Oregon is considered by many to be one of the most environmentalist states in the nation. We have a long history of making the environment a legislative priority, as well as a value in our regional culture.
This history may be why some were surprised when Oregon resoundingly passed Measure 37 in 2004. The measure threatens to undo Oregon’s nationally renowned land-use laws, which restrict the degradation of the environment by limiting suburban sprawl. Oregon’s “Senate Bill 100” provides this protection with urban growth boundaries, a method of land-use legislation that has been subsequently adopted by other western states, including Washington to the north.
It took a while for development interest groups to get a pro-sprawl initiative to stick, having failed twice before. In the 1980s, former Republican Governor Tom McCall campaigned hard to stop Measure 6, an earlier version of Measure 37. Even more remarkable was that he did so virtually from his deathbed, suffering from terminal cancer while on the campaign trail. He didn’t seem to mind using his last months for this cause, though, having once said, “This activist loves Oregon more than he loves life.” His campaign, among the work of others, was a success, and the measure was defeated by voters two months before his death in 1983.
In 2000, another measure similar to 37 was put to the voters, and unlike Measure 6, actually passed. It was a narrow majority, though, passing with only 53 percent of the vote. It was put forth originally by Oregon initiative-monger Bill Sizemore, and got the majority of its support from pro-development groups, like Oregonians In Action, a development rights advocate who would propose Measure 37 four years later. The Oregon Supreme Court eventually struck down measure 7- a fate that was expected for Measure 37 as well. But oddly, that never happened.
Measure 37 had the most strength of any previous development rights measure, owing largely to Oregon’s libertarian spirit, and with significant help from a well-funded advertising campaign and a misleading ballot title, it passed with around 61 percent of the vote. This worried environmentalists – both in Oregon and elsewhere – who feared this trend may catch on and mean the end of our children’s forest and farmland resources. Developers took a hint and poured money into campaigns for similar initiatives in other states with land-use restrictions, such as that of Initiative 933 in Washington and Proposition 90 in California. Both, however, were soundly defeated by voters – hopefully with the knowledge of the problems created here by Measure 37.
But does this mean that Oregon’s precious Willamette Valley, an agricultural resource of such fertility that it inspired a large part of the westward movement, is doomed to the strip-mall, big-box store and ranch house fate that has wrought destruction upon the farm and resource lands of other states? Possibly not. Oregon can still have hope that our children will be able to enjoy the pristine forests and farmland that brought our ancestors here, despite the advertising power of wealthy developer elites.
Oregonians In Action, a lobby group for development interests, has set its sights on defeating Measure 49, a ballot measure coming to voters this November. Measure 49 takes the more legitimate arguments for Measure 37 into account, allowing more leeway to housing for farming families and some industrial uses. It doesn’t, however, allow the complete depletion of our agricultural resources to sprawl, like 37 may.
The logic of the developer elite relies primarily on the concept of “regulatory taking”: the principle that regulation of one’s property could result in the reduction of its value to the level where the government is theoretically “taking” part of it away. This logic implies one should be allowed to use one’s property however they see fit, even if it causes harm to others: a logic I doubt very many people would accept.
The purpose of land-use regulation is to prevent harm to others caused by excessive use of the land. The construction of housing subdivisions near farmland threatens the rural lifestyle because those living in subdivisions often get annoyed by the practice of agricultural activities, and politically carry more weight than the nearby family farmer, as they usually outnumber the farmers. Oregon has tried to prevent this sort of conflict by containing suburban sprawl as much as possible. Some people argue this drives up the cost of housing inside of cities, which may or may not be true, but makes sense as the prevention of suburban sprawl means the preservation of quality of life, which translates to a higher value of living here.
Measure 49, if passed, will try to continue the preservation of this quality of life, and as its ballot title contends, “clarify the right of farmers to build homes” on their property. Whatever the result of this fall’s election, one thing is for sure: It will have an impact on the way we, and our children, are able to live here. I’m betting on the good sense of Oregonians that we’ll get it right.
[email protected]Would land-use change impact life?