A House-passed proposal to rewrite Oregon’s contentious property compensation law is on hold as lawmakers and Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s office consider revisions to help its chances of winning voter approval.
One key lawmaker said closed-door talks could result in a revamped draft of the rewrite of Measure 37 that satisfies the Legislature, eliminating the need to take the issue to voters.
“Could we see something done within the building? Anything is possible,” said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, co-chairman of a panel trying to craft a compromise version of Measure 37.
Approved by voters in 2004, the measure requires governments to pay owners for property value lost from land-use restrictions passed after the property was purchased. The law has already sparked nearly 7,000 claims for compensation totaling more than $10 billion.
Governments can pay the claims or waive enforcement of the land use regulations and allow development. But agencies have generally been waiving the regulations because they lack the money to pay the claims.
Earlier this month, the House, on a party-line vote, passed a bill that would ask voters to approve a rewrite of Measure 37 that would make it difficult for landowners to build subdivisions in high-value farmland and water-restricted areas. Republican critics say it’s an attempt to “gut” the law but Democrats contend that voters never intended to bring California-style sprawl to Oregon.
The bill to return the issue to voters has not been brought to a Senate vote as lawmakers and Kulongoski’s office consider revisions.
“What we are waiting for is we are doing some more polling and we are testing what we have,” Kulongoski said during a recent interview with The Associated Press.
On Wednesday, Tim Nesbitt, Kulongoski’s deputy chief of staff, said the changes being considered would keep intact the major provisions of the House-passed bill.
That measure creates an “express lane” for claimants who want to build no more than three dwellings on their property. For those who wish to construct between four and 10 homes, they must show loss of value due to land-use regulations equal to or greater than the value of the number of homes they want to build.
A third option would allow property owners who have had claims approved by state and local agencies, and who have made significant investments, to continue development if approved by government agencies.
A statewide maximum of 20 dwellings per claimant would be allowed under the bill.
If the Legislature decides to refer a rewrite of Measure 37 to voters, it likely will spark a high-profile, high-spending campaign by interest groups on both sides of the issue.
Supporters of Measure 37 recently took out a full-page newspaper ad that featured the measure’s proverbial “poster child,” Dorothy English, a 94-year-old landowner who wants to subdivide her property, railing against the “Legislature’s gutting of Measure 37.”
The rewrite measure is HB 3540. The claims extension is HB 3546.