Measure 37: Do owners deserve compensation for land-use laws?

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Bob Smith For The Register-Guard

Opponents of Measure 37, the property owner compensation measure, ignore the history of Oregon's unique planning system when they describe Measure 37 as an attack on land-use planning. Considering the intent of Gov. Tom McCall and the Legislature in passing Senate Bill 100 in 1973, nothing could be further from the truth. I should know, I was there.

The passage of Measure 37 would complete the land-use package that the Oregon Legislature adopted but only partially implemented in 1973.

As a state senator in 1973, I participated in the deliberations leading to the passage of Senate Bill 100, which created our land-use system.

Many realized that SB 100 would cause economic harm to Oregon property owners, though none of us could have imagined the extent of those impacts or the changes that would be made in subsequent years to the original idea. Our current land-use system bears little resemblance to what was adopted in 1973, and the economic devastation to which some unfortunate landowners have been subjected is far beyond what we expected.

Because we knew that SB 100 would reduce some property values, Senate Bill 849 was introduced. SB 849 was similar to Measure 37, and required compensation for property regulations that would be implemented under the new planning scheme. McCall and I supported SB 849, and his staff indicated that land-use planning would not work without the compensation that the bill provided.

Unfortunately, SB 849 was held up in committee, jeopardizing passage of both bills. To break the logjam, SB 100 was changed to create a committee to "make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on the implementation of a program for compensation by the public to owners of land within this state for the value of any loss of use of such lands resulting directly from the imposition of any zoning, subdivision or other ordinance or regulation regulating or restricting the use of such lands."

In other words, SB 100 created a committee to recommend a program to compensate landowners for regulations that took their property values.

Although a committee was formed, due to political bickering, it never made recommendations to the Legislature, and the compensation provisions McCall and I considered to be a vital component of statewide land-use planning were never adopted. The results have been predictable. For 31 years, land-use regulations have destroyed property values, ruined retirement dreams and bankrupted businesses.

Measure 37 requires government to share the burden of the planning system and completes the intent of SB 100. Not only is that fair, it is what McCall and the Legislature wanted in 1973.

Because it protects property owners' investments, Measure 37 creates certainty and stabilizes our planning system. Contrary to opponents' claims, Measure 37 will reduce litigation and provide a way to make claims that is fair to property owners and government.

Opponents who cry that Measure 37 is expensive ignore the fact that the current costs of the system fall squarely on those whose property is regulated. Opponents may want someone else to pay for regulations they find desirable, but that is hardly fair.

Measure 37 also contains many exemptions to protect neighborhoods. For example, Measure 37 does not apply to public health and safety laws, nuisance abatement ordinances or private restrictions such as the covenants found in nearly every subdivision.

Measure 37 recognizes that nobody has the right to pollute or create a nuisance.

Because Measure 37 restores fairness and protects homes, businesses and neighborhoods, it has earned the support of urban and rural organizations, including the Oregon Cattleman's Association, the Oregon Homeowners Association, the Oregon State Grange, the Oregon chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, the Oregon Family Farm Association, county farm bureaus, the Taxpayers Association of Oregon, Citizens for a Sound Economy, numerous state and local officials and many others.

If our land-use system is to survive, we cannot continue to unfairly place the entire costs of the system on a small minority. Fairness is what Measure 37 is all about, and that's why I support it.

Bob Smith, R-Medford, served four terms in the state House of Representatives, three terms in the state Senate and seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.