Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, and Rep. Patti Smith, R-Corbett, are following party lines on the debate over a Measure 37 rewrite.

Although the state officials frequently co-sponsor bills, the pending referral to voters has set them on opposite sides of the fence.

“The beauty of this will be that the people voted in Measure 37 and now they will be given the opportunity to tell us if this is what they meant,” said Metsger.

He plans to be a “yes” vote when House Bill 3540 is brought to the Senate floor this week. The legislation is expected to cruise through the Democratically-controlled chamber.

Democrats also prevailed in the House vote last Friday, winning passage of the bill by a 31-24 margin. Smith was one of the Republicans voting “no” because she viewed the referral as an attempt to repeal Measure 37.

“This isn’t about clarifying Measure 37 — it changes it altogether,” she said. “This doesn’t address the unfairness in our land-use system. And, until we do that, these problems won’t go away.”

Both politicians expect the new Measure 37 proposal to be sent to voters statewide in a September special election or on the November ballot. They agree that emotional campaigns featuring frustrated property owners are likely to be launched on both sides of the issue.

Measure 37 passed by 61 percent of voters statewide in 2004. Metsger believes supporters of the law thought they were allowing a few “mom and pop” home sites to be carved off a piece of property. He doubts that citizens intended for massive subdivisions to lower the quality of life for neighboring landowners.

“What Measure 37 does is deal with festering issues from the past. But it doesn’t really deal with long-term planning,” said Metsger. “I think voters will decide that this referral is fundamentally what they wanted from Measure 37.”

Smith believes voters were clear in their intent since Measure 7, a sister bill that was overturned on a technicality, also gained approval by a majority vote in 2000.

“We are told this referral is going to help us avoid costly litigation. But people who have spent thousands of dollars to get their property rights restored when Measure 37 was the law of the land are going to sue. This is just going to create more lawsuits, not less,” said Smith.

As it stands, Measure 37 allows landowners to seek compensation when a government regulation devalues their property. In lieu of making that payment, the agency can choose to lift the “offending” restriction.

Smith said the Joint Special Committee on Land Use Fairness, of which she was a member, should have focused on how to address the problems raised by claimants. For example, she said landowners could have been granted development rights that transferred to areas more suitable for building.

Smith said the Democrats have focused instead on pushing legislation that is billed as “clarifying” the law but really overturns it.

“There’s just not much to say about this referral except, ‘stay tuned’ because this isn’t a fix to any problem,” she said.

Metsger is optimistic that the re-write of Measure 37 will bring enough flexibility to the land-use system to resolve problems. He believes the Big Look Committee will be able to help the state strike that balance. The work group is tasked with scrutinizing the land-use system, finding out what does and doesn’t work on the ground, and making recommendations for change by 2009.

Smith said the Big Look report should have been reviewed before an attempt was made to “gut” Measure 37. She said true balance cannot be achieved with the land-use system until past wrongs have been righted and fairness is restored.