Measure 37 reforms to be on ballot
Last week, the Oregon House and Senate voted to refer a series of Measure 37 reforms to the Nov. 6 ballot.
Measure 37 was approved by 61 percent of voters in the 2004 election. The measure states that government entities must either pay compensation for zoning regulations that devalue private property or waive them.
However, much controversy has arisen since the passage of Measure 37, with very clear divisions emerging between property rights advocates and defenders of Oregon's 30-year-old land use system.
Those divisions have also become apparent during Oregon’s 2007 Legislative session, as Democrats and Republicans have spent months battling over proposed changes to Measure 37.
The attempted legislative remedy came in the form of House Bill 3540, a 24-page bill that would establish an “express lane” approach for smaller claims, create the position of Land Use Ombudsman to oversee the process, and put a 20-home cap on Measure 37 claims.
But the bill won’t be passed into law unless voters decide to approve it Nov. 6.
HB 3540 passed the Senate Tuesday, June 5 on a 19-11, party-line vote, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans opposed. The following day, it passed the House on a 31-26 party-line vote.
Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland) said that HB 3540 addresses the concerns about Measure 37 in an even-handed manner.
“We attempted to find middle ground and fairness for small property owners so they can add a house or two on their property for family members,” Buckley said. “We streamlined the process to make it work for people. Larger claims, we broadened it out so the impact on neighbors could be considered.”
Sen. Jason Atkinson (R-Central Point) characterized the passage of HB 3540 as “arrogance run amok.”
“I think is a terrible injustice to the voters of Oregon,” Atkinson said. “This government, especially the executive branch, has succeeded now in overturning the will of Oregon voters.”
Rep. Ron Maurer (R-Grants Pass) described HB 3540 as a “lawyer’s bill,” and said that it was deliberately written in complicated legal terminology that few will be able to understand.
“It was intentionally designed to create a double-negative effect, which is confusing,” Maurer said. “I just don’t believe that most people are going to be able to read this legislation and interpret its meaning and be able to take part in a rational debate.”
Atkinson said that HB 3540 favors the interests of big government at the expense of small land owners, and uses bureaucrat-friendly language to do so.
He added, “Measure 37, as it was written, had 1,000 words. This one took out 852 words and replaces it with volumes and volumes and volumes of words that undo the will of the people.
“This is government and power gone to the head of people who are now saying, ‘I know better than the voters.’ That’s wrong.”
Buckley said that Measure 37 needed to be reformed, and points out that there are more than 200 court cases pending in the state regarding the law.
“The original Measure 37 was so poorly written that there had to be an extensive rewrite to make it work,” Buckley said. “Otherwise, it will keep ending up in court.”
He said that the key part of HB 3540 is its referral to voters in November. After voters decide on it, Buckley said, citizens and legislators can focus on other issues.
“Voters have a chance to say what kind of reform they want to see,” Buckley said. “If it passes, and hopefully, it will, a huge issue in the state for several years will now be put behind us.
“People can move on with building homes where they can build them now and move on with the rest of their lives,” Buckley said.
