Health Options Digest
December 5, 2004
Coalition for Health Options In Central Eugene-Springfield (CHOICES)
In This Issue
From the Editor
Week In Review
The big news this past week around hospital development happened in Salem. Lobbyists for PeaceHealth and other developers are pressuring the state legislature to overturn rules requiring there to be adequate roads when cities or counties change plans to allow new development likely to create lots of traffic. These lobbyists are talking about "economic development." But the real issue is the cost of that development, and whether the public gets stuck paying for news roads needed after the development goes in.
Speaking of roads for new development, Eugene City Manager Dennis Taylor wants to start building a new road to the new McKenzie-Willamette hospital on the EWEB site, even though there is no agreement to build such a hospital and EWEB leaders and other citizens have expressed concerns about the costs to the public.
Lastly, Measure 37 went into effect last Thursday. It requires governments to compensate a property owner or to waive the law when a land use regulation reduces the value of private property. We are starting to see claims filed under Measure 37, including claims in Lane County. But the rest of the country is watching Oregon's experiment in shifting away from public interests in favor of private interests. We will see what ultimately happens to our founding fathers' idea of a government by the people and for the people. "Health Options Digest" continues to offer news and views from around the state and the nation on this important issue.
Looking Ahead
The two big meetings this week are on Thursday.
First, the Metropolitan Policy Committee -- sort of a shadow regional government made up of representatives from cities, Lane County, LTD and ODOT -- is scheduled to hold a public hearing and then adopt amendments to TransPlan, i.e., the regional transportation plan for the Eugene-Springfield-Coburg metropolitan region. The two biggest ticket items are the I-5/Beltline interchange project, which is needed for a new PeaceHealth hospital, and the West Eugene Parkway. Not in the plan is an improved I-5/Franklin interchange, which might better support development in downtown Eugene, downtown Springfield and Glenwood. Follow the money to see what the real plans are. And come out on Thursday to voice your concerns!
Second, the Springfield Planning Commission will consider PeaceHealth's newest attempt to get approval for their hospital. This meeting is technically a public hearing, but don't expect to have a chance to speak. Commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions of PeaceHealth and others before making a recommendation to the city council. I'm not holding my breath. Whatever the planning commissioners might think, they know the Springfield City Council will say "yes" to PeaceHealth.
Lastly, we still haven't heard from the Court of Appeals on Eugene's change to allow a hospital just about anywhere in the city. The wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly, but they do turn.
Rob Zako, Editor
343-5201
rzako@efn.org
Calendar
Monday, December 6 -- Expert to discuss solutions for traffic
| The Register-Guard | December 5, 2004 |
A traffic expert will discuss neighborhood solutions at a public meeting from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Monday at the Eugene Public Library, 100 W. 10th Ave.
Mojie Takallou, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Portland, will be hosted by the Friendly Area Neighbors.
Space is limited. If you plan to attend, send an e-mail to traffic@bkms.com or call Brian Kelly at 434-1040.
Monday, December 6 -- Springfield City Council
City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield
Contact: Amy Sowa, City Manager's Office, 726-3700
5:15 pm, Executive Session, Jesse Maine Room
1. Property Negotiations Update.
2. Vacation of Sports Way.
6:00 pm, Work Session, Jesse Maine Room
1. Budget Committee Interviews.
2. Update on Health Insurance Rates.
3. Oregon Public Employees Retirement System Equal to or Better Than Testing.
7:00 pm, Regular Meeting, Council Meeting Room
* Public Hearing: Establishing Liens for Public Improvements to Serve 11th Street From M Street to Olympic.
* Public Hearing: Vacation of Sports Way, Workstage LLC Applicants.
* Public Hearing: South 42nd Street Reconstruction Project, Phase I (P20347).
* Ordinance: Addition of Two Lane County Commissioners to the Existing Springfield Economic Development Agency Board of Directors.
* Ordinance: Utility Tax.
* Budget Committee Appointments.
* Arts Commission Appointment.
Thursday, December 9 -- Metropolitan Policy Committee
{linkhttp://www.lcog.org/meetings/mpc.html
11:30 am, Eugene Public Library, Bascom-Tykeson Room, 100 W. 10th Ave., Eugene, 682-4044
* Comments from the Audience
* Public Hearing: Draft Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
* Public Hearing: Draft FY05-07 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP)
* Public Hearing: Draft Air Quality Conformity Determination
* Appointment of MPO Citizen Advisory Committee Members
* MTIP Administrative Amendment
See also: http://www.lcog.org/mpo/rtp.html
Thursday, December 9 -- Springfield Planning Commission
City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield, 726-3753
5:30 pm, Work Session, Jesse Maine Room
1. Continuance from November 16, 2004, PeaceHealth Remand Public
Hearing
6:00 pm, Regular Meeting, Council Meeting Room
1. Continuance from November 16, 2004, PeaceHealth Remand Public
Hearing
Materials: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Planning/index.htm
Monday, December 13 -- Joint OTC/LCDC TPR Subcommittee
1:00 pm, Work Session, ODOT Human Resources Center, Suite C, 2775 19th St. SE, Salem
Contact: Bob Cortright, DLCD, (503) 373-0050 x241, bob.cortright@state.or.us
A joint subcommittee of the Oregon Transportation Commission and the Land Conservation and Development Commission will continue reviewing options for improving how transportation and land use planning are coordinated. Their effort is a response to the court decisions in the case of Jaqua v. City of Springfield.
Monday, January 10 -- Springfield City Council
City Hall, 225 Fifth St., Springfield
Contact: Amy Sowa, City Manager's Office, 726-3700
Regular Meeting
A. PeaceHealth Plan Amendments
PeaceHealth
New rules put projects ahead of upgrades
By Joe Harwood
The Register-Guard | December 2, 2004 |
SALEM -- Saying they want to keep economic development on track in Oregon, state officials later this month will begin the process to change rules that have delayed PeaceHealth's proposed $400 million regional medical center in Springfield.
The proposed revisions, scheduled to take effect next March, would clarify the statewide debate on whether developments that create road congestion must be accompanied by road upgrades to handle the traffic. The new rules would make it clear that a big development could be built years before the public infrastructure is in place to handle its traffic.
A land-use watchdog group complained, however, that the proposed change would in effect exempt developers from paying for the traffic congestion their projects create. (more...)
McKenzie-Willamette/Triad
Letter -- EWEB shouldn't sell to Triad
By Douglas Newton, Eugene
The Register-Guard | December 4, 2004 |
In the lead editorial on March 10, 1986, The Register-Guard encouraged voters to approve Eugene Water & Electric Board's $25 million bond measure that included $22.5 million for a new headquarters building and related construction at the downtown site.
In an editorial on Nov. 18, 2004, The Register-Guard criticizes EWEB board members Sandra Bishop and Dorothy Anderson for refusing to sell (give away) the new construction plus 23 acres of prime riverfront property to Triad Hospitals for $24 million.
It's a darn good thing that the editors opted for a career in journalism, because they certainly aren't competent financial planners.
EWEB's one and only mission is to provide efficient, low-cost utility services to ratepayers. It isn't to pursue the City Council's delusional urban development visions or to sell out to special interests.
Anderson and Bishop should be congratulated for having the courage to do the job that they were elected to do.
Taylor seeks go-ahead on hospital road work
By Edward Russo
The Register-Guard | December 5, 2004 |
The Eugene Water & Electric Board and the majority owner of McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center have yet to strike the deal that would lead to a new hospital in Eugene.
But, like an eager matchmaker, the city is trying to help things along.
City Manager Dennis Taylor on Monday night will ask city councilors to get the design rolling for a new street to the proposed hospital, which would be constructed on the site of EWEB's downtown headquarters along the Willamette River. (more...)
Health Care
Letter -- Medical liability system failing
By Raymond Englander, M.D., Eugene
The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
On Nov. 21, The Register-Guard published a column written for The Washington Post by William Brody, president of Johns Hopkins University.
Unfortunately, in an apparent effort to continue to justify their own position opposing the narrowly defeated Measure 35, the editors of The Register-Guard missed Brody's main point.
The Washington Post titled Brody's piece "Dispelling malpractice myths." The Register-Guard headline read "Malpractice caps won't fix problem." The real point Brody accurately made is that the medical liability system is failing to do what it should do.
During the recent campaign, Measure 35 supporters repeatedly stated that passage would stabilize the system much as one stabilizes a trauma patient. We did not claim it would fix the system.
The situation is very similar to the patient who arrives at the emergency room bleeding profusely. First, the hemorrhaging needs to be stopped. Only then can the patient be assessed in detail and a treatment plan formulated to assure the patient's sustained recovery.
Brody believes that for a long-term, sustainable solution, a complete overhaul of the medical liability system will be necessary. Physicians agree but recognize it would take many years to develop and implement. Short-term stabilization continues to be needed.
In the future, the editors would do well to be true to the author and choose a headline that reflects the author's main point rather than The Register-Guard editorial staff's opinion.
Leveling of growth in health care costs may signal danger
By Theresa Agovino
The Associated Press | December 2, 2004 |
NEW YORK -- The pace in the growth of health care spending leveled off earlier this year after two years of declines, a study found, with the cost of treating a privately insured American rising 7.5 percent in the first half of 2004 -- virtually the same as the 7.6 increase in 2003.
Paul Ginsburg, co-author of the study, worries that the flat spot could be a pause before the rate of spending increases will once again start to grow as programs designed to contain costs are failing to have a significant impact. Even if the rate of increase doesn't jump dramatically, he said, it is still at a dangerous level which outpaces inflation and could eventually lead to more employers dropping health coverage. (more...)
Nearby Developments
Letter -- Article on downtown wasn't appreciated
By Don Lutes, Springfield
The Springfield News | December 3, 2004 |
It is amazing that after a year when more improvements in downtown Springfield have been completed or started than in the previous two decades, The News should feature a Nov. 24 front-page story listing every possible negative feature of downtown, and blame the conditions on municipal government.
The News apparently based the article on a "windshield survey" and brief discussion with four or five people. A little research into the files of The News would have revealed an outstanding record of city support of downtown over the last 50 years, including allocation of block grant funds, location of public facilities, support of merchant associations, acquisition of parking, subsidy of building upgrades, assembly of land for new private development and improvements to the vehicular and pedestrian environment.
Municipal government does not create the downtown. The city provides the basic infrastructure, contributes some seed money and establishes some ground rules -- then private enterprise does the rest. A closer look by The News would show that such a process is exactly what is being played out.
Letter -- Look hard at Royal Caribbean
By Robert Simms, Eugene
The Register-Guard | November 30, 2004 |
In the interest of balanced reporting, I think it only fair that The Register-Guard present some of the negative aspects of Royal Caribbean before the company sets up shop in Springfield.
In his Oct. 4 letter to Royal Caribbean CEO Richard Fain, Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he is "pleased to welcome a company whose reputation for quality and performance extends not only to your cruises, but also to your domestic workplace facilities" (Register-Guard, Oct. 15).
But according to Ross A. Klein in his February 2003 article "Cruise Ships: The Industry's Dark Side," Royal Caribbean is registered in Liberia where there are no taxes.
Klein says fines were levied against Royal Caribbean for falsifying records in 1998, dumping hazardous chemicals and lying to the U.S. Coast Guard in 1999 and again dumping toxic chemicals in 2000.
Hopefully, the company has been acting responsibly since then.
Even so, cruise ships continue to have a negative impact on the ocean environment and on Third World peoples and their economies.
There is also the issue of the actual result of new, living-wage jobs in Lane County -- a projection of 1,000 by 2009.
An average pay of $11 an hour sounds good, but a pension plan that vests over seven years, considering that the turnover of employees is "38 percent to 40 percent a year," is absurd.
With the generous subsidies offered by the state and paid for by Oregonians, I hope this is not another done deal before all aspects of this business plan are discussed.
Construction wraps up at Hyland Business Park
By Joe Harwood
The Register-Guard | November 30, 2004 |
SPRINGFIELD -- Eight years after starting work on what has become the city's premier multi-tenant industrial complex, the $4 million Hyland Business Park is fully built out.
Construction of the business park's final two buildings wrapped earlier this month, doubling the size of the complex to a total of 150,000 square feet of leasable space.
The 7-acre park, at 4660 Main St., is owned by the Hyland family, which operates John Hyland Construction Inc., a Springfield-based builder of commercial and industrial buildings. (more...)
Plan for new tax stirs concerns: Council is considering two ordinances to raise funds
By Amber Fossen
The Springfield News | December 1, 2004 |
The Springfield City Council is thinking about imposing a new tax, and it's stirring up concern from the telecommunications industry.
The council held a public hearing Monday night on two ordinances that relate to the proposed utility tax. The first ordinance would amend the Springfield municipal code to let the city license utilities and impose a privilege tax on utilities doing business in the city. The second ordinance also would amend the municipal code to regulate the use and occupation of public ways. (more...)
UO seeks $24.7 million to buy bakery site
By Diane Dietz
The Register-Guard | December 4, 2004 |
The University of Oregon is seeking $24.7 million to buy land for a basketball arena on the Williams' Bakery site next to the campus along Franklin Boulevard.
And university officials announced Friday that they've signed a "letter of intent" with United States Bakery, the bread factory owner, though they provided no details on the terms.
For months, the officials have said they were closing in on a deal that would allow purchase of the land and eventual construction of a new 12,000- to 14,000-seat arena to replace the beloved but aging McArthur Court.
This is the first concrete sign of progress, though officials are still mum about their intentions. (more...)
Transportation
New plan: More roundabouts: City Council talks about plan to make S. 42nd Street safer
By Amber Fossen
The Springfield News | December 1, 2004 |
A Monday night Springfield City Council work session had city leaders circle talking, in a roundabout way.
City staff presented council members with a design proposal for South 42nd Street, from Jasper to Mt. Vernon roads, that includes widened pavement, improved street lighting, on-street bike lanes, sidewalks, trees, curbs, gutters, intermittent raised medians, and a new drainage system and outlet.
The proposal also includes roundabouts as intersection controls at both the Jasper and Mt. Vernon intersections, prompting questions about ease of access from private driveways.
A separate proposal, to modify the multi-lane roundabout design at the Hayden Bridge Way and Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway intersection to include partial right turn slip lanes, was also presented for review. (more...)
WEP goes to hearing
By Ted Taylor
Eugene Weekly | December 2, 2004 |
The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) has scheduled a public hearing on an update to the Regional Transportation Plan (formerly TransPlan) at its next meeting from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm Thursday, Dec. 9 at the Eugene Library Bascom-Tykeson Room. The update of the transportation plan, high on the to-do list of Mayor Jim Torrey before he leaves office, is expected to help pave the way for the contentious West Eugene Parkway.
Opponents to the WEP note that the highway's price tag has ballooned from $88 million in 1997 to $169 million in 2004, a recent ODOT re-evaluation report recommends turning the Beltline intersection into a full-blown $45 million interchange that would fill even more wetlands, and ODOT is asking the city to maintain the WEP east of Belt Line. (more...)
Slant -- West Eugene Parkway
| Eugene Weekly | December 2, 2004 |
Regional transportation planning can be painfully wonkish and dull to follow, until we look closely at its potential impact on our community's livability in 20 years. Along with the siting of PeaceHealth's new hospital, one of the biggest rubber and road issues to be decided this decade is the fate of the West Eugene Parkway. The WEP still has its cheerleaders, despite compelling evidence that it will harm rare wetlands and wildlife, suck millions of dollars from previously identified higher-priority road projects, and lead to more sprawl and gridlock. Our lame duck mayor is trying to push the WEP through with an update to the Regional Transportation Plan, but we can still pull the plug on the WEP, or at least let our new mayor and City Council deal with it next year. See our news story this week on the Dec. 9 public hearing and how to submit comments.
Letter -- Torrey should let parkway go
By Rob Handy, Eugene
The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
Mayor Jim Torrey has done some good things for kids in Eugene. Yet he undermines the future of our community, as well as his own legacy, by continuing to insist on saddling our civic coffers with the ill-fated West Eugene Parkway proposal.
Several drafts of an unreleased Oregon Department of Transportation WEP re-evaluation report indicate that the highway will fail to function adequately. It recommends design changes, a near-doubling of the original $88 million price tag, and saddling city residents with maintaining the WEP east of Belt Line Road. In 2001, Mayor Torrey told voters, "the money is there," and "the state will build and maintain it."
On Oct. 22, the mayor told the City Council that Belt Line is now his highest priority for transportation funding. Meanwhile, in the quiet of monthly Metropolitan Policy Committee meetings, Torrey continues to push the ballooning albatross of WEP.
An MPC public hearing and decision is scheduled for Dec. 9 on whether the proposed highway and its bloated price tag will push out other projects on the financially limited list of road projects in the Regional Transportation Plan. Good projects like Lane Transit District's Bus Rapid Transit corridor for MLK Boulevard in Springfield and re-prioritizing Belt Line from River Road to Delta Highway should be approved, without the new WEP project being forwarded.
Torrey should allow a fresh start toward funding a transportation system that will work for all of Eugene.
Editorial -- Good call by ODOT: McKenzie Highway won't become freight route
| The Register-Guard | November 30, 2004 |
It didn't take long for Mother Nature to affirm the wisdom of the Oregon Department of Transportation's Nov. 19 decision not to designate Highway 126 East as a freight route. (more...)
Other News
Les Aucoin -- Governor needs to seize agenda -- or others will
| The Register-Guard | December 5, 2004 |
The three most important things to watch when the Oregon Legislature convenes in January:
* What will Gov. Ted Kulongoski do -- if anything -- with his powerful new (18 to 12) Senate Democratic majority?
* Will that majority actually be "his," in the sense of being an ardent advocate of his policies?
* Will House Democrats (who picked up three seats in the past election but remain in the minority), unite with Kulongoski and their Senate shipmates or merely content themselves with submarine warfare against the House GOP?
A lot rides on the answers -- not least the governor's odds of winning a second term and Democratic hopes of capturing the only institution they don't now control, the House, in the elections of 2006. (more...)
Elections
Mayoral race set spending records
By Edward Russo
The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
The race for Eugene mayor and for the east Lane seat on the board of county commissioners, two of the county's most hard-fought 2004 campaigns, spent nearly a half-million dollars between them, final election reports show.
In the county commissioner's race, Don Hampton and Faye Stewart II spent a combined $245,271 in their bids to win the east Lane seat, according to campaign reports filed this week. (more...)
Measure 37: Views
Letter -- More growth could spur claims
By James McDonald, Eugene
The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
It's my understanding that the current land use code, with its urban growth boundary provision, has caused real estate values to increase.
By restricting growth and creating a far more desirable environment than the all-too-familiar urban sprawl of most of this country, the UGB has increased the value of our real estate. It's basic supply and demand.
Therefore, if more growth is allowed or the UGB is expanded because of Measure 37, then my real estate value will be negatively impacted, and I gather I can file a claim.
I'm not against appropriate compensation for those few who have been truly harmed by the land use code. We should not reap the benefits from the code at the expense of a few.
Hopefully, we can find a way to compensate them without losing the enormous benefits the land use code has brought to this state.
Letter -- Oregon changing for the worse
By Sriram Khe, Eugene
The Register-Guard | December 4, 2004 |
Way before we moved to Oregon, we had a strong impression of the state and its people: that Oregonians thought about the future and systematically worked toward making those thoughts a reality.
However, recent developments lead me to wonder if those forward-thinking Oregonians have become a minority. Oregon has been a leader in issues such as its innovative land use planning, fees on bottles and aluminum containers, and the health plan for those who lacked the ability to otherwise get health insurance.
In all these wonderful ideas that Oregonians put into place a few years ago, the common element is the long-term benefits from the programs; for instance, the effects of a well-designed land use plan do not present themselves the very next day when we open the windows in our homes. Yet, Oregonians pursued such programs because they knew that it was the right thing to do.
The 21st century Oregonians, on the other hand, have systematically started dismantling all these programs -- the Oregon Health Plan has been gutted, and the land use planning process is all but torched thanks to the passing of Measure 37. More than anything, I see the effects this increasingly short-sighted approach of the "new Oregonians" is having on colleges and universities.
While I refuse to believe that Oregonians have stopped thinking about creating a better tomorrow, have we indeed changed for the worse?
Editorial -- Fixing Measure 37: Legislature must deal with flawed new law
| The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
With a projected state budget shortfall of a billion dollars, Oregon lawmakers already have a full slate of daunting challenges awaiting them when they convene in January.
But Measure 37, the property rights law overwhelmingly approved by Oregon voters in the Nov. 2 election, will add a long list of high-priority items to the Legislature's "to-do" list.
The need for state action on Measure 37 has become evident in recent days as cities and counties across the state have received inquiries, and even actual claims, from property owners seeking compensation for land values diminished by zoning and other regulations. Under the measure, officials must either pay landowners whose properties lose value because of regulations -- or waive enforcement of those rules.
In the absence of uniform guidelines in the measure, Oregon's 240 cities and 36 counties already have begun adopting their own Measure 37 processes. These processes vary widely and will, unless the Legislature intervenes, result in property owners' claims being treated very differently throughout the state. (more...)
Bonnie Smith -- Measure 37 begins to right wrongs
By Bonnie Smith
The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
In her Nov. 28 Commentary article, Heather Henderson states, "The Oregon in which we enjoy living and playing is the result of three decades of pioneering land use legislation." A headline proclaims, "The passage of Measure 37 threatens to unravel 30 years of the state's pioneering land use planning."
I strongly suggest that land use laws need adjustment to accommodate greater fairness to those who were disenfranchised by those regulations.
Henderson failed to tell readers that the land on which Oregonians can hike, drive and swim, the land they can take photos of, the land they can go hunting or four-wheeling on, the land they can explore on their camping and backpacking trips, etc., was taken at the expense of rural landowners who lost their right to use the land they bought and paid for. (more...)
Steven B. Anderson -- Measure 37: a catalyst for the return of prosperity
Measure 37 was not written to give developers carte blanche approval to run roughshod over the environment or game the system.
By Steven B. Anderson
The Oregonian | December 1, 2004 |
Measure 37 passed in every county save one: Benton. Yes, even Multnomah County voted for instilling fairness in Oregon's land-use planning system. As a practicing land-use planner, it does my heart good. This law could be the start of the reformation of a land-use system that I believe has wrecked the Oregon economy.
But there are those who still don't get it. Gov. Ted Kulongoski is urging local jurisdictions to pay compensation for regulatory takings and thereby continue the heavy-handed, restrictive growth-management system for which this state is famous -- the one that no other state in this country has chosen to follow.
Local jurisdictions, however, should recognize the value to their economies that this change in policy affords. Rather than use valuable resources and scarce dollars to stop sound and environmentally compatible economic development from occurring -- which would perpetuate the downward spiral -- Oregon's counties and cities have the opportunity to encourage economic improvement while enforcing health and safety regulations that protect everyone's quality of life, not just those whose sensibilities are offended by the visible signs of human habitation.
Quality of life can be protected using a growth management tool that is seldom employed but should be seriously considered and implemented: performance standards. Rather than restrict land-use activities to a laundry list of allowable uses, performance standards would set thresholds for the level of impact that may be compatibly developed in various land-use zoning districts. Impact levels that harm the neighborhood and environment could be prohibited, regardless of what they are, unless it could be demonstrated that they could be mitigated to acceptable levels.
Measure 37 does not give a land owner the right to adversely impact his neighbors or the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Measure 37 was not written to give developers carte blanche approval to run roughshod over the environment or game the system by extorting money from local jurisdictions. Although the opponents of the measure tried to paint that picture, this is not at all what the new provisions of the law are designed to achieve.
The principal problem with Oregon's growth-management system is its reliance on statewide, blanket rules, which necessarily stop innovative and creative techniques from being employed to manage growth and resolve area-specific issues and problems.
Measure 37 should be the catalyst that will reform this top-heavy program and return prosperity and well-being to our communities. That could become a program that other states would see the wisdom to follow.
Steven B. Andersen of Mosier is the founder and principal planner of Cascade Planning Associates, a land-use services company in the Columbia River Gorge since 1987.
David Reinhard -- About that new property right of yours
By David Reinhard
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Just when you're ready for some -- what's it called now? -- healing? Just when you're fixing to ease up on the indignation and incredulity. Just when you're preparing to slip into the holiday season and bid peace and joy to all -- even to Oregon's ruling class. Well, some members of Oregon's ruling class go and set rules to "implement" Measure 37.
You remember Measure 37. It was the property-rights measure on November's ballot. It says Oregon governments must waive land-use restrictions or compensate owners if a new regulation reduces a property's value. It passed by a 61 percent to 39 percent ratio. Thus, it's the law of the state of Oregon. In fact, it goes into effect today.
That's a staggering victory margin -- Oregon voters passed the Measure 36 marriage amendment by only a 56 percent to 44 percent ratio -- and it's impossible to argue that Measure 37's property-rights guarantee just slipped by confused voters. They passed a similar guarantee (Measure 7) four years ago, 53 percent to 46 percent, only to have the courts strike it down on grounds unrelated to the amendment's content. Both times, opponents of the measure outspent proponents. In addition, the Legislature passed a similar measure (Senate Bill 600) in 1995, only to have it vetoed by Gov. John Kitzhaber.
And how have too many of Oregon's officials responded to Measure 37? Have they rushed to keep faith with voters and honor the clear will of the people?
Bend has voted to allow neighbors to sue neighbors who use Measure 37 to build or develop their property. Eugene has moved to make Measure 37-allowed development illegal for future owners, meaning Measure 37 claimants would have to remove any new building before selling their property or the buyer would violate the city's nuisance laws. Eugene will also require Measure 37 applicants to plunk down a new $1,500 application fee and pay up to $7,500 in processing costs. Multnomah County will charge a new $2,000 upfront fee as well as additional processing costs. Ashland is demanding a Measure 37 claimant hand over their first-born child.
I'm kidding, of course -- but only about Ashland.
All the other rules listed above would be laughable if they weren't such a transparent bid to frustrate the will of the voters. Reading about them in reporter Laura Oppenheimer's story in The Sunday Oregonian this week was infuriating. They're the anti-Measure 37 campaign by other means. These "implementation" rules are brought to you by the same forces that opposed Measure 37 this fall -- the same forces whose often-draconian land-use regulations paved the way for Measure 37 and Measure 7 and Senate Bill 600.
Are we witnessing the implementation or obstruction of Measure 37 in some venues? Obstructionist officials' best argument is that processing Measure 37 applications will cost them a lot of money. But it is cities and counties that kicked off the whole process in the first place. It's their regulations that intruded on landowners' property rights. Why punish property owners with exorbitant fees unless you want to punish them for daring to make a claim? It's something like asking crime victims to pay cash to seek restitution from their house burglar.
These new Measure 37 rules are tantrums masquerading as public policy, but the new rules' authors should remember this about tantrums: They often end up hurting or humiliating the one who's thrown the fit.
Ultimately, that could be the upshot of these Measure 37 hissy fits. For example, charging outrageous fees and imposing unreasonable burdens will encourage Measure 37 applicants to use the alternative claims process spelled out in the measure: File a claim with a letter describing your case and take the case to court if the government entity fails to respond in 180 days. If the property owner is successful, then the local government pays attorney's fees -- their own and the property owner's. Also, requiring buildings or development allowed under Measure 37 to be removed before the property's sale will simply create whole new Measure 37 claims. And more legal work for taxpayers to fund. And more property-rights horror stories and public outrage.
Finally, the officials who are passing these Measure 37 obstruction -- er, implementation -- rules are undermining the already ailing credibility of government officialdom in Oregon.
It's time to recognize that 61 percent of Oregon voters approved Measure 37 and sit down with the law's authors to make the will of the voters workable.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com. (more...)
Measure 37: General News
Cities, counties brace for Measure 37 claims
Jurisdictions aren't sure how many claims will be filed or who will pay them as they scramble to set up a compensation process
By Fred Leeson
The Oregonian | November 30, 2004 |
Joyce Beedle hoped to build a house someday when she bought a vacant lot on the banks of Johnson Creek in 1984.
Sometime in the mid-1990s, to her recollection, the city of Portland placed environmental regulations on Beedle's lot, adding the tract to a flood plain on which homes could not be built.
Since then, Beedle and the city have been at a standoff over the lot in Southeast Portland's Lents neighborhood. The city is willing to buy the land, but not at a price Beedle wants. (more...)
Conscientious objectors in the land-use wars
By Steve Duin
The Oregonian | November 30, 2004 |
After 47 years, Emil and Dory Brooking still greet their nine acres on the Columbia River with awe and devotion, humbled by the view of Mount Hood through the cottonwood trees, the persistence of the local beavers, and the comings and goings at the wood duck nests.
"I suppose the bursting forth of spring," Dory says, asked when her devotion peaks, "but each season has its own special charm." They are surrounded by the good life. There are ducks on the pond, squirrels on the deck, and osprey and heron in the family photos. "Isn't this perfect?" she asks.
Close enough. And the Brookings have ensured it will stay that way. With the help of the Columbia Land Trust, they have moved their land from the battlefield over property rights to the sanctuary of common ground. (more...)
Divided over subdivisions Jim Schreiber voted against Measure 37, but now, he may file a claim
A Clackamas County man voted against the measure but now may file a claim, based on his original intent for the land
By Steven Amick
The Oregonian | November 30, 2004 |
OREGON CITY -- Jim Schreiber helped draft Clackamas County's first comprehensive land-use plan.
He voted against Measure 37, and he doesn't plan to file a claim for compensation or the right to subdivide his 35 acres of pasture and timberland -- at least not yet.
Measure 37, the property-rights initiative that takes effect Thursday, represents a potential windfall to Schreiber, his wife, Carole, and others like them, people who had given up hope of subdividing their land but now have a strong incentive to reconsider.
Schreiber figures that in his case, the law voters approved Nov. 2 is worth at least $200,000 -- too big a number to ignore.
Over the next year or so, the Schreibers plan to watch what happens with Measure 37 claims before deciding whether to try to subdivide their land or put in a compensation claim.
They are in no hurry, in part because at least some of their land eventually will go to their daughter, June McCoy. Property rights created by Measure 37 are preserved as long as the land remains within a family. (more...)
Unraveling Measure 37
Details could tie sprawl-threatening measure up in knots.
By Alan Pittmann
Eugene Weekly | December 2, 2004 |
A million Oregonians voted for Measure 37, passing it by a 20 percent margin and putting it into effect Dec. 2. But land use and legal experts are still trying to figure out what the measure means.
The timber- and developer-backed group, Oregonians in Action (OIA), that put 37 on the ballot says it means government now has to compensate owners for any reduction in property value caused by many land use regulations or waive the regulations.
That sounds simple, but the devil is turning out to be in the details. How those legal details are decided by courts will determine whether Measure 37 ends up allowing ugly and expensive urban sprawl to destroy Oregon's scenic livability or ends up so tied in legal knots that it has far less impact. (more...)
Clock starts ticking for Measure 37
By Steve Mayes
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Cities throughout Clackamas County have scrambled for the past month to prepare for the unknown and unknowable impact of Measure 37.
The property-rights measure, passed by Oregon voters Nov. 2, takes effect today. Measure 37 requires state or local government to compensate property owners if land-use regulations have diminished their property value, or to waive the regulations.
Those who will handle Measure 37 claims say there are more questions than answers about how the process will work and about the legal consequences of their decisions.
Governments are establishing fees and requirements for claims, although the measure provides little direction about what government can legally require property owners to provide. Cities and counties are wary of Measure 37 because it provides little guidance and looks like legal quicksand. (more...)
Measure 37 takes effect, offers look into future
By Laura Oppenheimer
The Oregonian | December 3, 2004 |
The first clues to the future of Oregon's landscape under Measure 37 arrived at government offices Thursday in the form of appraisals, maps and land-use horror stories.
Cities and counties reported only a trickle of claims on opening day for the voter-approved measure, which requires governments to waive planning rules that hurt a landowner's market value or pay for the financial blow.
Most applications Thursday cited common gripes, such as regulations that stop people from splitting rural land or building houses on it.
But several inquiries foreshadowed more dramatic requests looming in the weeks ahead. Among the possibilities:
Developing 400 one-acre view lots on a 1,000-foot ridge just inland from a Curry County beach.
Creating 5-acre home sites on poorly producing timberland in Josephine County.
A plan to divide rural land in north Marion County to build a casino.
A spread of 350 2-acre lots on farmland near St. Paul, also in Marion County. (more...)
Measure 37 Q&A
By Laura Oppenheimer
The Oregonian | December 3, 2004 |
What exactly does Measure 37 promise property owners?
If a land-use regulation hurts property value, the owner is guaranteed one of two things: a waiver from the rule or money to compensate for the financial effect. It's up to the government that enacted the rule to evaluate claims and decide whether to waive or pay.
How will the timing work?
Cities and counties began accepting claims Thursday. They will have 180 days to respond to the claims, but some aren't starting the clock until they evaluate an application for completeness.
Who is eligible to make a claim?
You can file a claim for land-use regulations enacted after you or a family member (dating to your grandparents) bought the property. Payments will recognize value lost since the family took ownership; waivers recognize uses permitted when the current owner took over. Rules enacted to meet federal requirements or protect the community from safety hazards and public nuisances do not apply.
How long do property owners have to file claims?
Two years from Thursday for existing rules or two years from the date a new land-use rule is approved. Legal analysts think the measure allows property owners to trigger a new two-year window by having a land-use proposal rejected under a rule -- meaning claims could last indefinitely.
How do I make a claim?
The Oregon Department of Administrative Services will accept claims based on state rules. Each city and county set up its own process for local rules. Oregonians in Action recommends owners file with both the state and local government to avoid confusion about who is responsible for a rule.
What type of claims will be most common?
Property owners are likely to challenge farming income thresholds to build a house on agricultural land, restrictions on subdividing or developing rural land, and environmental rules that limit construction options in cities. Timber interests that backed the measure may challenge rules that limit logging.
Oregon's vistas may get less scenic
Long a model for protecting rural areas, the state faces a property-rights backlash that could ripple nationwide.
By Brad Knickerbocker
The Christian Science Monitor | December 3, 2004 |
ASHLAND -- When voters in Oregon recently approved significant changes in the state's unique land-use law, many property owners won an important victory. Now, local officials must either compensate owners for regulations that reduce a property's value or waive those restrictions.
But approval of the controversial ballot measure here also signals what is likely to be a nationwide examination of government efforts to prevent sprawl, preserve farmland, and protect vistas. This is especially true since Measure 37, as it was called, parallels the growing effort to change the federal Endangered Species Act in order to give more slack to farmers, developers, and other private property owners. (more...)
Cash couldn't quash land law
By Joe Harwood
The Register-Guard | December 4, 2004 |
Money can't buy love -- or elections, for that matter.
Opponents of Measure 37 out-raised advocates of the property rights law by a ratio of nearly 3-to-1, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday with the state.
But despite that financial advantage, Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved the measure in the Nov. 2 election 61 percent to 39 percent. (more...)
Measure 37: Procedures for Filing Claims
News Release: Governor Kulongoski Releases Temporary Rules for Measure 37 Claims
By Marian Hammond, (503) 378-6169, and Anna Richter Taylor, (503) 378-6496
State of Oregon | December 1, 2004 |
SALEM -- Today Governor Ted Kulongoski released the temporary administrative rules that establish procedures for filing and processing State claims under Measure 37. In accordance with the temporary rules, the Governor also released the form for filing claims with the State. Under the rules, Measure 37 claims must be submitted to the State's Department of Administrative Services. The temporary rules and claim form will be valid when the measure goes into effect on December 2, 2004, and will remain in effect until permanent rules are adopted. The claim form may be updated, if that is deemed necessary.
"The state is committed to implementing Measure 37 in an orderly fashion and the rules and related claim form ensure that the state will receive the information necessary to begin processing claims," Kulongoski said. "The cooperation and coordination between many partners to develop the temporary rules was a significant element in achieving this important step in the implementation process. We must maintain a strong partnership to effectively implement Measure 37 in a manner that is fair and that balances the rights of landowners with the quality of life standards of our communities."
The process for filing a claim with the state, as outlined in OAR 125-145-0030 and 125-145-0030, requires that all claims be submitted by an owner or an authorized agent on behalf of an owner to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) via personal delivery, private courier, or certified or registered mail. Faxed or e-mailed claims will not be processed. The rules do not include a filing fee for claims due to the need for legislative approval of such fees, but they do specify the criteria of a "Complete Claim" and the related processing steps for DAS. If the claim does not meet the "Complete Claim" definition under the rule, DAS must notify the claimant in writing. Once a claim is determined to be "Complete," it moves to the appropriate agencies for processing.
"I continue to have concerns and questions about the potential impact of this measure on Oregon's communities, our economy, and quality of life, and I want to reiterate my call to all state and local regulatory entities to refrain from immediate responses and blanket waivers until we can ensure a sound and fair process that meets the needs of all parties," said Governor Kulongoski. "I will continue to work with the Attorney General, Lane Shetterly, cities, counties, and the public throughout this process, to try to ensure accurate and consistent application of Measure 37 at all levels of government."
Governor Kulongoski, Attorney General Myers and Lane Shetterly will continue to apprise Oregonians of the state's progress towards implementation of Measure 37 in the coming weeks.
"The state's process is clear and efficient for both the regulatory entity and the citizens of Oregon seeking claims under Measure 37," Governor Kulongoski continued. "As we continue to progress into the next phase of implementation, it is critical to establish a seamless and consistent process across local, county and state jurisdictions for not only filing claims, but also in how we make responsible decisions in response to those claims. We will continue to work with our local partners to carry out this measure in a responsible manner."
State sets up process to file claim under property rights law
By Laura Oppenheimer
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Oregonians who think state planning rules have hurt their property value now have a way to seek recourse under Measure 37, the new property rights law.
State officials authorized a temporary process for filing claims Wednesday, just before the measure goes into effect today. The state will not charge an application fee or require a formal appraisal, two common aspects of city and county approaches. (more...)
Measure 37 rules effective today
By Randi Bjornstad
The Register-Guard | December 2, 2004 |
Property owners who believe the value of their land has been diminished by Lane County land use regulations may start filing claims for compensation today, but it'll take at least $750 in fees plus $100 to serve legal notice to adjacent owners to begin the process.
The county commissioners unanimously adopted new ordinances Wednesday to meet the requirements of statewide Ballot Measure 37, which voters approved on Nov. 2 and which takes effect today.
Under the measure, if governments change land use regulations so that properties cannot be developed as lucratively as before, owners who can prove a drop in fair market value either must be compensated by the government for their loss or allowed to develop their land to the level allowed when they acquired the property.
Property owners have two years to file written demands for compensation. Governments -- city, county, state or special district -- have 180 days to process the claims or be sued. The measure allows individual governments throughout the state to set their own procedures for evaluating compensation requests. (more...)
County prepares for Measure 37 claims to roll in
By Amber Fossen
The Springfield News | December 3, 2004 |
Let the claims begin.
Landowners who feel that the fair market value of their property has been reduced by land use regulations can start filing claims this week for compensation, as Measure 37 is now in effect.
To deal with procedures for processing claims, the Lane County Board of Commissioners approved ordinances that establish a compensation claim process, which includes initial filing fees of $750 to cover county costs plus $100 for notice costs.
If the board of commissioners elects to compensate a property owner, the fees will be refunded.
While the ordinances passed unanimously just one day before Measure 37's Dec. 2 effective date, county commissioners and county staff note there will likely be revisions. (more...)
Mechanics of Measure 37 yet to jell
The curtain is opening for claims, but local jurisdictions in the area vary in readiness and rules for accepting them
By Ryan Frank and Eric Mortenson
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Measure 37 will begin resculpting Oregon's land-use practices today.
The measure, approved by voters Nov. 2, allows owners to apply for relief from land-use rules created since their family acquired a property. If they show the value has been harmed, the government responsible for the rule must waive the rule or pay for the loss of value.
Landowners can file claims beginning today. For rules already in effect, they have two years to file a claim.
Government agencies must respond to each claim within 180 days. Just days before the claim kickoff, no one knew whether to expect a flood or a trickle.
Statewide, the measure passed with 60 percent of voters backing it. But in Multnomah County, Oregon's liberal capital, the measure passed by a slimmer 51 percent.
The question that will begin to be answered today: How should local governments put the measure into practice?
Legislators, lawyers and judges likely will spend at least a year sorting through the measure's finest print. Linda Ludwig, land-use lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, said the measure has at least 70 ambiguities. (more...)
Land-use claim rules vary by jurisdiction
Land use: Gresham wants owners to pay a fee of $1,860
By Ryan Frank and Eric Mortenson
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Clackamas County: The county has received more than 100 calls about Measure 37. County commissioners are scheduled to consider an ordinance today. The commissioners will debate, among other topics, whether to charge an application fee. The county is responsible only for land outside city limits. For more information, visit www.co.clackamas.or.us/dtd/zoning/37.
Fairview: The City Council held a Measure 37 workshop Wednesday to hear options for handling claims made under the law. City Administrator Jan Wellman doesn't anticipate many claims because Fairview's land-use ordinances were in place before most of the town's growth occurred. Property owners will have to prove the value of their land was affected, he said.
"Most cities I've talked to are putting the majority of responsibility for research, coming up with an appraisal, on the person making the claim," Wellman said. "Then the city would review it to make sure it was accurate and could do its own appraisal."
For more information, call Community Development Director John Andersen, 503-674-6222.
Gresham: The City Council on Nov. 16 approved an ordinance. The city will charge an $1,860 fee plus the cost of an appraisal and will require applicants to provide 17 documents. If a claim is successful, the fee will be refunded. For a claim packet, visit City Hall, 1333 N.W. Eastman Parkway. For questions, call Ann Pytynia, development planning supervisor, 503-618-2859.
Multnomah County: County commissioners will consider an ordinance today. The county proposes charging applicants a $1,500 upfront fee. If the cost to review the claim is less than $1,500, the county will refund the difference. If it's more, the applicant must pay the difference. The county is responsible only for land outside city limits. For questions, call 503-988-3043. For a claim form, visit www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/LUT/land_use/.
Portland: The city proposes charging a $200 fee to process claims. The council is scheduled to vote on the proposed fee this week. For more information, call 503-823-7526. For a claim form, visit www.portlandonline.com/bds/.
Sandy: The City Council will meet Monday to vote on an ordinance for handling Measure 37 claims. City Manager Scott Lazenby doesn't anticipate any immediate claims. The city's recent land-use actions have been annexations, which allowed development and increased property values, he said.
For future annexations, the city may ask that property owners voluntarily waive Measure 37 claims. If they decline, the council could recommend that voters not approve the annexation, Lazenby said. In Sandy, residents vote on annexations. For more information, call Lazenby, 503-668-6927.
Troutdale: The City Council unanimously passed an ordinance Nov. 23 establishing the process for handling Measure 37 claims. The ordinance treats claims as a land-use action. It requires a fee, notification of abutting property owners and establishes a hearing process.
City Administrator John Anderson said cities that don't have a lot of vacant land probably won't see many claims. "If (property) already has houses or industry, then it's already developed, and then it's probably a moot point," he said.
For more information, call Community Development Director Rich Faith, 503-674-7261.
Wood Village: The City Council will discuss a claims ordinance at its Dec. 15 meeting. City Administrator Sheila Ritz said she will recommend that the council establish a fee, and the ordinance will describe the information necessary to submit a claim. She doesn't expect any claims to be filed, which is why the council isn't in a rush to adopt an ordinance. For more information, call Ritz, 503-667-6211.
Additional information:
Oregonians in Action, the measure's author: http://www.oia.org
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/measure37.shtml
Measure 37: How local governments are affected
| The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Local governments in Clackamas County are adopting ordinances that detail how they will handle Measure 37, which goes into effect today. Their fees and procedures are subject to change by courts and the state Legislature:
Clackamas County: The county, which has received more than 100 calls about the measure, expects to have an ordinance in place by today. The county plans to require applicants to pay a fee and provide documentation to establish a claim. A senior planner has been assigned to handle claims.
Canby: The city does not expect any immediate claims. It will require a processing fee based on the cost of handling a claim. The planning department will not charge for informal meetings that help people determine whether they have a Measure 37 claim. If new development resulting from Measure 37 lowers the value of nearby property, Canby's ordinance allows neighbors to sue the developer for damages.
Estacada: The City Council adopted a Measure 37 ordinance Monday. Estacada has had no requests for information about the measure.
Gladstone: The city has not received any inquiries or requests for information about Measure 37 claims, and City Administrator Ron Partch said he doesn't expect any claims to be filed today. The city's attorney is developing a Measure 37 ordinance, which Partch said he expects the City Council to adopt Dec. 14.
Happy Valley: City councilors expect to adopt an ordinance Tuesday that will lay out procedures for handling Measure 37 claims. City Manager Wanda Kuppler said she doesn't think any claims will be filed today.
Lake Oswego: The City Council will discuss an ordinance Tuesday. City Attorney David Powell said he doesn't know what form the ordinance will take but expects it to be in place by the end of December.
Milwaukie: The City Council adopted a Measure 37 ordinance on Nov. 16 explaining procedures for filing claims for compensation. The city is not requiring fees from anyone filing a claim. City Manager Mike Swanson says he does not foresee claims being filed today.
Molalla: The city doesn't expect to adopt an ordinance until Wednesday. Molalla City Administrator Gene Green said no one has expressed interest in filing a claim.
Oregon City: The City Commission was scheduled to vote on an ordinance Wednesday night. The ordinance calls for commissioners to hold hearings on claims but also allows them to deny a claim without a hearing. The city will require an applicant to pay the cost of processing a claim and could require a $1,000 deposit.
West Linn: City councilors were scheduled to take up the issue at their meeting last night. The proposed ordinance would give the city manager the authority to investigate the claim but require the City Council to hold a public hearing before taking action.
Wilsonville: City councilors passed an ordinance Monday night.
Wilsonville passes Measure 37 claims process
Applicants must detail the restriction's effects, request compensation amount and suggest changes to the law
By Lisa Grace Lednicer
The Oregonian | November 30, 2004 |
WILSONVILLE -- City councilors at a special meeting Monday approved a process for filing claims under Measure 37, which allows voters to apply for compensation if a government regulation affected the value of their property.
Unlike other cities, Wilsonville won't require applicants to pay a fee when filing their claims. If the city determines the claim is invalid, the applicant must reimburse the city for the costs of researching the claim. (more...)
Land-use challenges could carry a $750 fee
County officials will vote on proposals for handling claims under Measure 37
By Sarah Hunsberger
The Oregonian | December 1, 2004 |
OREGON CITY -- Clackamas County commissioners will vote Thursday on an ordinance that sets out a $750 fee and other requirements for Measure 37 claims.
The statewide measure, which takes effect Thursday, allows landowners to apply for relief from land-use rules created since their family acquired a property. If the rules harm property values, governments must waive the rules or pay for the lost value.
The measure doesn't specify how to file a claim, and governments across Oregon are grappling with how to handle them.
Under the county's proposed ordinance, property owners would pay a $750 application fee for Measure 37 claims to help pay for county staff time to process requests. (more...)
Estacada enacts Measure 37 rules
The city manager says the ordinance's claimant requirements are modeled on those of other cities
By Steven Amick
The Oregonian | December 1, 2004 |
ESTACADA -- The City Council, meeting in a special session this week, approved setting a $500 fee and other requirements for landowners submitting claims under Measure 37.
The ordinance, adopted Monday, includes an emergency clause that makes it effective immediately. (more...)
Portland lays down Measure 37 rules
Many questions are deferred, but property owners are required to get appraisals for a start
By Henry Stern
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
On the eve of Measure 37 taking effect, the Portland City Council established procedures Wednesday for property owners claiming regulation-related losses while temporarily deferring other questions over cost and notification.
Answers to those questions -- how much to charge applicants making claims and what neighborhood notification is required -- will be forthcoming soon.
A proposed $200 fee was pulled back by Mayor Vera Katz after commissioners strongly questioned whether that would be too low. (more...)
Cities rush to affirm policies on Measure 37
As the law takes effect today, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood consider adopting high filing fees to discourage frivolous claims
By Patrick Harrington
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Cities in the southwest suburbs are scrambling to pass ordinances outlining procedures for filing claims under Measure 37, the property rights compensation law that voters overwhelmingly approved last month.
Property owners will be able to file claims under the new law when it takes effect today.
Measure 37 allows landowners to apply for relief from land-use rules put into effect since they acquired the property. If they can show that the value of their property has been harmed, the government responsible for the rule must waive the rule or pay the landowner for the loss of value. (more...)
Measure 37: Claims
Land Use Claims Begin
EUGENE -- The people behind Measure 37 are filing the first claims for property compensation today.
The new law requires the government to compensate land owners when state or local laws reduce their property's value.
Municipalities across the state -- including Eugene and Springfield -- have been considering how to process the claims once they come in. Officials say the extra expense will be a burden. Those who supported 37 say the government should abide by the people's vote.
M-37 Claims Filed
LANE COUNTY -- Local residents are already testing a new Oregon law that gives more rights to property owners. It allows some people impacted by land use laws to seek compensation or a waiver of the restrictions.
Already the first claim under the Measure-37 provision has been filed with Lane County. We talked with the man who turned in his letter to the county. (more...)
Owners request damages under law
By Joe Harwood
The Register-Guard | December 3, 2004 |
Property owners who complain that they have been blindsided by government restrictions on the use of their land filed claims for compensation or waivers early Thursday, putting to the test a new Oregon law that allows such claims.
Kenney and Marta Gee of Creswell filed what appears to be the only Measure 37 claim in Lane County on the first day such claims could be filed. Officials in Eugene and Springfield said they received no such claims.
Elsewhere in the state, three property owners who helped lead the Measure 37 campaign filed claims. (more...)
First Oregonian files Measure 37 compensation claim
| The Associated Press | December 2, 2004 |
PORTLAND -- 92-year-old Dorothy English wore her favorite color -- purple -- today, the day she's waited for over 30 years.
English filed her claim at the office of the Multnomah County Counsel shortly after 8:30 this morning. She is asking for over one million dollars in compensation for the land she's owned in Portland's West Hills since the 1950s.
English became the first Oregonian to file a compensation claim following the successful passage of Measure 37.
The measure allows people who have been blindsided by land use laws to seek compensation for the lost value, or else a waiver of the restrictions.
Her attorney, Joe Willis, says the 92-year-old had lost out on the chance to develop her valuable land.
Stafford landowners see another chance at development
By Dana Tims
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
Charlie Hoff has waited 27 years to develop the 53 acres he bought in the Stafford basin south of Lake Oswego. Now, riding a pro-development crest created by voter approval of Measure 37, his time may have come.
Hoff, a retired Tualatin business owner, plans to be at the head of the line today, the first day property owners can file claims asserting that land-use regulations have limited the use of their property. (more...)
Oregon City landowner would rather develop his land than be compensated
Berge: Regulations say he can't divide land near farm
By Steve Mayes
The Oregonian | December 2, 2004 |
OREGON CITY -- Dan Berge is a reasonable man.
He doesn't want Oregon City to pay him a pile of money. And he doesn't want to sue the city.
He just wants to be able to develop his 3 acres on Oregon 213, where he's operated a manufacturing plant for more than 20 years.
Berge might be the first person to submit a Measure 37 claim to Oregon City. (more...)
Property owners take measured steps
The first day a new property-rights law goes into effect draws lots of questions, but only two claims in Clackamas County
By Sarah Hunsberger
The Oregonian | December 3, 2004 |
Landowners lined up to wait for Clackamas County's planning department doors to open Thursday morning, the day voter-approved Measure 37 went into effect statewide.
County planners answered plenty of questions about the new property-rights law, but only two landowners filed written claims. (more...)
First claims filed under Measure 37
By Chris Barker
The (Bend) Bulletin | December 3, 2004 |
Gene and Barbara Prete filed a Measure 37 claim on Thursday, along with an exclamation point: They refused to pay a $500 processing fee required by Deschutes County government.
The couple is seeking $383,000, or the right to build a house on 20 acres in Cloverdale, according to their claim.
Ross Day, the Pretes' attorney, said the voter-approved law -- which requires governments to compensate property owners for losses in value incurred by government regulation -- doesn't require payment of a fee. (more...)