Both sides claim Measure 49 represents a fight for your rights as an Oregon resident and property owner. But their messages are very different – supporters and opponents of the measure are on opposite sides of the same fence, trying hard to convince voters by using various scare tactics and citing potential negative impacts from the outcome of the November election.
The measure proposes a revision to the controversial Measure 37, which passed three years ago. Measure 37 allowed property owners to turn their farmland or forest lands into housing areas, subdivisions or commercial real estate, bypassing past regulations that prohibited such development – but only if the restrictive zoning took effect after the property was purchased.
Measure 49 limits property owners to three homesites in most cases, but allows as many as 10 if owners can prove that zoning regulations resulted in financial loss. The proposed law also prohibits commercial and industrial developments through Measure 37 claims.
“Measure 49 fixes the flaws of Measure 37, and it allows it to work the way it was advertised, to serve the little guy. It closes the loopholes in Measure 37 that allow commercial and industrial development,” Shelly Strom, spokeswoman for the pro-Measure 49 lobbying group Yes On 49, said.
Supporters for the measure claim the old Measure 37 was originally intended to allow rural families the chance to build a house or two on their property, give their land to relatives or their children, or sell parts of their land in times of monetary need. What really happened, they argue, opened the floodgates to commercial and industrial developments in areas that were once prime farmland, industrial or private forests.
Of the 750,000 acres of Oregon over which Measure 37 claims have been filed, approximately 640,000 are likely to become large housing developments, according to Yes on 49.
Measure 49 is intended to put a stop to that industrial development and to significantly reduce any residential construction.
“What it’s going to do is restore fairness to our land-use system in that neighbors who already live next to a Measure 37 claim have rights too,” Salem resident Brian Hines said. “It was through political shenanigans that Measure 37 was passed.”
But opponents of Measure 49 say the law should allow property owners to have the final say on what goes on their lots.
“Forty-nine other states say, ‘Yes you can do what you want with your land, but Oregon says no,” said Dave Hunnicutt, president of the anti-Measure 49 lobbying group Oregonians In Action. “If the measure passed, your property can be taken without compensation, and it takes away the uses you can have for your property.”
The group decries the sentiment that Measure 37 will induce a strip-mall frenzy and urban-type subdivision in rural areas, and states that the original measure impacts less than 1 percent of all land in the state.
There are 61 million acres of land in Oregon and 34 million of those are owned by the government, while 26 million acres are mis-zoned as farm or forest land, according to OIA. The remaining one million acres are being used commercially, and 700,000 of these are being claimed under Measure 37 rights.
The argument that these rural lands are becoming subdivisions is misleading, Hunnicutt said.
“Anyone who believes the whole idea that Oregon is going to be a subdivision machine has no idea what Measure 37 is all about and needs to get their facts right about their wild-eyed claims. Anytime someone creates more than four lots in one year, they’re building a subdivision according to Oregon law,” Hunnicutt said.
Residents and environmentalists claim that any building will hurt citizens living in rural areas who use wells as their primary source of water, and can damage lake and river habitats.
“Oregon coastal watersheds are at an extreme risk,” Florence-area resident Rand Dawson said.
Dawson lives near Siltcoos Lake south of Florence, the largest coastal lake in Oregon and a main rearing area for wild coho salmon, and says that it and other coastal lakes will be damaged by runoff from housing.
“If Measure 49 does not pass, we are going to see tens of thousands of acres of forest land that will be converted into residential or related development that will add runoff,” Dawson said. “There has already been an advisory not to drink the water from Siltcoos Lake because of poisonous blue-green algae that has grown in response to the runoff. The current watershed residents are the victims of the future of conversion of forest lands to residential users.”