No on 49
No need to ‘fix’ Measure 37

Dubbing Ballot Measure 49 as a “fix for Measure 37” is a misnomer. The world — or at least life as we know (and love) it here in Oregon — didn’t end after Measure 37 was approved in 2004. The predicted disaster deemed by the measure’s opponents didn’t materialize. There possibly was a spike in interest in land-use careers among a few forward-thinking law students (in fact, Oregon arguably hasn’t seen this amount of interest in land use since the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was stealing the headlines).

More than 1 million Oregon voters (61 percent) voted in 2004 in favor of Measure 37, which was designed to protect private property rights. The approval margin was less in Hood River County at 53 percent, but voters endorsed the measure locally, as well.

The measure survived a legal challenge that eventually was decided by the Oregon Supreme Court. But that wasn’t good enough for the 2007 legislature, specifically the Democrats. This past session, they crafted a plan to scale back the citizen-initiative Measure 37. That plan, Measure 49 on the Nov. 6 ballot, claims it will fix the problems of Measure 37. In reality, what 49 does is re-take away some of the rights granted by 37. In addition, the measure is written in land-use speak, full of technical jargon that’s hard to understand.

•

Measure 37 stemmed from the fact that property owners didn’t want to be told what to do by government. There was a prevailing premise in the coffee shop that government had gone too far since the days of Gov. Tom McCall and comprehensive planning. To some it seemed the worth of their property depended on the time of year and the circumstance. Property isn’t worth much when government wants to use it — to widen a highway, for example. But come tax time, the value of that same property seemed to increase.

The measure states that “the owner of private real property is entitled to receive just compensation when a land use regulation is enacted after the owner or a family member became the owner of the property if the regulation restricts the use of the property and reduces its fair market value. In lieu of compensation, the measure also provides that the government responsible for the regulation may choose to ‘remove, modify or not apply’ the regulation.”

As always, the advertising blitz is spiraling toward a climax prior to next month’s vote. There are misleading musings such as, “We’re going to run out of food,” and “There will be 750,000 acres of parking lots,” if nothing is done about Measure 37. And, there are some interesting ironies, such as lawn signs in the heart of Salem asking the question: “Pears or Pavement?” Last time we checked, Salem wasn’t exactly the pear hub of Oregon. It’s admirable for folks who live in inner-city Salem to look out for Hood River’s interests. But the pear, apple and other agricultural interests this valley is known for have survived for many years and likely will continue to do so for many years to come — with or without Measure 37, or 49 for that matter.