PORTLAND, OR., Nov. 7, 2007 — The result of yesterday’s election marks an important point in Oregon—a majority of Oregonians voted "Yes" on Measure 49.

Oregon voters have said loudly and clearly that they think farmland, forests and areas where groundwater is limited should be protected from inappropriate development. At the same time, Oregonians have clarified rules to allow longtime landowners to develop a few homes on these lands.

In passing Measure 49, Oregonians rejected the extremism of Measure 49 opponents in favor of rules that acknowledge all property owners and restore certainty in Oregon’s land use system.

The campaign for Measure 49 involved thousands of Oregonians, many of whom stepped forward to talk about how Measure 37 affects them and how Measure 49 helps them. At the end of the day, it was this authenticity that resonated with voters.

With provisions of Measure 49, farms, forests and water win back protections granted decades ago by Oregon law.

"Although Oregonians certainly support the home-building rights Measure 37 granted to long-time landowners, they also recognize a need to support working farms, forests and water, which is exactly how Measure 49 works," says Bruce Chapin, a regional director of the statewide Oregon Farm Bureau Federation and a third-generation farmer who is manager of Chapin Orchards outside Keizer.

These lands became vulnerable to development proposed by upwards of 7,500 claims that were filed following the implementation in 2005 of Measure 37. Thousands of these claims propose something other than a few homes — subdivisions of dozens, hundreds and even thousands of homes are proposed, as are strip malls, destination resorts, gravel mines and other inappropriate developments.

Some of this development already is under construction. Without the protections of Measure 49, construction likely would begin in the coming year on hundreds of additional developments.

Under Measure 49, however, the massive development proposed via Measure 37 won’t be allowed to go forward.

"Measure 49 staves off what we know eventually would have become a crisis for Oregon’s farmland, forests and groundwater," says Russ Hoeflich, executive director of The Nature Conservancy in Oregon.

Measure 49 works by closing loopholes in Measure 37 that allow large-scale development and it clarifies the right granted by Measure 37 to develop a few home sites.

"Fairness and balance have been restored to the land use system in Oregon," says Bob Stacey, executive director of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, an organization dedicated to preserving land use planning here since 1973.

There are many reasons to vote for Measure 49. Walk into your kitchen and you'll see one of the most important: Food.

We Oregonians are fortunate to live in a state that produces some of the healthiest, safest and best-tasting food on the planet. (Like Oregon strawberries, which beat the California variety hands down.)

But we're at risk of having our finest agricultural land asphalted over. Not someday — now. A study has found that 518,128 acres of Measure 37 subdivisions and other development have been proposed on farmland. These claims will be limited, not eliminated, by Measure 49.

Recently I got a mailing from a group called the Oregon Family Farm Association. It urged a no vote on Measure 49. I checked into the group and found that it has nothing to do with families. Or farms. It's just a front for a few well-heeled donors who want to keep the Measure 37 gravy train rolling for a few at the expense of the many — you and me.

Drive five miles south on Liberty Road past Kuebler. On the left you'll see rolling high-value farmland called the Twin Hills, bisected by some road construction that the Measure 37 claimant carried out without a permit. But that isn't the ugliest thing about this 42-home proposed subdivision.

On the right side of Liberty you'll pass homes whose wells already have had to be deepened or replaced. That's because the state Water Resources Department has designated this area as groundwater limited. Meaning, there isn't much water here.

Forty of our neighbors have formed a Keep Our Water Safe committee. We figure that we have property rights, too. Like the right to not have our wells go dry. A legitimate fear because an independent water expert hired by Marion County concluded there isn't evidence of enough water for both the Measure 37 subdivision and existing homes.

That should have stopped the subdivision. But two members of the board of commissioners had another idea. They approved the 42 homes and wells anyway, ignoring the county's own groundwater ordinance. Crazy. This is what Measure 37 has brought us — political shenanigans usurping the property rights of neighbors.

Measure 49 will restore fairness to Oregon's land-use laws. It will let Measure 37 claimants have three homes on high-value farmland, forestland and groundwater-limited land (10 homes otherwise). The rest of their property still can be used for other purposes. The Liberty Road acreage is perfect for a multi-million-dollar vineyard.

Farmers can keep on raising crops. Timber companies can keep on growing trees. People with wells can keep on turning their tap and have water come out.

Vote yes on 49.

Brian Hines of Salem is a blogger, writer and land-use activist. He can be reached at brianhines@att.net.

Something awe-inspiring is happening in Oregon. People all over this state are joining in a common idea of what Oregon is and what we want it to be. Three years ago (on the eve of Measure 37), I finished my project of walking around Portland's urban growth boundary and talking to many who lived and worked there. I felt then that this consensus was possible — but not quite ripe.

It's ripe now. It can happen.

Measure 49 reflects a hard-won compromise. It guarantees fairness for individual property owners. But more than that, it expresses a strong commitment to making land-use decisions as a community (not just allowing isolated developers to make them for us). When the ballots are counted after the Nov. 6 election, my prediction is that we will see a clear majority in both rural and urban parts of the state in favor of continuing — and improving — Gov. Tom McCall's visionary system, our shared project of living together in a way that protects rural areas and strengthens urban ones.

But once every few decades, everyone's best self shows up. We remember our common humanity and fundamental values, and rediscover our shared identity. In those moments we build the house we will live in together for the following years or decades. Until it's time to remodel it again.

Which is now.

But "now" is interesting. Land-use progressives like me are apt to think that "the other side" has finally come to its senses. I have a file full of newspaper clippings wherein some voter, horrified at newly revealed plans for over-developing his or her corner of the state, says, "Well, I voted for Measure 37, but I never thought...." That 2004 vote was a mistake (we say to ourselves) and now it will be corrected.

There's truth to that, and it's part of my optimism. But what's more interesting to me is that this moment of agreement is equally being created by "progressives" suddenly willing to move from their own too-rigid positions. When we wake up on Nov. 7 we will have a concord forged by two sides that came to their senses.

Today my limited-growth compatriots are promoting Measure 49 in an all-out push for victory. But I'm virtually certain that in, say, 2000 or 2004, these same fervent land-use advocates would have bitterly opposed Measure 49. They would have fought the way it grants concessions for development, allowing some houses to be built on agricultural and non-urban land. They wanted it simple and clear, but it ended up inflexible.

Strange how times change. This is what I mean by "ripeness."

To test my gut feeling about this change in progressives' attitudes, I canvassed four statewide leaders on the progressive land-use side: Two elected regional politicians; one prominent advocate and contributor; and one well-known scholar (you'd probably recognize their names, but I promised to keep them off the record). They unanimously concurred. In the words of one, "I am absolutely certain that a Measure 49-like compromise would never have been embraced by the progressive community if Measure 37 hadn't passed."

Of course, the other side has its rigid hard-cores too — and they are indeed opposing this compromise, preferring a free-market free-for-all. No matter. The rest of us will be joining together in a moment of constructive sanity.

In an almost biblical way, it seems Oregon needed to pass through the destructive agonies of Measure 37 in order to rise to the creative opportunity of Measure 49. It's a strange thing, how communities find themselves. The timing is mysterious, often frustrating or disheartening. But then the season miraculously arrives, people's heads clear, and there's a ripe readiness for making progress together. Let's enjoy it.

David Oates is the author of "City Limits: Walking Portland's Boundary."

Lucy is anxious about water shortages and other changes that are inevitable when a subdivision moves in that never was contemplated until Measure 37 came along.

Lucy worries about how similar claims all over Oregon will change our state forever. She supports Measure 49 as a way to stop such haphazard development. She is convinced that Measure 49 gives landowners flexibility to use their property and build a home or two for their children or others, "but it keeps the big commercial guys from turning Oregon into concrete."

Lucy gets her water from a spring. "I have a biologist friend and he says 'your biggest issue here is water. You are going to have water problems.'" She is worried her spring and the neighbors' wells will run dry as a result of the big, new homes. Lack of water is a real safety issue too, "there would not be enough water to put out a fire," Lucy says. Lucy and her neighbors are also upset about traffic and transportation issues on the country roads around Stimson's proposed Iowa Hill development.

"Stimson has 1,400 acres of prime timberland here. It is a prime habitat for wildlife. There are deer, coyotes, hawks, a pond," Lucy says. This development is just one of many that will change the soul of Oregon, Lucy says, "Measure 49 is good. It protects Oregon. This is one of the greatest states in the country with natural resources and beauty."

The passage of Measure 37 three years ago was an important victory for Oregon property owners whose ability to divide or otherwise develop their land was limited, or outright prohibited, due to land-use laws.

Measure 49 would be an even bigger win.

Measure 49, which is one of two statewide measures on the Nov. 6 ballot, keeps the parts that helped Measure 37 garner the approval of 60 percent of Oregon voters — 72 percent in Baker County — and majorities in 35 of the state's 36 counties (Benton County was the lone exception).

But Measure 49 also scraps some of the less-savory provisions of Measure 37.

Measure 49 favors the relatively small-scale property owners who were, in effect, the poster children for Measure 37. These are people who want to divide their land into 10 or fewer home sites, who could have done so when they bought their property, but who lost that privilege due to a land-use law that the state or a local government subsequently passed.

Measure 49 would help these landowners more than Measure 37 does. The new measure simplifies the application process for people who want to carve out three or fewer home sites, and it allows as many as 10 home sites for landowners who can prove that land-use restrictions slashed their property's value so much as to justify the larger number of homes. Measure 49 does set a limit of three homes on parcels deemed high-value farmland or forest, or that are within a groundwater-restricted area.

The new Measure 37 also allows landowners to transfer their development rights to surviving spouses, and to sell those rights to new owners (in the latter case the new owner would have to exercise the Measure 37 rights within 10 years, or forfeit the rights). Neither option is available now.

Measure 49 would prohibit certain types of commercial and industrial development that are, at least in theory, allowed now.

We believe that a majority of Oregonians who voted for Measure 37 did not want to pave the way for corporations to transform thousand-acre swathes of land into sprawling subdivisions, factories and shopping malls.

But voters did want to ensure that longtime property owners who have modest plans to develop their property would not suffer unduly due to land-use laws that took effect after they bought their property.

Measure 49 does that. We encourage voters to support it.

Among the most egregious lies —

CLAIM: The Netters say: "If Measure 49 passes, we'll lose the value of our property. We want to see the tradition go on... we want to farm."

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: The statement is patently false. The Netters filed a Measure 37 claim for a 60-lot housing subdivision on their 98 acres of exclusive farm use land. The state denied the subdivision because the land was already protected farmland when Fred Netter acquired it in 1977. Under Measure 37 they are allowed up to 3 houses — Measure 49 would preserve these rights.

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: The opposite is true. Measure 49 specifically allows property owners to pass development rights on to their grandchildren, which is not allowed currently (by Measure 37). Marla Robison has proposed an 18-home subdivision, but her property was zoned agricultural when she bought it. Now she’s trying to create 2 homes—which Measure 49 would allow.

CLAIM: The Laraways say in the brochure: "If Measure 49 passes, our whole way of life — as farmers — as we know it, would be gone."

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: The Laraways have filed Measure 37 claims to build 144 housing units on their farm land: 42 houses on 10.5 acres, 70 multi-family units on another 10.5 acres, 26 houses on another 26 acres, and 6 units on another 34-acre parcel.

CLAIM: The Currys say in the brochure: “If Measure 49 goes through...we won’t have anything left at all. Measure 49 would just take it all away.”

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: No property would be taken away under Measure 49. The Currys are trying to build a 110-home subdivision on their property even though their voters’ pamphlet statement says they just want homes for their kids and grandkids. Measure 49 would allow them between 1 and 10 homes.

CLAIM: Ollie Wilcox says in the brochure: “If Measure 49 passes we will lose all our rights — not only our rights, but our children’s and grandchildren’s.”

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: Measure 49 won’t take the Wilcoxes’ rights away. She has proposed a 16-home subdivision on 8 acres of rural land. Measure 49 will allow her between 1 and 3 homes, and will specifically give the same rights to her children and grandchildren—rights they don’t currently have under Measure 37.

CLAIM: Jennifer Helberg says of her mother, Mary Holtan: “If Measure 49 passes it means my mom can’t retire. Under Measure 49, families like ours have to go back to square one and even then we’re not assured of any rights...I’m worried about her...we all are. The farm is all she has.”

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: Mary Holtan has applied to have one lot divided into 3 parcels and a second lot divided into two — Measure 49 would allow both.

CLAIM: The Bitzes say in the brochure "We told our kids we would give our property to them...We'd like to keep our farm for future generations."

WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: Measure 49 will allow property rights to transfer to an owner’s children, which Measure 37 does not. But the Bitzes don’t need it: under current zoning (without Measure 37), Jerald Bitz can divide his property into seven lots.

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.

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.

Do you ever wonder why California is experiencing catastrophic fires that destroy hundreds of homes almost every year these days? Has it crossed your mind that the same debacles could happen and almost already have in Oregon's current, expanding and proposed housing subdivisions and multi-purpose developments?

Well, it may not be that the only difference is the population size. A main reason just could be that in California it's due to the massive build-up of homes (you guessed it!) in fire-prone areas.

The passions of farmers and landowners come through in the television, radio and direct-mail advertising for and against land-use Measure 49.

Total contributions on both sides of Measure 49 do not come close to the record-setting pace of millions in fundraising for and against Measure 50, the tobacco-tax increase that also is on the Nov. 6 ballot.

But the money is more than enough to pay for ample advertising, all aimed at voters to cast their ballots one way or the other.

Here's a guide to some highlights of Measure 49, and a look at underlying arguments behind some of the ads. There is no attempt to analyze each ad.

Answer: Supporters and opponents disagree on its effects, but it would do two things.

It would limit development allowed under the property-compensation law that voters approved in 2004 as Measure 37, although landowners who filed claims under that law still could create some lots and build houses. How many home sites will hinge on where the property is.

It also would allow landowners to transfer or sell lots and development rights obtained from government waivers of land-use regulations under Measure 37. Virtually all claims have been settled through waivers; only one claim has been paid so far.

Q: How do the ads attempt to persuade voters one way or the other?

A: Numerous broadcast ads fall into two categories.

In the first category are "testimonials" from farmers and landowners on each side, saying in 30 seconds or less how voter approval of Measure 49 would affect them positively or negatively.

In the second category are ads that affirm or attack one side's arguments.

Broadcast ads also use images as part of their persuasiveness.

Q: Are the people in the "testimonials" real?

A: At least two of them are from Marion and Polk counties.

Kathy Freeborn is a farmer from Rickreall who supports Measure 49. Her father, Dean, farms nearby. "Measure 37 puts working farms like ours at risk," she said in the ad. "It means thousands of houses right next to farms, and where water is already scarce."

Freeborn said in an interview later that she is concerned about new nonfarming neighbors raising questions about farming practices, despite a 1983 law that is supposed to shield farmers from nuisance complaints.

David Olson of Salem is a landowner who opposes Measure 49. He said he would lose his right to build a home if Measure 49 passes.

According to Measure37watch.com, a Web site that is monitoring anti-Measure 49 ads, Olson cannot build a home in the first place.

Olson's situation is more complex, however, than depicted either in the TV ad or the Web site.

The state denied a 2005 claim filed by Olson and his son Duane to build or restore a house for nonfarm uses on farmland in the 9700 block of West Stayton Road near Aumsville. David Olson obtained ownership in 1964, but, according to the state, he transferred it to Duane Olson in 2004.

David Olson argued that he retained an interest in the property, and that his waiver of land-use regulations should date back to 1964, allowing him and his son to carry out their plans. A Marion County judge upheld Olson's position in 2006.

Various cases about ownership under the 2004 law are pending in the Court of Appeals.

Q: What about other ads by supporters of Measure 49?

A: Pro-Measure 49 ads raise questions about the extent of development allowed under Measure 37 claims and some of the contributors to the anti-Measure 49 campaign.

The ads depict images of subdivisions.

According to a database maintained by Portland State University, 42 percent of the more than 7,500 claims filed under Measure 37 are for one to three home sites, and 30 percent are for four to 10 home sites.

Some of the remaining claims, however, are for hundreds or thousands of residential lots, or for commercial and industrial development that would be barred under Measure 49.

Measure 49 opponents said landowners often filed claims for maximum amounts but not expecting to develop that many lots. Because specific developments would have to meet current standards, water and sewer services might be difficult to obtain.

Measure 49 supporters, however, argue that even smaller-scale developments beyond those allowed by Measure 49 would disrupt farming and forestry practices in rural areas.

Few developments allowed under Measure 37 claims have broken ground so far, but they are stalled mostly because of legal and financial questions. The list of developments is expected to grow if Measure 49 fails.

The pro-49 ads also take aim at millions of dollars donated by "developers and timber companies," which are supplying a good share of the opposition's money.

Stimson Lumber Co. of Forest Grove, the top donor against Measure 49, also has filed the most extensive claims for development under Measure 37. Its chief executive said the company wants to preserve its options for the future, but Measure 49 supporters argue that land zoned for forestry should remain in that use.

Q: How about other ads from opponents of Measure 49?

A: Most claimants appearing in ads said they would lose "everything" if Measure 49 passes.

But even though the measure would curb development permitted under Measure 37 claims, they would not be deprived of their property. They still would have development options -- up to three home sites on "high-value" farm and forest lands, and areas designated as limited in groundwater, and up to 10 home sites if they can prove financial losses from land-use regulation.

Measure 49 opponents argue that because of these restrictions, few landowners would qualify. Measure 49 supporters said the restrictions carry out voter intent under Measure 37.

Q: Where are all these claims, anyway?

A: Claims in the Willamette Valley account for more than one-third of the affected acreage statewide. But according to analyses of the PSU database, they also amount to 61 percent of the claims on farmland statewide. The valley has about half the state's "high-value" farmland, based on soil quality, irrigation and actual production.

All but about 4 percent of claims were filed on rural areas outside urban-growth boundaries of cities.

Q: What about the argument by opponents that passage of Measure 49 will repeal property rights under Measure 37?

A: Opponents, notably James Huffman, a professor and former dean of the law school at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, based their argument on a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a South Carolina case. The court held then that government was not obligated to pay landowners even if regulations left them with very limited use of their property.

How limited has been a big question.

Federal and Oregon constitutions guarantee that government must pay landowners "just compensation" when it takes property for a public purpose, such as a road or building.

The long-running debate has been about "regulatory takings," under which landowners retain some but but not all economic use of their property under government regulations. Zoning regulations restrict land uses, but courts have upheld regulation as a reasonable exercise of government authority to protect the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't been precise in more recent rulings about when regulations amount to "takings." It appeared to open the way to an expanded definition of "takings" in a 2001 case from Rhode Island, but sent the matter back to the lower courts.

The Oregon Supreme Court, in a 2005 case, rejected a timber company's claim to compensation based on a state agency decision to bar logging on part of a 40-acre parcel for environmental reasons.

Q: Wasn't Huffman's letter to voters controversial?

A: Yes, but for other reasons. Huffman identified himself as a professor and former dean, but critics said some recipients interpreted the letter as an official opposition statement by the law school. The school's current dean said it is neutral on the measure.

Huffman argued in the Oregon Supreme Court in 2006 on behalf of Oregonians in Action, a property-rights group that took part in a legal defense of Measure 37 -- which the court upheld -- and is leading the opposition to Measure 49. Oregonians in Action and the current law-school dean have traded comments about who is defaming who.

Q: Who paid for mailings of the letter?

A: The letter itself doesn't say so, but it was distributed by Measure 49 opponents.

Oregon's disclosure requirements for printed campaign material were effectively shelved after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar law in Ohio in 1995. Broadcast advertising is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and federal law, so disclosure requirements apply to those ads.

pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745

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.

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.

Commentary William K. Jaeger and Andrew J. Plantinga, Mail-Tribune, October 28, 2007

The premise of Measure 37 is that Oregon's land-use regulations have reduced property values. This, in the view of its supporters, entitles landowner to just compensation or waivers of regulations. Oregonians in Action, the chief opponent of Measure 49, asserts that "the planning system lowers the value of private property in Oregon by $5.4 billion a year."

We decided to look for evidence. Impacts of this magnitude should be easy to find considering that the annual value from all farmland in Oregon is, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about $1 billion.

1) Did the value of parcels with development restrictions, such as exclusive farm use zoning, go down? No. Except for during the recession in the early 1980s, inflation-adjusted values went up for all properties studied since the mid-1960s. For example, we examined fifty-five agricultural parcels outside of Eugene. In 1965, the average value of these parcels was $504 per acre (in 2005 dollars). By 2002, these parcels had been zoned for exclusive farm use. Their average per-acre value (in 2005 dollars) had increased to about $7,300.

2) Did parcels without such restrictions appreciate at a much faster rate? No. On average, parcels inside of urban growth boundaries (UGB) appreciated at about the same rate as those outside the UGB. For the parcels we examined inside the Eugene-Springfield UGB, there was, on average, a sixfold increase in their real (inflation-adjusted) per-acre value between the late 1960s and 2002. For parcels outside the UGB, there was a sevenfold increase, on average. While property values are higher inside of UGBs, our data indicate that this was also true in the 1960s before the planning system was adopted. The upshot based on our data is that a $1,000 investment back in the 1960s left you with about the same wealth today regardless of whether your land was ultimately incorporated into the UGB.

What about different types of zoning? Parcels with the least restrictive zoning are worth more than lands subject to more stringent zoning but, again, those differences existed before land-use regulations went into effect according to our data. Average rates of increase in property values were about the same for lands zoned for farm or forest use compared to lands zoned for residential development. Outside of Medford, the real value of the parcels we examined with exclusive farm use zoning had increased at an average annual rate of 4.27 percent over the preceding forty years. Parcels that are currently zoned rural residential had grown in value at a rate of 4.25 percent per year over the same period.

3) Did property values in Washington, which has much less stringent growth controls, appreciate more than similar parcels in Oregon? No. Our comparison of property values in Oregon and Washington revealed similar rates of increase (actually a bit higher for Oregon). For the parcels we examined near Medford, the average annual growth rate in real value was 4.55 percent. For a sample of parcels near Centralia and Chehalis, Washington, the average annual rate of increase in real value was 3.49 percent. On the east side of the Cascades, farmland prices in Kittitas County, WA and Baker County, OR have been about the same for the past several decades (currently, about $3,000 per acre). This is in spite of the fact that Kittitas County has higher population growth and much less restrictive controls on development.

How can this evidence be squared with anecdotes about reductions in value? Because of the complex ways that land markets work, it is easy to confuse the effects of land-use regulations with "after-the-fact" opportunities created by those same regulations. For example, regulations that limit the supply of developable lands may give the impression that lucrative development opportunities abound for property owners. However, as we have demonstrated elsewhere, this perceived increase in property value is not the same thing as a reduction in value due to the regulation.

What's the bottom line? Opponents of Measure 49 claim that Oregon's land use planning system is broken because it has caused widespread reductions in land value, but no data is provided to support this claim. When we went looking for the evidence, we found none.

William K. Jaeger and Andrew J. Plantinga are professor and associate professor, respectively, in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Oregon State University. Funding for this research was provided by the Oregon Community Foundation.

Dorothy English tugged our heart-strings. She wanted to build a couple of homes on her land. That was fair. Oregonians understood that.

Hiding behind English's sweet "grandma" bonnet, however, was a big, bad, Oregon-changing wolf.

Oregonians did not have that in mind when they passed Measure 37.

It's not just that prime farmland will be lost when it is cut up for big-box stores and developments, it is that the very nature of these rural communities which depend upon farming will be destroyed.

When gravel pits and big-box stores move in, the mint fields, the pear orchards, hazelnuts and vineyards move out, and with them, the largest sustainable sector of Oregon's economy. If you don't believe it, go see California.

Don't be fooled again -- this time, vote yes on 49.

Voting yes on Measure 37 obviously seemed like a "good idea at the time" to a majority of voters.

Now that the small print contained in Measure 37 and its impact on Oregon's much-prized land-use laws are more fully understood, a yes vote on Measure 49 should be appealing to most reasonably minded Oregonians.

Let's help each other make the most of the situation. Vote yes on 49.