Proposed land use measure raises debate
By LARRY MEYER
ARGUS OBSERVER
Monday, October 29, 2007 12:18 PM PDT
ONTARIO - Ballot Measure 49, one of two that Oregon voters will be deciding on in the Nov. 6 election, is as controversial as the measure it is supposed to clarify — Ballot Measure 37 — regarding land owners’ rights to develop and protect some types of land use.
Ballot Measure 37 was passed in 2004 to give property owners the right to request compensation from state and/or local governments for the loss of property values if the owners can show the losses were the result of land use decisions that have restricted development. To be able to file a claim, land owners must have owned the land prior to the land use regulations.
The measure allowed governments to provide compensation or waive the land use regulations if owners have proved their case. Many local governments, because of a lack of resources, opt to waive the land use regulations in question rather than provide compensation.
According to the summary statement of the new measure, Ballot Measure 49 would, if approved, give land owners with Measure 37 claims the right to build homes as compensation for land use restrictions imposed after they acquired their properties. Land owners would be able to build up to three homes, according to the measure, when they acquired their properties, four to 10 homes if owners can document reductions in property values that justify additional homes, but they may not build more than three homes on high-value farmlands, forest land or groundwater-restricted lands.
It also allows claimants to transfer home-building rights upon sale or transfer of properties and extended rights to surviving spouses.
Arguments for and against Ballot Measure 49 generally center on whether it will take away property rights or protect them and offer protection for prime farm land and forests.
“I’m very anxious about Measure 49,” Rep. Tom Butler, R-Ontario, said, adding he voted against it in the Legislature. “The will of 60 percent of the people should not be overturned.”
Butler said he is opposed when government starts to take away property, particularly when it starts to take away property without paying for it.
The American Land Institute, Portland, which researches land use policy issues, released a report in September that found that, based on 7,642 Ballot Measure 37 claims filed, 3,153 sought one to three home sites, 4,309 claims were seeking larger subdivisions, averaging 128 acres on farm land and 154 acres on forest land.
The Institute said its findings show that zoning regulations have not reduced values of farm land, and some property owners were already being compensated through rural tax reductions.
Proponents, including Gov. Ted Kulongoski and three former governors, argue that Measure 49 will deliver what Oregon voters had in mind when they passed Measure 37, providing a balance that protects the state’s farms, forests and allows property owners to build more than one home on their properties.
Protecting property rights is why opponents say they are opposing Ballot Measure 49.
In his statement for the voter’s pamphlet, Jason Williams, Taxpayers Association of Oregon PAC, said Measure 49 allows government to pass new land use regulations that destroy the value of private property.
The other main argument is that Ballot Measure 49 will allow state and local governments to take private property without compensation.
The ballot measure has split the agriculture industry across the state, as different county Farm Bureau Chapters have staked opposite positions. The Oregon State Farm Bureau has come out in support of Ballot Measure 49 as protection for family farms and ranchers, while the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association is opposed to the measure, saying it would allow Oregon’s state, regional and local governments to take private property with zero compensation.
