By SUE RYAN
News staff writer
November 9, 2007

Hood River County voters mirrored Oregon in approving Measure 49, which restricts land development allowed under property rights law Measure 37 that was approved in 2004.

Hood River County voters passed the measure by 65 to 34 percent.

Oregon voters as a whole approved the measure by 61 percent to 39 percent.

Reaction from supporters and opponents of the measure has been mixed.

Pine Grove orchardist Jon Laraway voted against the measure and doesn’t feel it solved the main issue.

“I’m thinking we’re back to square one; it didn’t do anything to solve the land use problems; it really just addressed concerns people had with Measure 37. We’re still stuck with the same land use system.” Laraway said. “It didn’t address the overall problem of land use reform in Oregon.”

He hopes the Legislature funds the Big Look Task Force so they can reorganize to take a look at reforming the whole land use system.

Grower Gary Willis said he felt that the passage of the measure did not help private property rights advocates.

“I, as a strong person against M49, would be extremely happy if the state, which Rep. (Brian) Clem, assured us that they would, quickly restore the money to the Big Look task force although I am not convinced our governor wants to listen to what the Big Look task force has to tell them,” Willis said.

He referred to Oregon’s land use system as being broken and that one portion of M49 would intimidate anyone wanting to build houses on their property.

“It opens the door for all the environmental groups to sue anyone who wants to develop,” he said.

Hood River Valley Residents Committee members and local volunteers for the Yes on 49 campaign celebrated election night at Double Mountain Brewery in Hood River.

“I’m ecstatic about our victory,” said Jonathan Graca, executive director for Hood River Valley Residents Committee and field coordinator for the Yes on 49 campaign.

“Sixty-two percent of voters demonstrated that the bag of goods they received with Measure 37 was not the bag they wanted.

“Here in Hood River, the overwhelming answer was that voters wanted to protect their farms, forests and water and not allow a strong agricultural economy to be dismantled parcel by parcel.

“Hood River citizens enjoy the quality of life they have due to Oregon’s land use laws. Measure 49 will allow that quality of life to continue while balancing it with property owner’s receiving additional compensation through the ability to build a few homes.”

Hood River resident Jurgen Hess, who described himself as a landscape architect and environmental activist, said he was pleasantly surprised by the measure’s passage.

“I was hopeful Oregonians would do the right thing. While the measure wasn’t perfect, it will go a long ways toward correcting potential harms from Measure 37,” Hess said. “I’m proud of Hood River County residents who voted for it and it shows that Oregonians really wanted to protect agricultural lands, orchards, forest and protect the values that make Oregon what it is.”

On Measure 50, Hood River County residents voted against the proposal to tax cigarette sales for health care but at a proportion slightly different than the states.

In Hood River, voters cast 54.6 percent votes against and 45.3 percent of votes for Measure 50.

Oregon voters as a whole defeated the measure by 60 to 39 percent.

Former Hood River County Commissioner Carol York voted against it.

“Measure 50 would have been the first time the Oregon Constitution would have been amended to create a tax on a single product. I don’t think people were ready for that and the precedent it would have set,” she said. “Taxes do not belong in the constitution.”

She thought it didn’t make sense to raise taxes on a declining revenue source for a new program that would have increasing revenue demands.

“I’m very disappointed, of course, and I’m concerned because there will be children who won’t have access to health care,” said Suzanne VanOrman, Hood River resident and an advocate for children. “Because it’s not just children we have to worry about, it’s family.”

She said the health care issue affects more than just small children but teenagers as well. She believes it’s important to continue working to take care of children and families health.