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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.