Land use — All sides agree the outcome will dramatically affect our landscape, family fortunes and sense of place

Article by Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian, Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Few land use questions stir the ire and division of those posed by Measure 49, the ballot item that could curb extensive development made available to many Oregonians who won claims under Measure 37. Yet all sides in the debate agree on one thing: The outcome of the vote Nov. 6 will dramatically affect our landscape, family fortunes and sense of place.

The angst stems from the love affair Oregonians have with their state, known for its pioneering land-use laws and verdant fields and forests outside the Portland region's urban growth boundary. But as in all matters of the heart, the views are expressed in the extreme.

"There's a great healing effect the undeveloped landscape works on us," Portland author Craig Lesley says, "and I believe our souls become diminished as more and more land is developed."

Yet John Charles, president of the Cascade Policy Institute, favors opening up land for homes in rural areas. The current system, he says, pumps up home prices within cities, favoring an urban elite that prefers a scenic countryside.

"It's a view that there's a greater common good, and a select group of elites know what that is," he says.

Now voters, who have mail-in ballots in hand, must make sense of what Measure 49 represents.

Oregonians have often expressed frustration with land-use laws that set a high standard for containing urban sprawl and preserving farms and forests. Those laws, celebrated elsewhere in the country, had teeth.

Former Oregon Gov. Vic Atiyeh, honorary co-chair of the Yes on 49 campaign, points to Interstate 5 south of Portland.

"Once you get past Charbonneau, there's all this open agricultural land until you get to Salem," he says, adding that without the restrictions, that land would be filled with buildings.

But the land-use system failed to keep up with a growing state. As Atiyeh puts it, Oregon created the Land Conservation and Development Commission but "forgot the D" part of it.

So Oregonians passed Measure 37 and, property owners, encouraged by lawyers to shoot for the moon, filed nearly 7,500 development claims, declaring their intention to build subdivisions and commercial and industrial development on more than 700,000 acres. Approximately 97 percent of the claims are outside urban growth boundaries, the dividing line between cities and country.

The Circle 5 Ranch outside of Klamath Falls, for example, filed to divide its 6,611-acre property into one-acre lots and put a house on each. Claims in the Hood River Valley involve nearly a quarter of its renowned orchard land. Stimson Lumber of Portland — which has contributed $375,000 to the anti-Measure 49 campaign — filed unspecified development claims on at least 57,000 acres. Claims were filed adjacent to Oregon icons such as Wallowa Lake, Newberry Crater and Steens Mountain.

The potential affect on agriculture set off sirens — although farmers themselves are unevenly split on the measure.

The claims on farmland involve more than 518,000 acres, or roughly 73 percent of the land affected in Measure 37 claims statewide, says Jim Johnson, land-use coordinator with the state Department of Agriculture.

A majority of the farmland claims are for subdivisions of four lots or more, Johnson says. Subdivisions would be bad news because new residents might object to the long hours, dust, noise and machinery use on neighboring farms, Johnson says.

"That's multiple, multiple houses out there," he says. "It would be one thing if these were individual houses, but these land divisions are very problematic."

Now comes Measure 49, written by Democratic legislators, swinging the pendulum the other way.

It prohibits commercial and industrial development but would allow property owners to develop one to three homesites without furnishing additional information to the state; or four to 10 homes if an appraisal shows land-use rules sufficiently devalued their property. Claimants would still have to obtain city or county building permits.

Development on high-value farm and forest land, or in areas where groundwater is scarce, would be limited to three homes. Development authorizations would be transferable to new owners and to surviving spouses — something not available to Measure 37 claimants.

A narrowly focused study of Washington County claims suggests Measure 49 would reduce the amount of housing allowed under Measure 37 claims in that county by 84 percent.

Supporters believe Measure 49 gives property owners — and everyone around them — what they thought they were getting with Measure 37. It allows landowners to build a few homes but cuts off massive rural development that would change the state's look and feel.

The cause has attracted more than $1 million in contributions from Yamhill County vineyard owner Eric Lemelson, who flatly declares the issue is about "our future as a people." The Nature Conservancy of Oregon, which usually works in the background, buying land to preserve as wildlife habitat, turned its focus to passing Measure 49 and pumped more than $1.2 million into the campaign.

Opponents of Measure 49 say it's an attempt by environmentalists and liberal legislators to steal hard-won development rights. They say property owners will have to start all over in the claims process and that most won't be able to develop anything due to complications hidden in the measure's language. Timber companies are on board, saying they must "draw a line in the sand" to protect their holdings.

But there is yet one more point of agreement by all in this fight: The vote won't settle it. Although a federal judge ruled the measure's language is not misleading or inaccurate, opponents believe sections outlining conditions of development will be the first thing attacked in lawsuits.

As voters decide, observers look for larger meaning.

"The way we treat a place defines us, I believe that's true," says Kathleen Dean Moore, an Oregon State University philosophy professor and writer.

"I think our destiny in Oregon is on the line," says Portland writer Kim Stafford. "The qualities of the state we revel in and brag about are at our mercy."

The notion of a continuing fight is a shame, says Stafford, son of the late William Stafford, who was Oregon's poet laureate and as such often was invited to open the legislative sessions with a poem.

Oregon's pioneering land-use system came about when conservative politics and the conservation ethic "encountered each other and realized they were kin," Stafford says.

The ballot measure's got people so worked up they've forgotten that.

"Our common cause is hard to find in the presence of a ballot measure," he says. "But I think it's available if we can take the long view together. Someone on a ranch, someone on a farm, someone in the city — they have a common cause that's difficult to legislate but possible to imagine."

Eric Mortenson; 503-294-7636; ericmortenson@news.oregonian.com For environment news, go to http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen

A closer look

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The state Department of Land Conservation and Development has prepared an 11-page document that answers the most commonly asked questions posed about Measure 49 and its impact on Measure 37. To read the report, go to www.lcd.state.or.us and click on "Measure 37." Follow that link to a heading of "Current Topics" and click on "Measure 37 and Proposed Ballot Measure 49 Q&A."

The Web site for the Yes on 49 campaign is at www.yeson49.com.

The Web site for Oregonians in Action, which opposes Measure 49, is at www.oia.org.

Voters' Pamphlet information is available from the state elections division, www.sos.state.or.us/elections.

— Eric Mortenson