Costly Measure 37 threatens Oregonians’ quality of life
Lurking on a controversial November ballot is another attempt to increase state expenses and hurt the quality of life for Oregon residents. If approved, Measure 37 would require the state of Oregon to “pay owners, or forego enforcement when certain land restrictions reduce property value.”
Provisions in the United States and Oregon constitutions already safeguard citizens from unfair governmental “taking” of private land without just compensation. Measure 37 goes far beyond these constitutional rights. It forces taxpayers to compensate landowners if any land use decision has restricted the use of property purchased by the owner, their parents and even their grandparents.
Measure 37 will be extremely costly to Oregon taxpayers. According to the secretary of state, Measure 37 will cost taxpayers up to $344 million per year in new paperwork and red tape alone. According to the state treasurer, the final costs for payment of claims to landowners “cannot be determined.” Measure 37 provides no funding mechanism and the only way to pay for these costs would be through cuts in local services or increased taxes.
Measure 37 is poorly written. The measure provides no guidance on its implementation, and it will lead to lawsuits, uncertainty and increased costs. The retroactive clauses are impossible to calculate and are unfair to the public. The courts threw out a similar idea in 2000. Voters need to do the same in November.
Join the broad-based, bipartisan opposition to Measure 37. Farm bureaus from across the state, including Lane County, oppose the measure because it will increase taxes and remove protections for prized farmland. Conservation groups oppose Measure 37 because it will increase sprawl and decrease our quality of life.
Small businesses and business owners oppose Measure 37 because it will increase bureaucracy and lawsuits and make it even more difficult to obtain basic things like building permits. More bureaucracy and red tape made it harder to do business in Oregon. Neighborhood associations oppose Measure 37 because it would undermine protections against the effects of harmful development and would provide no compensation for reduced property values resulting from development. Would you want a used car lot or a fast-food chain next door to your home?
So, who is in support of Measure 37? Large corporate landowners who stand to gain millions. In researching campaign finance reports, 1000 Friends of Oregon found that eight corporate landowners gave 72 percent, or $540,000, to support the measure. Corporate special interests should not benefit at taxpayer expense.
This fall, vote “No on 37” to safeguard land use planning in Oregon and preserve the quality of life that Oregonians enjoy.
Jonathan Evans
Graduate student
Measure 35 will restore
balance to health care system
In her guest commentary (“Keep health negligence reward decisions in juries’ hands,” ODE, Oct. 13), Kathy Brooks appeals to emotion over reason and may therefore succeed in perpetuating an inaccurate understanding of the scope and purpose of ballot Measure 35.
Measure 35 will not restrict the rights of injured patients to sue their doctors, nor will it prevent them from receiving adequate economic and medical care compensation, nor will it even stop juries untrained in medical science from assessing blame. Instead, this measure would merely reinstate a previous $500,000 cap on non-economic damages. This cap was only repealed by the Oregon State Supreme Court in 1999, so it was in fact intact at the time Ms. Brooks’ baby was injured.
As the daughter of a physician and an aspiring future physician myself, I urge voters not to view Measure 35 as a battle between doctors and lawyers or between insurance companies and patients. The prevention of frivolous lawsuits and curbing of costly malpractice premiums are public health issues that influence patients’ access to lifesaving services. Health-care providers who support Measure 35 are not trying to escape consequences for their mistakes; rather, they seek to restore some balance in our health care system whereby patients maintain access to high-quality health care and doctors don’t have to practice defensive medicine in constant fear of frivolous lawsuits.
I am sorry that Ms. Brooks did not receive appropriate medical care during her delivery. It is a tragedy when a doctor irreparably injures a patient, and that patient should certainly receive adequate medical and economic compensation. Unfortunately, some injuries are so severe that no amount of money can repair them. Suing for tens of millions of dollars in these cases only bankrupts doctors and their families while driving up the cost of malpractice insurance and the cost of health care for other patients.
While frivolous or enormously costly lawsuits are not the only reasons for the escalating cost of malpractice insurance, they foster an untenably stressful environment for the majority of diligent, hardworking doctors. The previous cap on non-economic damages helped to stabilize and lower the cost of doctors’ insurance premiums. Since repeal of the cap, at least 125 providers have ceased delivering babies. Currently there are no neurosurgeons practicing along the coast or in Eastern Oregon.
If we want to ensure continued high-quality health care, we must re-establish a balance between support for victims of medical malpractice and competent, conscientious doctors.
Emily Jeffrey
Eugene
Measure 35 a ‘slick campaign’ of insurance companies
Insurance companies want us to think that doctors are leaving Oregon to avoid paying high medical malpractice premiums. However, I just read about a study by Public Citizen showing that the number of doctors in Oregon is actually increasing. Measure 35 will not help doctors; instead, it will limit our right by changing the constitution. Voters should not be swayed by the insurance industry’s slick campaign.
Please join me in voting “NO” on 35!
Helene Montgomery
Eugene