Commentary by Lane Shetterly, The Oregonian, October 24, 2007

As the now-former director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development during the first years of Measure 37, it was my responsibility to try to make the measure work.

The department defended the measure against constitutional attack, and when our authority to waive state statutes for claimants was challenged, we defended the validity of our waivers. We did our best to implement the measure fairly.

But after overseeing more than 3,000 claim decisions at the department, I'm convinced that Measure 37 is a failure.

It has failed claimants. Of the thousands of waivers granted, barely a handful are moving forward with any kind of development — and most of those are proceeding uncertainly — principally because the defects in the measure have left claimants unsure as to what they have or how to implement it.

And if Measure 37 ever should be implemented to its full potential, the negative impacts on our landscape, water supply and quality of life would be more drastic than well-intentioned supporters of the measure ever contemplated. Polls taken since Measure 37 passed, for instance, still show strong support for protecting farm and forest land.

Measure 37 has pitted neighbor against neighbor. The state's waiver decisions have been challenged in more than 250 lawsuits, both by disappointed claimants and by neighbors of successful claimants who thought we had granted too much.

That's why I support Measure 49. Measure 49 fixes the most serious problems in Measure 37 — such as the ability to transfer waivers — which will allow claimants to realize their claims. At the same time, it limits development for claims filed under Measure 37 to residential use — up to three home sites as a matter of right or up to 10 based on a proven loss of value. (Claims on high-value farm or forest land or in groundwater-limited areas are limited to three home sites.)

Measure 49 is a well-balanced law that recognizes the rights of property owners who may have suffered some loss because of our land-use laws, but still upholds Oregonians' fundamental values toward protecting farm and forest lands.

Opponents of Measure 49 have used misleading arguments against the measure. They say it is "complex." But it's only as complex as it needs to be to work. Measure 37 was not simple; it was simplistic. That's why it failed to deliver. Because of its careful drafting, Measure 49 will provide more certain relief to claimants than has Measure 37.

Contrary to opponents' arguments, Measure 49 will not require Measure 37 claimants to file new claims. It will not authorize government to take up to 95 percent of your property value. In fact, for future regulations affecting residential use and farming and forest practices, Measure 49 allows relief for property owners who suffer any reduction in value to their property.

So check the facts. Don't rely on sound bites. Vote carefully.

For those who respect property rights and value our land-use program, Measure 49 is the right choice for Oregon's future.

Lane Shetterly resigned in August as director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development