Ken Faulk, a retired forester, is a longtime property rights activist and a former contributor to Oregonians in Action.

“I was duped into voting for Measure 37. It was sold as a way to finally give rights to individuals who have fought for years to build a house or two on their land. I have worked on that issue since the 1980s,” says Ken, who lives in Benton County and worked as a forester for both the state and private industry. He and his wife Karin in 2006 received the Benton County Tree Farmer of the Year award by the Small Woodland Association.

As someone trained in forest management and an owner and operator of timberland, Ken says he understands both the importance of being able to have a few residences on natural resource lands, as well as the ability for an agricultural operation to coexist with a few homes.

“So naturally I supported the ballot measure I saw advertised by Dorothy English,” he says.

Unfortunately, Measure 37 was not written to really serve grandmas, retired foresters or other individuals who just wanted a few houses.

The law has lots of loopholes through which developers, timber companies and other types of land speculators are trying to make big bucks with large-scale development in inappropriate places, Ken says.

Ken is worried about his ability to successfully operate his tree farm if the Measure 37 claims filed by timber companies for adjacent land proceed. Those claims seek to have regulations waived in order to develop forests into subdivisions.

"Tree farms aren’t good next to subdivisions. And when the nature of an area no longer is solidly agricultural, farm and forestry operations lose a legal shield, provided under the Right to Farm Act, and are vulnerable to legal harassment," Ken says. Small-scale farmers and woodland owners generally don't have the financial resources to fight a lawsuit.

At the same time, the people for whom Measure 37 was supposed to be created are not being served.

The flawed language of Measure 37 doesn’t spell out the ability to transfer development rights from one person to another—even to a surviving spouse! And it left the actual process for securing property rights vague, confusing and different from county to county, and city to city.

Ken supports Measure 49 because it guarantees “transferability” of development rights from a valid Measure 37 claim to a surviving spouse or a new owner. It provides an “express lane” for Measure 37 claimants who want to build up to three home sites on their property, if that’s what the law allowed when they acquired the property.

Measure 49 also provides a fair, simple process to build up to 10 homes by documenting an equivalent loss in property value—as long as the extra houses are not on prime farmland or forestland and don’t threaten limited water supplies.

“Another reason I support Measure 49 is that it protects my property rights and everyone’s property rights because it prevents massive subdivisions, industrial development and retail stores in places where it just doesn’t belong,” Ken says.