Bend Bulletin, February 08, 2007

Editorial:
No 'time out' for Measure 37


Oregon's property-rights initiative, Measure 37, is and always was a lousy idea. But there are worse ones. Take, for instance, Gov. Kulongoski's proposal to freeze most Measure 37 claims for the next four months.

We're supposed to believe that lawmakers desperately need that breathing room to whip up a Measure 37 "solution," a bill that will streamline and simplify the process in a manner that all sides will find tolerable. This is a big job, and it beggars belief that people who've failed to do it for years will find inspiration over the next four months. Such inspiration is especially unlikely if lawmakers temporarily suspend the consequences of their inaction, as the governor would like.

The Measure 37 era began way back in November 2000. That's when Oregon voters, by a large margin, supported Measure 37's precursor, Measure 7. This initiative, a constitutional amendment, was quickly challenged in court. While the judicial wheels were turning, did the 2001 Legislature produce a less dramatic alternative and send it to voters? Nah. Lawmakers sat on their hands.

In 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court tossed Measure 7. Did the 2003 Legislature, anticipating a ballot sequel and a voter backlash, approve an alternative? Nah. They sat on their hands.

In November 2004, the absolutely predictable thing happened: Voters overwhelmingly supported Measure 37. Did the 2005 Legislature approve or refer an alternative? Nah. Lawmakers produced nothing then, either.

So now, after years and years of legislative futility, the governor suddenly demands a four-month freeze so lawmakers can finally get serious. The rational response to this proposal is precisely the one Measure 37's supporters have offered: You've got to be kidding. If the governor's really that worried about the measure's consequences, he ought to grab Senate and House leaders by the lapels and shake some urgency into them. Communication shouldn't be that difficult. They're members of his party, after all.

It seems to us, though, that the governor's proposal - Senate Bill 505 - is less a bid to fix Measure 37 than a threat to property owners who'd like to use the measure in ways the governor dislikes. It's also a bribe of sorts for those who'd like to use it in ways he likes. Thus, people with legitimate claims who agree to build only a single home on their land would get a pat on the back and an expedited process. Everyone else - say, someone who wanted to turn a struggling family farm into a subdivision - would get the freezer treatment.

The bill's most telling element is a proposed release that would be signed by people who might be able to build, say, subdivisions on their property, but decide to build one house instead. By signing the release, such property owners would surrender all other potential Measure 37 claims.

This bill says, in essence: Whatever your legitimate claim might be, build one expedited house on your land, or square off with a Legislature that will do whatever it can to thwart your plans, even if that means using a bogus pretext to call a "time out." The governor's betting people will conclude that a house in hand is worth a dozen in theory.

The Legislature's Land Use Fairness Committee will discuss Kulongoski's proposal today and, hopefully, toss it. Measures 7 and 37 passed, in part, because voters consider lawmakers untrustworthy. By approving SB 505, the House and Senate would prove them right.