Fixing Measure 37.

Byline: The Register-Guard

When state voters overwhelmingly approved Measure 37 in 2004, most thought they were approving a fairness fix that would provide just compensation to ordinary Oregonians whose investment hopes or retirement dreams were foiled by outdated and inflexible land-use laws.

That's not what they got. More than two years later, it's clear the law's primary beneficiaries aren't Granny and Grampa. They're the timber companies, real estate interests and others who quietly bankrolled the Measure 37 campaign with the aim of dismantling Oregon's land-use system and unlocking vast tracts of forest and farm lands for development.

Last week the Oregon House approved a bill that would give voters a chance to turn Measure 37 into the law they thought they were getting in the first place - one intended to ensure the little guy gets a fair break from the state's land use system. Not one designed to let developers and speculators make a killing.

If House Bill 3540 passes the Senate, a reformed Measure 37 would be referred to a special election ballot in the fall. While it can be argued that lawmakers should make these critical fixes themselves, putting them on the ballot shows proper deference to the voters who approved Measure 37 in the first place - and it undermines any future claim that the Legislature tried to thwart the will of the voters.

The proposal would allow property owners with valid Measure 37 claims to build as many as three homes in most areas - and up to 20 in areas without water shortages or high-value agriculture zoning. Landowners who have filed multiple Measure 37 claims could build a total of no more than 20 residential units, ruling out large subdivisions and commercial developments.

HB 3540 would also fix some of Measure 37's most glaring flaws, including its failure to clarify whether claims can be transferred to new property owners. The proposal allows transferability, as long as the new owners exercise the development rights within 10 years. Heirs could assume ownership of a Measure 37 claim if the original owner dies. A rational method for determining the value of claims would be established, one that reflects tax breaks received by property owners whose lands were zoned for forestry or agricultural use.

The House also approved a companion measure, HB 3546, which would give local and state governments an additional 360 days to process the flood of Measure 37 claims. The 2004 law requires that claims be processed in 180 days, after which landowners are free to pursue claims in court. With deadlines about to expire on thousands of claims across the state, the extension is needed to avoid a bureaucratic train wreck.

Regrettably, neither bill addresses Measure 37's most fundamental flaw - the premise that land use laws represent "takings" by the government for which property owners should be compensated. Hopefully, that issue will be addressed by the legislative task force that has been assigned to take a "big look" at Oregon's land use planning system.

The Senate should approve both of these bills, and give Oregonians the chance to turn Measure 37 into something more resembling the fairness fix they thought were getting more than two years ago.