Some Speak Against New Measure 37 Compromise

PETER WONG
Statesman Journal
March 31, 2007
When it comes to the Legislature's latest plan to fix flaws in Oregon's land-use compensation law, both sides in the controversy over a proposed subdivision in the hills south of Salem are agreed.
They don't like it.
The plan -- which two lawmakers and a deputy chief of staff to Gov. Ted Kulongoski disclosed Thursday night -- would clear the way for smaller developments but limit or bar big ones.
The law, which voters passed as Measure 37 in 2004, requires government either to pay landowners or waive rules when those rules result in reduced property values. Thousands of claims were filed before a Dec. 5 deadline, and landowners can go to court to seek compensation if governments cannot resolve them within six months.
The latest plan still has to be put in the form of a bill by the committee before it goes to votes in each chamber.
It would clear the way for pre-1994 landowners to proceed with houses on up to three sites, a maximum of three on one open site, and guarantee most claimants at least one site.
Some landowners could develop up to 10 sites, and a maximum of 30 homes, if they can demonstrate their property-value losses, adjusted for previous tax breaks.
"Actually, I think it's worse than the governor's original proposal in some ways," Hines said. "We are not real happy with the idea of 10 sites being allowed because it's still going to create a ring of subdivisions around us.
Under either option, development would be limited or barred on high-value farmland and in areas with limited groundwater supplies.
High-value farmland is defined under a 1993 law by soil quality and agricultural production. Macpherson said it's intended to protect Oregon's best farmland in the Willamette and Hood River valleys, including vineyards and orchards.
Laack said those conditions in the latest plan amount to a pretext for government to do nothing for landowners filing claims.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745