'No compromise' seen on Measure 37
In November 2004, Oregon voters approved Measure 37, which requires municipalities to either compensate land owners for restrictions that lowered the value of their property or to waive such restrictions.
But several issues surrounding the measure, and the future of Oregon’s land-use laws, remain unresolved.
The battle over Measure 37 has shifted from the courtroom to the Legislature during recent months, where lawmakers had hoped to hammer out a compromise on the various sticking points. A joint Land-Use Fairness Committee was formed, co-chaired by Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) and Rep. Greg Macpherson (D-Lake Oswego). Legislators have met for nearly two months to try to reach an agreement, but a solution has thus far proven elusive.
On Thursday, April 12, a Measure 37 “framework” was announced, and House Republicans responded with a press release the next day.
“It has become apparent to us that our input and suggestions have been and will continue to be ignored, and that no bipartisan Measure 37 compromise will be forthcoming this session,” the release said.
Demos Express Shock
Macpherson said he was shocked by House Republicans’ reactions to the proposed framework.
“I’m surprised by the statement that has been put out, but unfortunately, the history of this issue is that there’s a lot of pushing and hauling involved because it has divided Oregonians so significantly,” Macpherson said. “It’s a very contentious issue.”
Land-Use Fairness Committee member Rep. Patti Smith (R-Corbett) said that despite tremendous efforts by all involved, committee members remain divided on several key issues. “It’s been very difficult to work within the process of the joint committee,” Smith said. “It’s not from a lack of trying.”
Smith said that there are still major disagreements around the maximum lot sizes that should be allowed.
“It was determined that we would do a hard cap,” she said, “so as to alleviate the word ‘subdivision.’ Now the difference is over what is going to be that cap on lot size,” Smith said.
Another sticking point has been the definition of “high-value farmland.” Smith said that the proposed framework would eliminate many buildable lots in the state and unfairly burden rural land owners.
Committee member Bill Garrard (R-Klamath Falls) suggested a regional land-use plan, which would leave such decisions up to local officials. Smith said she would prefer that approach to having those matters decided at the state level.
Interim Group Suggested
“That would give back control to many of these counties who know firsthand what the land is capable of growing,” she said.
Smith also has suggested that an interim committee be formed following the legislative session to address “the issues that caused Measure 37.”
Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland) said he supports the proposed framework as a reasonable compromise.
“The proposal that has been made, I think, is the kind of right-down-the-middle-path proposal that a vast majority of Oregonians will back,” Buckley said.
Buckley said that members of the Legislature are being pressured by interest groups and citizens who all feel strongly about the issues involved.
“We’ve gotten a lot of very interesting input from supporters of Measure 37 who want it left alone, and a lot from people who are now seeing the impacts of it where they live and who are putting pressure on us to make changes on it to make sure it doesn’t simply wipe land-use laws off the books,” Buckley said.
Macpherson said that special-interest groups are largely responsible for recent political bickering around the proposed framework.
“When the framework was announced, outside interest groups then tried to blow it up,” Macpherson said. “They’re making some headway right now, perhaps. It’s unfortunate.”
In their April 13 press release, House Republicans reiterated their opposition to the proposed framework, but said they would participate in future negotiations — but only under certain conditions.
Written Proposals Suggested
“If there are new efforts to forge a bipartisan agreement, we will gladly participate in those, but only if all proposals are put in writing before we meet,” the release noted.
Buckley said that several tentative agreements have been reached on the issues surrounding Measure 37, but that politics have prevented implementation.
“It’s questionable as to the sincerity behind the negotiations given the fact that we were so often told we had an agreement, only to find that we didn’t,” Buckley said. “It’s been a frustrating process. The term I’ve used is that the goalposts keep moving.”
Several legislative remedies proposed by the Land-Use Fairness Committee are scheduled for public hearings and possible work sessions this week. Macpherson said it’s all part of an “evolving process” aimed at finding a workable solution to the state’s land-use issues.
'A Major Problem'
“It’s a major problem for the state that needs to be solved,” he said. “Unfortunately, interest groups are trying to prevent a solution. But members of the committee have worked very hard to work out a compromise that we think balances all considerations.
“We just need to go forward from here to finish the job.”
Smith said she’s still willing to meet with her Democratic colleagues to discuss the issue, and is “hopefully optimistic that we can still arrive at a bipartisan solution.”
“The mission, to start with,” she said, “was to stop the litigation and clarify Measure 37. I think if we address the issue the way the Legislature should have, we can get there and make land use not so complicated and not such a burden on property owners.”
Rep. Ron Maurer (R-Grants Pass) said he is less optimistic on the chances of a compromise.
“I don’t see a compromise being accomplished,” Maurer said. “I’m seeing that Measure 37 is the first of a number of issues that I serious doubt there will be compromises on.”
However, Maurer said there is still plenty of time for the Legislature to work through the differences and come to a consensus.
“It’s not done until it’s done,” Maurer said. “There will always be room to compromise.”
