Hearing Revisits Debate on Land Use

PETER WONG
Statesman Journal
April 18, 2007
No one was neutral Tuesday night about the property-compensation measure that voters approved in 2004 as Measure 37, or about specific changes that lawmakers considered at a three-hour hearing.
Many of the participants and observers who filled seats in six Capitol hearing rooms wore just one of two stickers: "Fix 37," or "I love M 37" with a heart substituting for "love." More than 100 signed up to testify, although less than half did.
Measure 37 requires government either to pay landowners when regulations result in reduced property values or to waive the regulations and allow development. About 7,000 claims have been filed, many of them within weeks of a Dec. 4, 2006, deadline set in the measure.
Members of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness heard proposed changes that would allow some landowners to proceed with development of homes. But the changes also would limit the scope of development, particularly on Oregon's best farmland or areas with limited groundwater.
"It strikes a responsible balance between landowner rights and farmland protection," said Gary Conkling, who spoke for the Oregon Winegrowers Association.
Ken Maddox, a Hood River grower, reflected the view of many who suggested that the proposed changes might allow too much development near farms and forests. Measure 37 claimants could develop up to three home sites with a guarantee of at least one home.
"I'd suggest a more conservative approach," he said.
But others vigorously disagreed.
"I believe these bills were created to destroy Measure 37," said Rita Swyers of Hood River, who ran twice for the Legislature in the 1980s.
Sixty-one percent of residents who voted approved Measure 37 in 2004.
"I hope you will listen to the will of the voters and uphold what their clear message was," said David Jaques of Winston, a real estate broker and chairman of the Douglas County Planning Commission.
The Legislature's minority Republicans have said that they do not agree with the changes, and Senate Republicans were not part of the five-member work group that came up with the changes behind the scenes.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745