Let's hope fixing Measure 37 will be taken up and again and successfully completed before the end of this session. If it is not, it will starkly illustrate how incompetent our legislators (that we elected) are, and how bad of a mess Friends of Oregon and other folks have gotten us into as abysmally poor stewards of our land-use system. It's a hard, cold, fact that responsible zoning and land-use laws have long been found constitutional by our federal courts as being in the best interest of the community and good governance, regardless of the effects on value. The people of Oregon have gone to an extreme in an emotional and haphazard rejection of this principle of shared burden in self-government. It's certainly our right to make this bad decision, but it's not a very wise one.

Even under this supposed compromise framework, the very principle of responsible zoning and land-use regulation is in fact still rejected: "Measure 37 will remain in effect going forward for claims that establish a loss of value due to the enactment of new land use regulations". Few jurisdictions will have the resources to compensate claimants even for appropriate land-use regulation that otherwise would be constitutional. Oregonians across the political spectrum, a majority of whom voted for Measure 37 in misplaced pique over the arrogance of FOO and others acting out of the spirit of poor stewardship directly traceably back to Tom McCall, are really suggesting that we cannot conduct our community affairs in anything approaching a responsible adult manner.

Remember, there are big claimants under Measure 37 who will get to proceed, and whose claims can't be rolled back later, because we can't see the forest for the trees and work out a solution now. For that reason, and the continued impasse, our truly poor current governor bears responsibility as the leader in failure for his inaction at appropriate points since Measure 37 passed right up to now.

It certainly looks right now that the result will be a land development mess that no one will like, but that we won't agree to resolve until we are in much worse shape than many other states. I always chuckle when people across the spectrum argue here about how we are models for other states. I frequently just see us in Oregon and the NW as examples of political immaturity, both progressive and regressive.

I met with Macpherson and wasn't impressed by their solution (read my description here).

I have serious concerns about the recent "Framework for a Better Measure 37", including:

• Significant new rights are granted to claimants above and beyond those available under Measure 37. The ability to "fast track" development of 2-10 houses without any demonstrated financial loss due to land use regulations runs contrary to the notion of Measure 37's compensation scheme.

• The Framework grants pre-1994 landowners the right to build a house, even if such a development opportunity was not available at the time of purchase (!!!). The unwinding of land use restrictions for those who knew that they couldn't develop when they purchased is plainly idiotic.

• The Framework mentions development limitations for "prime farmland" and groundwater recharge areas. Yet, there is no carve-out for environmentally critical areas, including watersheds, wilderness in-holdings, and environmental overlays.

• There is no mention of development restrictions inside the UGB. Inside the UGB, two to ten houses on much smaller lots could critically damage urban watersheds and other environmental overlay areas.

• Indeed, the blanket 2-10 house development waiver fails to account for different lot sizes and locations. Such development on 5 acre lots inside the UGB would be far different, and far more damaging, than similar development spread across a 1000 acre lot.

• The framework suggests no new restrictions on current Measure 37 claims, apart from those already denied by the courts, such as transferability.

It is perplexing that this framework is offered as a so-called reform of Measure 37. In fact, the framework seems to preserve all existing Measure 37 opportunities not already denied by the courts. On top of this, it offers even more development opportunities for claimants, with the weird inclusion of all pre-1994 landowners.

The framework's few positive steps to Measure 37 reform are couched in such passive, serpentine language that it's clear that there's really no spine to do much of anything. It appears that the Land Use Fairness Committee is so dead-set on appeasement of vocal Measure 37 claimants that they will literally "give away the farm" for next to nothing.

At this stage, the best chance for true Measure 37 reform probably lies in the 2008 ballot box.

For whatever reasons, Macpherson and P. seem scared of their own tails. You can see how far apart their Framework is from the GOP when you see the GOP "ideas" in today's Oregonian. Why can't they simply move forward WITHOUT the GOP?

Since Kari seems about 1 week behind when it comes to posting Measure 37 news, I might as well post 1000 Friends critique of the framework now... here you go.

Because they try to use the most benign language possible in an attempt to appease both sides. The Framework essentially voids all M37 claims (except those with "vested rights") yet they still title their document a "Framework for a Better Measure 37".

It is real simple, M37 is a little step towards making more land available for living space. If you want to get rid of M37 you are asking for ALL of the following:

• More skinny houses and infill on your block.
• More traffic congestion.
• Longer commute to work times
• Higher property taxes.
• More giant apartment farms on the nearest main street.
• Continued exodus of child bearing families as homes with back yards continue to be replaced by shitty little high density homes without back yards.
• Continued exodus of child bearing families as affordable homes disappear.
• More tax subsidies to millionaire condos.
• Higher cost of living.
• Higher un-employment (we are usually at the bottom of the heap for un-employment rate already)

I could go on, but you get the idea. Thanks JK

Second, until the Oregonian posted their item last night, all I could find was rumor and conjecture. I personally don't have the bandwidth to chase down every rumor coming out of the capitol.

I wasn't referring to the delayed posting of the fact that the Framework is DOA, but rather the week delay about posting any details about, or critique of, the Framework itself.

The Framework wasn't conjecture, but an official release from a Work Group a number of days ago. It seems kinda pointless to only now post the actual Framework text after it has already been declared dead.

A good source for news and views about Measure 37 is the new Measure 37 Headlines blog.

Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 6, 2007 1:14:27 PM

It is real simple, M37 is a little step towards making more land available for living space.

Don't be daft; M37 is a massive attempt to both destroy Oregon's land use system and enrich a tiny minority of (mostly commercial) landowners, at the expense of not only today's Oregonians, but of all future generations as well. Besides, we don't need "more land available for living space." Over the last 60 years, every urban area in American has gobbled up land at a rate that vastly exceeds its increase in population. Oregon cities have done so at a reduced rate since the 1970s, thanks to our land-use system.

If you want to get rid of M37 you are asking for ALL of the following:

• More skinny houses and infill on your block.
• More traffic congestion.
• Longer commute to work times

Sorry, but real-world studies (as opposed to right-wing ideology-driven fantasy) show that compact development in areas that are already urban decreases traffic congestion, creates more diverse, vibrant neighborhoods with more ownership and less crime, and makes a variety of transportation options possible, which directly reduces commute times by providing alternatives to single-car commutes that cause congestion.

* Higher property taxes.

Due to higher property VALUES. Terrible, I know.

* More giant apartment farms on the nearest main street.

I suppose you would prefer looking at the backs of subdivisions, surrounded by high walls, leaving roads only for cars, unsuitable even for taking the dog for a walk? (Or riding your bike to the neighborhood grocery store?) Oh, I forgot, everyone wants to drive everywhere. Silly me.

Continued exodus of child bearing families as homes with back yards continue to be replaced by shitty little high density homes without back yards. Continued exodus of child bearing families as affordable homes disappear.

Funny, but 5000 sq ft lots have been just fine for families w/children, for, I don't know, at least the last 100 years or so. Could it be that the problem is that corporate developers, more interested in wringing every last penny of earnings for their shareholders would rather put a 3500 sq ft house ("starting at the low $400,000s") with a three-car garage on that same lot than a 2,000 sq ft house that would leave some yard and sense of proportion (and be more affordable)? Somehow, I don't see the 70-100 year old homes in Portland's original subdivisions dropping in value, or not being lived in by families with children. But to get a developer to recreate one in a new development almost requires a government mandate or an act of God. Could it be that the interests of the development industry don't align very well with the interests of most Oregonians?

* More tax subsidies to millionaire condos.

M37 is the REAL millionaire subsidy! You think the folks who want to build these mega-divisions live in 2-bedroom apartments? LOL!

Higher cost of living. Higher un-employment (we are usually at the bottom of the heap for un-employment rate already)

Huh? So if we let developers and out-of-state corporations rape what's left of Oregon's environment and quality of life, they're going to show us their gratitude by cutting prices at Wal-Mart and giving us all the poverty-wage jobs we want? And I'm sure you think that George Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1% are why the economy is so, er, "great."

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Likewise. Why don't you go back to "Brain-dead Red Ory-gun" or where ever you came from and save your pathetic faith-based arguments for those who don't mind enslaving themselves to the enrichment of corporate elites. Or read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" if you want to understand how you could have gotten so far off track.

Bravo, bravo: I couldn't have ever said it better!