Measure 37

Opinionators: Lawmakers Need To Gird Their Loins, Show Courage and Engage Measure 37

By Dan Richardson, 2-22-06

The Oregon Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision upholding Measure 37 has thrust the state into a critical time for our lawmakers to craft a measured, thoughtful revision of Oregon’s land use laws. That’s the gist of many bloggers and other opinion class. Indeed, the decision has every typist clack-clack-clacking out thoughts. Here are a number of them:

Blue Oregon calls M37 "very poor law" and asks "what’s next?"

Rogue Pundit says it’s "a means to force zealots like the 1000 Friends of Oregon to compromise. With today's decision, maybe we have a better chance at reasoned compromise between the two extremes."

In one of the most penetrating and thoughtful posts, Worldwide Pablo warns that we may be approaching the "worst of all possible worlds," and says, "Oregon’s land-use fate was sealed years ago. Since moving to Oregon in 1979, WWP has been witness to [and has frequently kvetched about] the nearly sociopathically selfish extremism of the developer class on the one hand, and government’s "we know better than you" motherland-management ethos on the other hand. ... Oh, there’s a revolution brewing, make no mistake about it. Measure 37 is only the beginning. The result was forecast years ago, when land-use planning, for better or worse, became the conversation of experts rather than citizens. Whether the rebound redounds to citizens or developers remains to be seen."

New Frames argues persuasively that "Oregon taxpayers should not be responsible for paying a single penny of any development costs outside their cities' urban growth boundaries. If property rights activists believe that property owners can do whatever they want with their property or be compensated by the government for not being able to develop, then those owners should pay for the cost of their development in full, thank you very much...So, are the anti-tax activists with me on this? Oh, I forgot, they're some of M37's biggest supporters. They want their bread and they want it buttered too."

Daniel’s Political Musings blasts the damn media for something less than open-armed enthusiasm for the Supreme Court’s decision.

Loaded Orygun takes a swipe at another blogger (Daniel, above) before arguing, "Oregonians are in fact divided on this issue. I think at least some feel snookered at the way it was marketed to citizens. And even some who support it want the legislature to narrow its scope. What's so tough to figure out?"

Oregon Catalyst cites the Oregonian news article; and Onward Oregon cites the 1000 Friends press release... Woo-hoo! Hot blogging, guys!

The Oregonian news article has a number of angles on the decision and the what now? aspect. The paper’s editorial says "What's needed now is for an interim legislative committee to look at ways to limit the scope of Measure 37, and come up with some possible methods of compensating property owners. ... This destructive law is here to stay. Legislators may not want the job, but Oregonians will be looking to them to make the best of a bad situation."

The Bend Bulletin says of the Supreme Court decision, "good." The paper solonates that perhaps the decision will spur lawmakers to get their act together and craft something in the reasonable middle ground. "If the Legislature does its job, it will send voters a more tightly written, equally fair, and, hopefully, more moderate replacement for Measure 37. You never know, voters may even support it - especially after they've had a chance to see Measure 37 in action."

Kazablog says, "State Supremes raise the stakes and put the ball in Legislature's court after upholding m37", but opines that "as cowardly as most of them are, will any decisive action really come from this bunch?? I seriously doubt it."...So voters, he says, especially Democrats, "FIND OUT WHERE THEY STAND ON 37(!), and whether they are willing to act to reign in the potentially most dangerous bits of it."

The Salem Statesman-Journal writes, "Now that governments know they must enforce Measure 37, they must beef up their land-use-planning departments. Although that might mean pulling money from other worthy programs, agencies at all levels have a duty to thoughtfully consider the merit of each claim instead of either stonewalling or immediately waiving a rule."

The Hood River News says, "It makes the work of the "Big Look," appointed by the governor and House and Senate speakers, more important than ever. What Measure 37 does, ultimately, is set Oregon on a new course toward managing land use. Will Measure 37 ruin the landscape? Not if Oregonians strive, collectively, to take a larger view of things."

Ben Barros on PropertyProf Blog "Measure 37 is overbroad and a really bad idea. But the voter anger behind Measure 37 is real, and combined with the post-Kelo backlash should cause land-use planners to question whether consistently sticking it to property owners is a good long-term strategy."

Long-term? Who’s thinking long-term thoughts? Developers? Farmers feeling the squeeze? Average Joes and Janes who want to strike it rich in real estate? Urban planners? Lawmakers from every corner of the state?

No. None of them. Not yet. But they’ll need to, each one, if Oregon's land and quality of life is not to become a zero-sum game.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.