Measure 37: Is it doing what Oregon voters wanted?

When voters considered Measure 37 in 2004, what it would do was a guessing game. Moreover, arguments made to justify the measure were untested. Today, three years and 7,462 claims later, what Measure 37 would do is increasingly clear. In addition, new research shows two key Measure 37 justifications were myths.\ud \ud The Guessing Game Is Over. The 7,462 claims show Measure 37 would do some that proponents predicted, more that opponents feared, and some that surprised everyone:\ud \ud • 3,153 (42%) seek 1 - 3 homesites, what proponents predicted Table 2;\ud \ud • 4,309 (58%) demand subdivisions, what opponents feared;\ud \ud 2,854 on 364,462 acres of farm land averagin 128 acres \ud • 944 on 145,133 acres of forest land averaging 154 acres\ud • 421 on 7,102 acres in rural residential areas, averaging 17 acres \ud • 90 in urban areas, \ud \ud • 61% of farmland subdivision claims are in the Willamette Valley on 131,629 acres of mostly “high value” land, averaging 75 acres. \ud \ud • The Oregon Department of Agriculture mapped these subdivisions and told the Legislature they would undermine agriculture in the North Willamette Valley and Hood River County.\ud \ud • The surprise: Development rights under a Measure 37 “waiver” are not transferable to third parties. \ud \ud Justifications Invalid. Studies published since the 2004 election show two key Measure 37 justifications were invalid. First, proponents argued zoning has reduced farm land values. One study found from 1965-2002 average farm land values in 21 Western and Central Oregon counties increased faster than the stock market; in Eastern Oregon values rose less strongly but still 41% faster than inflation. Two other studies found the value of regulated farm land in Oregon rose faster than unregulated land in Washington state, and California (see p. 27-28).\ud \ud \ud \ud Second, proponents argued land use laws have been unfair because the 1973 legislature provided no compensation for land use limitations. But new research found the legislature mandated property tax reductions in consideration of foregone uses on farm and forest land, and that those rural tax reductions -- financed by the 97% of taxpayers who live in urban and suburban areas -- total $4.9 billion, 1974 - 2004. \ud \ud Voter Intent Sidetracked. The 2007 Legislature assessed the new research and what the 7,462 claims would do, and concluded that, however technically correct they might be, agency and judicial interpretations of Measure 37 thwarted voters’ intent on two points: \ud \ud • Voters assumed waivers would be transferable, but the Attorney General and the courts interpreted Measure 37 to mean waivers are not transferable; 3,153 small claims have been held up for two years\ud \ud • Voters assumed landowners would be compensated for losses, but DLCD and the courts interpreted Measure 37 to allow thousands of subdivisions worth far more than what owner could have lost.\ud \ud Measure 49 Modifies Measure 37. To put Measure 37 back on the track voters intended, the Legislature proposed that all 7,462 claims go forward and receive transferability, that small claims be approved without proof of loss, and that large claims be limited, especially claims on high value land or in groundwater restricted areas: \ud \ud • 3,153 claims for 1-3 lots (42% of all claims) approved without proof of loss; claims for 4 or more lots may “amend down” to get that treatment;\ud \ud • 4,309 claims for 4 or more lots (58% of all claims) would be limited to: \ud \ud • 3 lots on high value farm or forest land, and in groundwater restricted areas;\ud \ud • 4-10 lots on other land, based on loss shown by a “before and after” appraisal, plus interest from the date of the loss to the date of the claim.\ud \ud The Legislature put its proposed changes to Measure 37 on the November 2007 ballot, in the form of Measure 49, and asked voters to decide: Which do I like: Measure 37 as interpreted, or Measure 37 as modified by Measure 49