Opinion by Tony Ahern, Publisher, Madras Pioneer

If you believe the ads, Measure 49 will steal farms right out from under people, ruin lives and prompt massive bankruptcies across the state.

But these ads come from the same people who, in 2004, told us Measure 37 was just for the old ladies who wanted to build a house on their property but the mean state wouldn't allow it.

Those ads convinced us in 2004, leading to a big statewide victory for Measure 37. But then, instead of nice stories of grandmas having their dream homes built, we had a flood of filed Measure 37 claims calling for massive residential (in these parts) and commercial (other locales) across the state. Here, the measure overwhelmed county government in 2005, leading to recall attempts and litigation.

In Jefferson County and throughout the state, Measure 37 was screaming for clarity and direction from Salem. So the state Legislature, very much split on the issue, crafted a compromise measure that would modify 37. Thus, we have 49.

It appears to be a good compromise. It allows the aspect of Measure 37 which galvanized so much public support in 2004 — allowing longtime land3owners the right to build a house (or two or three) on their property. However, it bans the part of Measure 37 that didn't make its way into pro-37 TV ads in 2004 — large developments in the countryside.

Though it's cloaked in those inane "I'm-going-to-lose-everything" ads, the strongest argument for those against Measure 49 is the basic idea of private property, and the right to utilize it as you would like. Land-use laws have substantially dented that right.

Land-use laws are not perfect, and they do harshly impact land values. However, the lack of such laws creates other problems that impact all of society instead of just a handful of landowners. In the 1970s, this state determined that growth was going to be controlled, and established the land-use laws which, in general, remain today.

Measure 49 is another ballot box battle asking us to weigh the very American value of unfettered property rights versus the very Oregon concept of land-use and controlling development.

Measure 49 is not perfect. No Oregon measure ever seems to be, instead they're often wrought with problematic details, or worse, lacking specific detail (like 37 not clearly defining transferability). Measure 49 detractors say it, too, will raise more issues and inspire more lawsuits, than it will avoid.

But Measure 49 at least attempts to hit all the details. The text of the measure takes up 12 pages of small type in the voters pamphlet. Conversely, the only other measure, 50, the effort fund to youth health insurance via a tobacco tax, takes up about one and one-third page. (But then that argument could have been summed up as: Insurance for kids, good; cigarettes bad.)

Measure 49 seems to be a realistic and generally well-conceived response to the chaos Measure 37 brought us. It maintains the heart of why Measure 37 passed and sheds the aspects of 37 that most Oregonians, the Legislature believes, do not want. It deserves a yes vote.