Archive
Subscribe
Weather
 |
|
 |
|
George blasts House bill as attempt to repeal Measure 37 |
By David Sale, Newberg Graphic
reporter
E-mail David at
dsale@eaglenewspapers.com
|
As a member of the Land
Use Fairness Committee of the Oregon Legislature, Larry George said
he is open to fixing Measure 37 — but doesn’t think that House Bill
3540 is the answer.
“This came out of the committee and through the House on a
party-line vote, passed by Democrats,” he said. “We do need to
address the issue of high-density subdivisions, but this isn’t
land-use reform — this bill repeals Measure 37.”
House Bill 3540 calls for a voter referendum on Measure 37,
Oregon’s controversial land-use exemption law. A companion bill, HB
3546, was recently signed by Gov. Kulongoski and will allow cities
and counties a year extension in processing Measure 37 claims.
If
passed by the Senate and approved by Oregon voters, HB 3540 will
undoubtedly limit the development options now allowed through
Measure 37 waivers.
For George — a longtime supporter of Measure 37 and former
executive director of Oregonians in Action, the lobbying group that
crafted the measure — such a result is unacceptable. But for
opponents of the measure, it’s long overdue.
“This bill fixes Measure 37,” said Eric Stachon, communications
director for the conservation lobby 1000 Friends of Oregon. “Nobody
anticipated the sheer volume of claims and the amount of valuable
farm and forest land affected. We’re seeing claims from timber
companies, gravel mines — this was supposed to be about fairness.”
HB 3450 proposes that small claims be granted, allowing Measure 37
claimants to build up to three homes — and transfer their
development rights — without demonstrating a specified reduction in
value.
Claimants may also build up to 10 homes, again with transferable
development rights, if they are able to demonstrate, through an
independent appraisal, a loss in property value of at least 10
percent.
But the bill would not allow more than three homes per claim in
high-value farm or forest land. A recent study by the Oregon
Department of Agriculture has found that in Yamhill County, 56
percent of the acreage under Measure 37 claims is agricultural land.
Instead of using current exclusive farm use (EFU) and forest zones
as a means to determine “high value,” however, the bill specifies
soil and crop types to be considered in making the determination.
“The EFU zones are more expansive — this would reduce the number of
acres protected,” Stachon said. “It preserves land with the most
productive soils — Class I or II — and high-value crops, such as
vineyards.”
Due to the specific protections for vineyards and
groundwater-limited areas, as well as the defined soil types, many
rural areas around Newberg are likely to fall under the
three-home-per-claim maximum.
“I think it’s a cynical ploy,” George said. “I’m in favor of using
soil classifications, but they’ve listed almost every type of soil
in the Willamette Valley as high-value. They’re not trying to fix
the problems with EFU zoning — people without productive farms are
still prohibited from development.”
Commercial and industrial development under Measure 37 claims would
be banned entirely under HB 3540.
“This is another attempt to shut down people’s use of private
land,” George said. “We could change Measure 37, but the hard left
simply wants to repeal it.”
If HB 3540 is enacted, claimants must also comply with new
regulations in order to demonstrate a loss of property value.
These regulations are similar to those used by the Portland Metro
Council and recommended in an Oregon State University study on
Measure 37 claim valuation (see The Newberg Graphic, March 21).
“It’s a before and after appraisal, looking at (real estate) prices
and adjusting for inflation,” Stachon said.
In addition to looking at market price before and after regulation,
the methodology also assumes that surrounding properties — as well
as the subject of the claim — are deregulated.
“It’s a backdoor method they came up with to discourage claims —
nobody does condemnation or regulatory takings like that,” George
argued. “There’s arbitration procedures for condemnation appraisals
already in state statute. That study was wholly outcome-based — they
started with the result they wanted and found a way to prove it.”
“Measure 37 says that government shall compensate owners if their
property value is reduced, but it doesn’t specify how to determine
if it has been. Supporters say you should consider the effect of a
waiver solely on the property under discussion, but that grants the
owner special rights that their neighbors don’t share,” Stachon
countered. “In order to determine the effects of a regulation, you
have to apply the same standards to surrounding areas. Otherwise,
you wind up with an inflated property value.”
If HB 3540 makes it through the legislature, supporters of Measure
37 are expected to campaign heavily against it. Whether the same
groundswell of support that enacted Measure 37 in 2004 will defeat
this referendum remains to be seen, Stachon added.
“There’s been a tipping point on this issue — voter attitudes are
swinging in our favor,” he said.
|
Published
May 12, 2007, Newberg Graphic
Click Here to Subscribe |
|
|
|
 |
|
