By RAELYNN RICARTE
News staff writer
October 8, 2007

Attorney Andrew Stamp told Hood River County residents on Monday that Measure 49 was imbedded with “poison pills” to stop development.

The land use specialist from Lake Oswego said the referendum was not intended to restore property rights. He said Democrats in the legislature had written Measure 49 with the intention of restoring Oregon’s “broken land use system.”

“The language in Measure 49 appears to be very innocuous. But it is actually a subtle way to destroy people’s (Measure 37) claims,” said Stamp.

For example, he said the referendum states that landowners who have had property devalued by regulations can regain up to 10 home sites. However, Stamp said virtually all of Oregon’s land mass has been defined in the proposal as “high value farmland” that is limited to three home sites.

“Basically if you look out your window and you don’t see big boulders or a steep slope, you are sitting on high value farmland,” said Stamp.

He was one of three presenters at a Stop 49 forum sponsored by Gorge Land Use Equity at the Hood River Inn on Oct. 1. Stamp was joined on the panel by Pine Grove farmer Jon Laraway and Steven Andersen, owner of Cascade Planning Associates.

The three speakers agreed that Measure 49 is being billed as a “fix” for Measure 37 but is actually intended to “kill” the law.

They said Measure 37 was approved by 61 percent of voters statewide in 2004 on a simple premise. It required governments to compensate landowners for enacting regulations that devalued property. In lieu of making that payment, the agency could restore the development right in place when the land was acquired.

Andersen said Democrats in the Oregon Legislature and conservation groups immediately set up political and legal roadblocks to thwart implementation of Measure 37. He said citizens were then told the law was too cumbersome to enact and needed an overhaul.

“I felt that Measure 37 was finally something that could force the legislature’s hand and make them fix the land use system. But they spent their entire time trying to fix Measure 37 instead,” said Laraway.

Andersen said the most potent “poison pill” in Measure 49 boiled down to the insertion of one word. He said the use of “prohibit” in a key piece of text would stop most landowners from even gaining one home lot.

He said even if a home site was granted by a successful claim, a residence could not be built unless existing regulations “prohibit” it outright. He said Oregon’s land use rules “restrict” dwellings on farm land unless certain tests were met. For example, he said a home site is “restricted” unless the property owner can generate $80,000 of income each year from an agricultural practice.

“Virtually all of the progress Measure 37 made will be wiped out if Measure 49 passes just from this provision alone,” said Andersen.

He recently challenged an Oregonian reporter for downplaying the difference between the two words. He said many media outlets are advocating for Measure 49 without informing readers or listeners how it will play out on the ground.

In a reply e-mail to Andersen’s complaint, the Oregonian reporter expressed interest in researching the topic further if he could find a “neutral” land use attorney.

Upon hearing that comment, Stamp said, “the only thing more difficult than finding a neutral land use attorney is finding a neutral reporter.”

He said it was highly possible that Measure 49 would be approved by voters on Nov. 6. He said they were being “hoodwinked” by a “scare tactic” campaign that was outspending the opposition by a 10 to 1 ratio.

For example, Stamp said pictures of urban subdivisions were being superimposed over pastoral settings. He said high-density development was not even possible in outlying areas because there was no sewer service and septic systems required room for a drain field.