New land use bill moves ahead
By AARON CLARK - Associated Press
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:53 PM PDT
SALEM — Lawmakers are moving toward giving voters another chance to weigh in on a contentious land use law that could spur high-profile ad campaigns by interest groups and put on hold hundreds — if not thousands — of development claims before a likely September or November vote.
The Committee on Ways and Means passed a bill Tuesday that would make significant reforms to current Oregon property law as it stands under Measure 37, a ballot measure voters passed in 2004. But the bill will have to be approved by voters, and the special election it requires will cost taxpayers between $1.6 and $1.8 million.
The proposal could reach the House as early as Thursday or Friday, where it will face intense scrutiny from Republicans and some Democrats who have balked at earlier property reform legislation.
Although the bill breaks a four-month standstill during which lawmakers held dozens of meetings and heard testimony from hundreds of people it is also a testament to a process that failed to produce a bipartisan agreement for revamping the property rights law known as Measure 37.
The proposal is drawing sharp criticism from groups on both sides who say lawmakers have shirked one of the most important issues of the session, but Democrats pushing the bill say it’s a necessary ‘‘fix’’ for Measure 37.
‘‘This is an issue where we know voters didn’t necessarily vote for the unintended consequences and outcomes that have been materializing under Measure 37,’’ said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, co-chair of the Special Committee on Land Use Fairness that helped craft the bill. ‘‘If we’re not able to deal with it within a legislation fix, then it’s imperative we return it to the voters and give them the opportunity to reconsider the decision they made.’’
Measure 37, passed by voters in 2004, requires governments to pay owners for property value lost from land-use restrictions passed after the property was purchased.
If governments don’t pay — and Measure 37 claims against state and local governments have already reached over $10 billion — they must waive the restriction and allow development.
The new bill creates an ‘‘express lane’’ for claimants who want to build no more than three homes on their property.
For those who wish to build between four and 10 dwellings, they must demonstrate loss of value due to land use regulations equal to or greater than the value of the number of homes they want to build.
A third option would allow property owners who have had claims approved by state and local agencies, and who have made significant investments, to continue development if approved by county agencies.
The bill includes a statewide maximum of 20 dwellings per claimant.
Another bill pushed by Democrats would extend the 180-day deadline for claims filed on or after November 1, 2006, that state and local agencies are responsible for processing within six months time. Lane Shetterly, director of the Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development, said the extension was critical so that agencies have enough time to properly assess claims.
But critics of the reform proposal say it guts the original voter passed initiative.
‘‘They don’t have the courage to go out and make bipartisan amendments that can be supported by everybody,’’ said Dave Hunnicutt, president of Oregonians in Action, a property rights group. ‘‘It’s a poorly written piece of legislation that takes a relatively simple ballot measure and makes 41 pages of changes to it.’’
There are significant departures under the new proposal from Measure 37, including a valuation process that opponents say is costly, time consuming and would significantly restrict medium sized developments. The bill also restricts developments in groundwater restricted areas, high value farmland and regions with soil that is well-suited for winemaking.
But the prospect of an endless barrage of TV, radio and newspaper adds, pitting entrenched interest groups against each other, is frustrating for some. Brian Hines, a retired property owner in Salem said he was disappointed lawmakers couldn’t come up with a solution.
‘‘I think that’s pretty chicken,’’ Hines said of Oregon lawmakers decision to send the property rights reforms back to voters. ‘‘It will come down to a bunch of competing sound bites. The situation is a lot more complicated than that.’’
