Editorial, La Grande Observer, October 25, 2007

Never in the history of our country has there been a perfectly written zoning or planning law. All put some limit on what a person may do with his own honestly-bought land. Somehow, government dictating what can and can't be done with private property seems to go against the American way of life.

Oregon Measure 37, approved by voters two years ago, tried to ease some restrictions. It was an attempt to give citizens more control over their holdings — but it isn't working and should be reconsidered.

A valid Measure 37 claim must show current land-use regulations have reduced property value when compared to the regulations existing on the landowner's acquisition date. A valid finding results in waiving of the current land-use regulations.

With its promise of more, not fewer, rights for individuals, Measure 37 is admirable. That's why voters bought into it. But make no mistake: it skewers land-use rules designed to protect farm and forest land, leading to conflicting uses such as subdivisions in the middle of farming areas.

Measure 49, scheduled for a vote Nov. 6, seems a good solution. At the least, it places some sane limits on how much development may take place.

Basically, Measure 49 gives landowners who have filed Measure 37 claims the right to build a limited number of homes as compensation for land-use regulations imposed after they bought their properties. If, at the time of acquisition, a regulation allowed three homes on the property, the landowner would be allowed to build that many. Also, a claimant could build up to 10 homes if that was allowed when they acquired their properties and they have suffered reductions in property values that justify the additional home sites.

Even more attractive than the limitations is the fact that subdivisions would not be allowed on high-value farmlands, forestlands and groundwater-restricted lands. Further, claimants can't use the measure to override current zoning laws that prohibit commercial and industrial developments.

Union County, like most other areas of the state, has had a share of Measure 37 claims that seem to threaten community values. A prominent example is the one approved by the county for a 53-lot, residential and commercial subdivision on McAlister Lane between Foothill Road and Highway 30. The area is traditional farm land and historically significant because Foothill Road is a part of the Old Oregon Trail.

Neighbors objected vehemently to the claim, not only because farm land would be taken out of production, but also because of the possibility of crowding and increased traffic in a well-loved, pastoral area. Approval of the claim did not constitute approval of the subdivision plan. That would need to go through a land-use process and state review. Still, the county had no choice but to approve, over the objections of more than 20 Foothill Road neighbors.

That suggests there is far more wrong about Measure 37 than there is right. Vote yes on Measure 49.