regulations.
Since the 2004 law passed, property owners have filed more than
7,500 claims on 750,000 acres -- mostly on rural farm or forest land.
They've demanded billions in compensation or the right to build
everything from a single home to subdivisions with dozens or even
hundreds of homes.
Oregonians voted by a margin of 61-39 percent for Measure 37 because
it promised to loosen what were perceived by some as unfair
restrictions in the state's land-use rules that hurt small landowners.
Instead, it has brought disarray and confusion, resulting in more than
250 lawsuits seeking clarification of its provisions. As a result,
there have been no clear guidelines for property development since
Measure 37 was passed.
Measure 49, the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, is intended to bring
order to land-use rules. It would allow rural landowners to build a few
homes -- three in most cases and as many as 10 for some -- but curb
larger subdivisions and industrial development currently allowed under
the 2004 law.
Many Oregonians who voted for Measure 37 regret doing so, saying
they didn't realize it would go so far in opening up areas for
development, or that it would turn out to be so unclear and flawed. But
there are also those who say Measure 37 corrected injustices within
existing land-use rules and should be left as it is.
The timber industry, owners of vast acreage in Oregon, is among the most powerful of the ballot measure's opponents.
The largest single contributor to the anti-Measure 49 campaign so far is the Stimson Lumber Co., which has chipped in $375,000.
The Portland-based company has filed the largest development claims
under the 2004 law's provisions -- a total of at least 57,000 acres in
six counties, which the Yes on 49 Committee says signals Stimson's
intent to convert forests into subdivisions.
Stimson President and CEO Andrew Miller said the company is pursuing
only one development in Washington County and that the rest are
"placeholder" claims intended to give the company options in the
future.
The company remains focused on growing trees, not subdivisions, he said.
"The majority of our claims are in areas where there is no market
for anything other than growing trees," Miller said. "But the
proponents of Measure 49 say it should be forest land forever -- at our
expense. That is just patently unfair."
The property rights group leading the charge to defeat Measure 49 notes it's being outspent by a 2-to-1 margin.
More than half of the $4.23 million raised so far by supporters of
the measure has come from two sources -- Yamhill County vineyard owner
Eric Lemelson and the Nature Conservancy, which usually works behind
the scenes buying property to preserve as wildlife habitat.
Lemelson and the Nature Conservancy both have given more than $1 million to the campaign.
"The Measure 49 supporters are people who live in the country, and
don't want neighbors. Their mentality is, 'I've got mine; too bad for
you,'" said Dave Hunnicutt, head of Oregonians in Action, which
sponsored the 2004 law. "It's the height of selfishness."
But backers of Measure 49 argue what's at stake is Oregon's
livability and the future of farming if its predecessor -- Measure 37
-- is not repaired.
They are fighting back with their own TV ads featuring farmers
warning that the 2004 law -- allowed to stand as it is -- will carve
out large swaths of rural Oregon to unbridled development and create a
mess in Oregon's unspoiled open spaces and rural lands.
The state's main land-use planning advocacy group, 1000 Friends of
Oregon, said it doesn't believe timber executives' assertions that they
aren't seeking wholesale conversion of forest land into housing
subdivisions.
"It's total financial self-interest on their part," 1000 Friends
spokesman Eric Stachon said of the industry's contributions to the
anti-Measure 49 campaign. "When they say, 'We don't intend to develop
these claims,' we say, 'Then you shouldn't have any problem with
Measure 49.'"
