Many local officials are disappointed about the passage of Measure 7 and are worried about the outcome, though it is still unclear what the outcome will be.
The measure requires the state and local governments to pay property owners when a government regulation or law reduces a property’s value. This would cost the state an estimated $5.4 billion.
The passing of this measure has the potential to cut University funding, which could lead to a raise in tuition.
“I am unsure of what the impact will be on higher education,” said Bob Bruce, spokesman for the Oregon University System. “It is just too early to tell.”
In 1990, Measure 5 — a property tax limitation law — reduced funding for the University and raised tuition for in-state residents by 66 percent and 88 percent for nonresidents.
State Rep. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, said the wording of the measure is ambiguous and has left “everyone wondering where we go from here.”
“Measure 7 left a lot of questions unanswered, and has raised a lot of questions, ” Walker said. “It will be a long time before anything will happen.”
Opponents of the measure said its cost will be extremely high and will harm government-funded programs as a result. They also said the measure will be challenged in the courts, and that legislation will be needed to clear up the vague wording.
Supporters of the measure disagree with the estimated cost, and don’t think the legislature will need to intervene. But they agreed that some test cases will probably end up in court.
State Rep. Al King, D-Springfield, said the financial consequences are uncertain, but the estimated cost is equal to half the state’s budget. He said this would take away money from government-funded programs, such as police and higher education.
“We will be left with two choices,” King said. “Either the public pays the bill or parts of the government would have to be shut down to cover the costs.”
Another concern shared by opponents of the measure is that local counties might be inhibited from enforcing environmental laws if it means draining the state budget to pay property owners for zoning changes.
But Glen Stonebrink, a supporter of the measure and executive director of Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said the $5.4 billion estimate is only the worst-case scenario.
“That number is absolutely ridiculous,” Stonebrink said. “This won’t cost anything because if you don’t take people’s property or reduce the value of it, you don’t have to pay.”
King, however, said the measure puts the government in a no-win situation. For example, if a developer wants to change his land from being used for agricultural purposes to a residential subdivision, Measure 7 would allow him to make huge profits from the change. The neighbors of the subdivision could then potentially say the change lowers property value and would also be eligible for compensation. The government would have to pay both parties for opposite reasons.
“I didn’t support this measure because it is not manageable,” King said.
A supporter of the measure, Bill Moshofsky of the property rights group Oregonians in Action, said supporters are working right now to provide guidelines for the measure. He said the measure is slightly retroactive, but only to landowners that purchased their land before land was zoned.