Sunday’s Oregonian had a terrific editorial, calling on state leaders to fixMeasure 37. It really nailed the fact that the measure is less about land use than it is about fracturing communities:
…Oregonians wonder what their state will become. Meanwhile, they hate the way the law has twisted neighbors and friends against each other. “On the way home from the last (legislative) hearing I felt very sad, like shedding tears for Oregon,” farmer Jim Gilbert said Friday in an e-mail. “Here we are in this big mess, with neighbor attacking neighbor, and the social contract we all lived by for the past 35 years, broken.”
The editorial also gave props to Sightline:
…it’s impossible to say for certain that Oregonians have changed their minds about Measure 37. The only way to find out for sure is to put a new version of the law on the ballot. And, this time, call it by the nickname Sightline Institute used recently: The Bad Neighbor Law.
Last fall, Oregon’s Measure 37 became the horror story that helped defeat similar ballot proposals in Washington, Idaho and California. Thankfully, those states learned from our misery. With any luck, there’s still time for us to learn from it, too.
Red Cloud
I share Jim Gilbert’s concerns. So far, the testimony has focused upon the polarization that exists. there is marginal reluctance by anyone to admit that either position has merits and at this point no willingness by either side do anything more than dig themselves in deeper. This is reflected even on the dais – Senator George doesn’t even bother to attend, and Byer makes snide remarks in the hallway.I’ll admit my guilt; when asked Tuesday what I’d do to “Fix 37” I responded that, for a start, it ought to be repealed. As I listened to and observed the testimony of those who oppose SB 505, I kept looking at my copy of the bill and many of those opposing SB 505 were the very people the bill sought to carve an exception for. Old Machiavelli, standing over my shoulder, noted that that the testimony in opposition was carefully calibrated, just as was the campaign – here were people with whom I could sympathize and who represented the changes that are obviously needed in the details of Oregon’s land use policies.The debate is corroded and confused by the debate over “property rights.” Oregon, I think, did something unique with its land use statutes – the state applied the concept of zoning to rural land. People living in urban areas have lived with zoning for centuries. We just applied it to all rural lands as well. There is no question now that some of that application was ham-handed and made assumptions about rural lands in terms of urban frames of reference.I support SB 505, but I don’t think it goes far enough.Explicit in Section (1) is an admission that Measure 37 in practice exceeded the expectations of Oregonians. There are at least five policy issues that this bill could also address.First: Regardless of the language in Section (9) of Measure 37, decisions by governing bodies that affect what a claimant can do with their land are effectively land use decisions. The committee needs to address and resolve the contradictions implicit in the words of Measure 37 with the words set out in Oregon’s land use laws. Until these contradictions are resolved, you will see continued frustration and anger, on both sides of the issue.Second: The Bill needs to restore the ability of cities and towns to control decisions with respect to their urban growth limits—decisions that Measure 37 now puts into the hands of County Commissions.Third: The Bill should state as public policy that land use zoning decisions are not issues of eminent domain.Fourth: The bill needs to restore to the people of the community a voice in how land is used that Measure 37 has removed.Fifth: The Bill should require counties to establish inventories of agricultural land, much as the law now requires cities to do for urban lands.The Devil is in the Administrative Rules, and less in the statute as a statement of public policy.Jim Gilbert’s concerns suggest that what we need now is for a group of people, independent of Oregonians In Action and independent of One Thousand Friends to sequester themselves and identify the strengths and weakness of (1) the policy, and (2) the implementation of that policy through the Administrative Rules set up to administer that policy.The problem for me is that every time I read Measure 37 and attempt to reconcile it with Oregon’s land use policies, I see the one being in contradiction to the other. That is the fatal aspect of Measure 37 and is why, as a start, the legislature needs to determine which has primacy. If the people of Oregon did not seek to overturn SB 100, then we need to suspend Measure 37 and make the corrections to the policy that the people sought to do when they enacted Measure 37.