News

Stories about land use and planning from local and national sources. Ideas and events that affect livable urban and rural communities.

Archived

Oregon's landscapte shifts again

November 8, 2007

By David Steves
The Register - Guard

Landowners nurturing dreams of developing their land woke up angry.

Neighbors fearing subdivisions in rural Oregon woke up smiling.

Wednesday was the first day in post-Measure 49 Oregon. And although its approval in Tuesday’s election means a scaling back of the more far-reaching development rights under the old Measure 37, the strong sentiments on both sides of the issue remained as sharp as ever.

“We are ecstatic,” is how Kristi Holaas of Creswell described the feeling among her group of rural neighbors who had been fighting a Measure 37 proposal to build a 157-home development between Pleasant Hill and Creswell.

For Martin Hansen, the owner of a 290-acre ranch outside Eugene, Measure 49’s approval evoked strong reaction of a different sort — the feeling of being whipsawed. In three years, Hansen and his wife have gone from being freed from land use restrictions that left them unable to subdivide or develop their land to paying thousands of dollars to lawyers, consultants and government agencies in the pursuit of their Measure 37 claim to a right to 22 buildable lots — until Measure 49’s approval.

“We did what the law said for us to do, and then we got hit with it,” he said of Tuesday’s election results. “That’s not quite the American way.”

Norman Waterbury said he is not surprised at the hard feelings among those who had been pursuing Measure 37 claims. He has been working as a land use consultant for several such claimants. The campaign against Measure 49 was so rife with “shrill, extremist statements” about confiscated property and lost nest eggs that many claimants were convinced it was true.

“Customers would call me and tell me, ‘They’re going to wipe me out. They’re going to wipe me out,’” he said.

But now that Measure 49 is set to become law, Waterbury said, he is finding clients are ready to make do with development rights that, although less sweeping than under Measure 37, still exceed what they could do in earlier years.

“Most of what I’m getting from my clients is, ‘Oh, we can only have three lots? That’s fine,’ ” said Waterbury, who spent most of the election run-up undecided about Measure 49 before finally deciding to support it.

One of the selling points for Waterbury was that Measure 49 should offer a more streamlined process with less legal uncertainty than that of Measure 37.

Kent Howe, Lane County’s planning director, has been in the middle of the Measure 37 fray, as his office had been charged with processing the 393 claims that were ultimately to be settled by the county’s Board of Commissioners.

Howe said his office received a steady stream of inquiries about how Measure 49 would work. But at this stage, the process shifts to the state.

Beginning in December the Department of Land Conservation and Development will start to send information to Measure 37 claimants about their options under Measure 49.

Those who choose to proceed under Measure 49, and who meet the standards in the law, will receive a certificate they can present to their county allowing them to build. Those who were denied a Measure 37 claim may be eligible to build as well.

Despite such promises of an “express lane” for one- to three-home sites, many Measure 49 opponents remained skeptical.

Mike Miller, who had been pursuing a Measure 37 claim that would have led to the right to build one home on his rural land in the Hayden Bridge area, said he’s bracing for more red tape and expense in his own effort. And statewide, he’s expecting litigation and political squabbling.

“Now the government and the private sector are going to spend a whole bunch of money on legal fees and tax dollars figuring how they’re really going to deal with Measure 49,” he said.

Link to the article

TAKE ACTION

Get Involved with 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Support

Action Items

Volunteer