(November 1st note: The deadline for mailing ballots in has passed. Voters must now hand-deliver their ballots to ensure they will be counted.)

Land use in Oregon has two strong legacies – land use planning and property rights protection. Three decades of land use planning have helped conserve our farms, forests, and environment, and helped manage urban growth, in ways that have left many other states jealous and protected that which Oregonians hold to be most important about their great state. However, the same system has – in many cases – frustrated landowners who have seen additional restrictions placed on their land.

So it's not surprising that Measure 37 was passed by Oregonians in November of 2004. It was billed as a way for the small land owner to get one or two houses on their property in places where the government took that right away, or as an opportunity to receive financial compensation for their loss. It was billed as a way to balance these two long-term legacies.

The reality of M37 has been entirely different. Not only are governments financially incapable of compensating for lost value, M37 has failed to provide the rights promised to small land owners, largely because it doesn't allow claimants to transfer their M37 rights with the sale of their land and doesn't extend M37 waivers to surviving spouses. At the same time it has resulted in over 7,500 claims on three-quarters of a million acres of land for the rights to build destination resorts, large-scale rural subdivisions, pumice mines, power plants, transmission lines, billboards among other uses. The construction of these projects would pave over countless acres of farms and forests, impact water supplies, disrupt habitat, and lead to rural sprawl and tremendous unplanned growth.

Measure 49 is a way to fix this problem, and likely the only chance we'll get to dismantle the specter of M37. It is a well-written and balanced compromise that drives to the heart of what Oregonians wanted with M37 in the first place while at the same time preserving what's most essential about Oregon's land use system.
Opponents have billed M49 as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and as a de facto repeal. This is not even remotely accurate. In fact, had M37 never been passed, M49 could be viewed as nothing but a property rights measure which grants several significant new rights to property owners and take absolutely nothing away.

Oregonians In Action's director (and M37's main champion) Dave Hunnicutt, recently told the Eugene Register Guard that M37 went too far and Oregonians want to see it reformed. But he's not able to admit that M49 is the reform that so many Oregonians including many of those who voted for M37 seek. As a result, the anti-M49 campaign has been based on misinformation and deceit. The reality is that the more Oregonians hear about M49 the more they like it. That's why it has such a broad and politically diverse coalition of backers.

What will M49 do?

1. If you have filed a Measure 37 claim, and were entitled to build 1-3 additional homes when you bought your land, you will be allowed to do so, no questions asked. You won't even have to demonstrate an actual loss in value.
2. If you wish to pursue more homes – between 4 and 10 – and can demonstrate an actual loss in value then that route is available. (Except on high value farmland, forest land, or where water supplies are limited, in which case the number of additional homes is limited to three.) Also, if a claim is approved, the claimant is entitled to receive up to $5,000 from the government to cover the costs of pursuing the claim.
3. No landowner can receive more than 20 homes statewide. The number of homes that can be claimed on any one property is 10, the amount of homes any landowner can claim statewide is 20.
4. Residential uses only. There will be no claims for non-residential uses. No pumice mines, billboards, destination resorts, etc...
5. Under M49, rights are transferable. The claimant can sell their land and the buyer will receive the rights granted under M49 with the property. This is not allowed under M37.
6. Rights can be transferred to surviving spouses. This is not allowed under M37.
7. M49 does not require local governments to pay attorneys fees to claimants if they deny a claim and that decision is overturned in court. By allowing claimants to seek attorneys fees, and by creating standards that have proven incredibly difficult to interpret, local governments under M37 have shied away from denying claims even they felt compelled to do so.
8. Under M49 there is a two-year Statute of Limitations meaning that property owners have two years to make a claim after a change land regulation is implemented if they believe that regulation has taken away existing rights and they are entitled to a remedy.

Bottom line: M49 is not unduly burdensome, does not set unrealistically high standards, and is not a repeal of M37. It is no more difficult - and in some cases far easier - than other land use applications for developments that are similar in nature and establishes a clear standards and methods for determining loss of value. For an objective view of what M49 will do, you can read the state's unbiased interpretation (pdf) which is in strong agreement with what the Yes on 49 Campaign has been saying all along, and presents a far different view than M49's opponents would have us believe.

For more information, please visit the Yes on 49 Campaign's website at www.yeson49.com. We hope you will agree that M49 is what this state needs and that you will vote with us to support it.