Editorial
Measure 49 Language Too Complicated, Would
Create A Legal Mess
State Sen. Ted Ferrioli (R), Senate Minority Leader and Representative Wayne Scott (R), House Minority Leader have put forth the most notable and alarming of the arguments against Measure 49. Ferrioli’s argument bears repeating in its entirety: “If there’s only one thing you remember about Measure 49, remember this: If Measure 49 passes, state and local government can and will take your home and property without just compensation.”
One need not read very far into Measure 49 before Sen. Ferrioli’s warning becomes pertinent and before questions arise about the full intent of Measure 49 and in what ways it might affect property owners. The Measure is complicated and few people can fully understand its content and intent upon only a few readings.
Measure 49 aims to limit development outside Urban Growth Boundaries to three dwellings, lots or parcels on any Measure 37 claimant who doesn’t already have a claim on file. The intent of limiting development is stated as protecting high value farm and forestlands and protecting groundwater supplies.
Measure 49 also clarifies the issue of ‘transferability’ by granting Measure 37 claims to the subsequent property owner. There is a stipulation included in Measure 49 that would require the subsequent property owner to create the dwellings, lots or parcels within 10 years of acquiring the property.
There are several indications that sections of Measure 37 are in need of revisions. The number of court cases filed over Measure 37 claims is cited by State Sen. Floyd Puzanski, “over 270 lawsuits pending in Oregon courts.” Many of the lawsuits have been filed over issues of transferability and Measure 49 might be worth supporting if only for the clarification of transferability.
Other indications that Measure 37 is in need of revision if Oregon is to retain its agricultural land and rural identity are coming from southern Oregon. Measure 37 has brought the proposition of over 25,000 new home sites on high value farm and forestland in Klamath County. Other counties throughout southern, central and western Oregon cite Measure 37 land use applications similar to Klamath County.
After several readings of Measure 49 and some of the arguments in favor of the proposed measure, the question no longer seems to be about whether or not revisions to Measure 37 are needed. Revisions are needed if only for the transferability issue alone.
Rather, the question comes down to understanding the language within Measure 49. Measure 49 is too complicated and would create an expensive legal and bureaucratic process and opens up many questions about the rights of property owners. It is estimated that it will cost the state up to $12.5 million just to process new forms that people who have already filed or hold Measure 37 claims will be required to fill-out and submit under Measure 49. Costs are cited at $1 million to $2 million per biennium to evaluate future claims.
Despite the benefits of the stated intent of Measure 49, the uncertainty created by the complicated language is reason enough to vote No on 49. Come up with a similar proposal with simple, straightforward language and it may garner more support. (BA)
|
