Breaking News
Home » Rockies » Oregon » Bend » Measure 37 Means Condos and … Compromise?
We haven’t heard much about Measure 37 recently, but that’s not because much isn’t going on — it is, and the biggest pieces of this fractured story are the least obvious. First, to the obvious: Measure 37 is about the money. The money that landowners claim they’ve lost or will lose by the state or counties barring them from developing. The money that lures forestry companies to turn from logging to condos. And the money that farmers, house-holders and others with what they see as presently useless or excess land are costing the rest of us with their claims. Claims may be totally legit (though numerous ones in Hood River County, at least, have asked to make developments that were never allowed under their original zoning), but they take public time to assess. That’s cost Wasco County, for one, several thousand dollars; and the real impact will come with the May rush, of some 30 claims to assess, according to The Dalles Chronicle. Wasco County doesn’t charge landowner claimants for its planners’ time. Hood River County, with many more claims, does; but nowhere near enough to pay for their efforts. Measure 37 presently accounts for an estimated 70 percent of the planning staff’s time — and the fees the county charges cover less than 10 percent of the planning budget...

Measure 37 Means Condos and … Compromise?

We haven’t heard much about Measure 37 recently, but that’s not because much isn’t going on — it is, and the biggest pieces of this fractured story are the least obvious.

First, to the obvious: Measure 37 is about the money. The money that landowners claim they’ve lost or will lose by the state or counties barring them from developing. The money that lures forestry companies to turn from logging to condos.

And the money that farmers, house-holders and others with what they see as presently useless or excess land are costing the rest of us with their claims. Claims may be totally legit (though numerous ones in Hood River County, at least, have asked to make developments that were never allowed under their original zoning), but they take public time to assess. That’s cost Wasco County, for one, several thousand dollars; and the real impact will come with the May rush, of some 30 claims to assess, according to The Dalles Chronicle.

Wasco County doesn’t charge landowner claimants for its planners’ time. Hood River County, with many more claims, does; but nowhere near enough to pay for their efforts. Measure 37 presently accounts for an estimated 70 percent of the planning staff’s time — and the fees the county charges cover less than 10 percent of the planning budget.

Hood River County officials’ recent decision to up its fees has Steven B. Andersen advising his clients to sue. Andersen represents the majority of the county’s M-37 claimants.

Expenses and litigation have become a common aspect for all involved with Measure 37. Whether that law has brought fairness to Oregon’s land-use laws is probably in the eye of the beholder. A farmer who sees a way to subdivide a portion of his land, make a profit and stay in business, probably sees this as fairness deferred, after many long and aggravating years. Someone who lives next to a slated new rural subdivision might see the fairness issue somewhat differently.

So, fairness and money. That might be said to be the heart of the entire land-use discussion. It’s an ongoing discussion, via the Big Look committee, which holds meetings and talks around the state, including a recent one in Hood River.

The Big Look is forming longterm recommendations about Oregon’s entire landuse schematic. Focused more on Measure 37 is a quiet negotiation between legislators hoping to “fix” the 2-year-old law. Freelance writer Sam Lowry is reporting that the negotiators are drawing close to something rare and wonderful in American politics: a thoughtful compromise.

Said one of the participants of the legislative committee: “The parameters are set” for a compromise bill.

The talks to smooth out the inequities and impacts of Measure 37 involve (writes Lowry) everything from how to value land development claims and impacts on groundwater, to capping the size of claims and transferring development rights.

Being as a contentious an issue as it is, these talks could fall apart at the last minute, as a similar quiet negotiation did in 2005. And any agreement reached by the committee would need to be approved by the Legislature, of course. So, there are hurdles. But maybe … maybe there’s a finish line up ahead.

About Dan Richardson

Check Also

Reading The West & High Plains Book Awards Finalists Announced

Last week two regional organizations announced the finalists for their annual book awards. I've listed the finalists below with links to New West's reviews of the books and author interviews. First, the Mountains and Plains Independent Booksellers Association announced the finalists for its Reading the West Book Awards (that's the new name of the MPIBA's longstanding book award series). The shortlist in the Adult category:Finders Keepers: A Tale of Archaeological Plunder and Obsession by Craig Childs (Little, Brown and Co.) • The Wake of Forgiveness by Bruce Machart (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) • Volt: Stories by Alan Heathcock (Graywolf Press) • Fur, Fortune, and Empire: The Epic History of the Fur Trade in America by Eric Jay Dolin (W.W. Norton) • The Ringer by Jenny Shank (The Permanent Press) Also in the Roundup: The finalists for the High Plains Book Awards, The Whitefish Review seeks donations for its ninth issue, The High Desert Journal announces a poetry prize, and the tally on how many books Oprah helped David Wroblewski and Cormac McCarthy sell.

3 comments

  1. Dan–

    To clarify the situation re: the M37 fees, what HR County did was to double the land use permit application fees for any project that is based on a roll-back of regulations from a M37 waiver. Our concern is the arbitrary nature of the fee schedule, not that we object to fees that are based on actual processing time correlated with what the regular application fees are. I think the law is pretty clear on this. What the county said is it can only change the fees once a year regardless of the questionable legality of the fee schedule or the complete lack of fairness of it. A double standard is what it is. It can adopt a fee schedule that doesn’t comply with the law, but then it won’t suspend it because the law only provides an annual change. And all the M37 folks I guess are supposed to feel real good about this special treatment??

    Put this down as another of many, many examples of a BROKEN land use system.

    –Steven B

  2. “And all the M37 folks I guess are supposed to feel real good about this special treatment?”

    I guess you’re directing the question to the county; I’m not taking a position on their decision, just reporting some pertinent M37 updates. I’m supposing the negotiated “fix” is the most important of these; supposing, that is, that it would address things like fees, along with the other issues, rather than leaving those to the whims of the various counties.

    Dan

  3. Whoa, not so fast Dan, don’t be turning this into an argument for continued state control. I would just as soon be dealing with a local commission on fee schedules than the state. Much more difficult getting rid of a bad apples entrenched in the bureaucracy than local elected officials running amok.

    –Steven B