A yes on Measure 49 does not invalidate Measure 37

Editorial, News-Review, October 28, 2007

Oregonians have frequently been asked to make extremely tough decisions on complex issues when their ballots arrive in the mail.

Thick voters’ pamphlets arrive at about the same time, brimming with persuasive arguments for and against the measures. This year is no exception.

With only two measures to decide in the Nov. 6 election, Oregonians are scratching their heads as much as when 20 initiatives have made the ballot.

Though it’s a complex bill that requires much reading and study to understand fully, Measure 49 deserves a yes vote.

We have a beautiful state with public ocean beaches and plentiful resources from our farms and forests. Many here in Douglas County continue to earn their livelihood farming, ranching and logging.

So do many others around the state. Under the provisions of Measure 37, these folks could find themselves surrounded by large housing subdivisions teeming with people who decide they don’t like hearing chain saws at 4 a.m. or having crop dusters drop chemicals close to their backyards.

That’s why Measure 49 modifies Measure 37 to more closely align it with what voters said they wanted when it became law in 2004.

They said they wanted rural landowners to be able to add more dwellings to their property, maybe for their children and grandchildren. Measure 49 allows for this.

It’s important to understand that Measure 49 would not override the rights granted property owners under Measure 37. If Measure 49 is approved, those with claims filed under Measure 37 could continue to operate under its provisions.

They would also be able to extend those rights to a surviving spouse or transfer homebuilding rights upon the sale or transfer of properties. And those are benefits many who voted for Measure 37 were looking for.

Measure 49 is not the ultimate answer for land-use planning in Oregon.

Two of our local legislators, Rep. Susan Morgan, R-Green, and Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, agree that there’s more work to be done on state land-use planning issues.

They differ on Measure 49, though. Morgan says when a person looks at the “actual on-the-ground impact of Measure 37 in Douglas County, it’s not a big deal.” She says so many of the applications may never become viable, considering all the conditions they would have to meet.

Prozanski says Oregonians can’t afford to wait and see which developments occur and which fall through. He believes there’s an urgency to modify Measure 37 now before the state’s landscape is damaged.

This is a time when Oregonians need to look at what’s best for the future of our state, not necessarily each individual’s needs.

County residents have an opportunity to improve Measure 37, which they voted for overwhelmingly, by voting for Measure 49.