|
Rep.
Richardson's May 4, 2007 Update
Legislator Lawyers Using Complex Legal Double-Speak to Undermine Measure 37In 2004 Measure 37 was passed by 61% of Oregon’s voters. This issue was discussed in a recent newsletter. On Friday May 4, 2007 a three hour House Floor Debate on House Bill 3540-B occurred and the outcome was the passage, along strict party-lines, of a 23 page cleverly-crafted bill that effectively guts Measure 37.House Bill 3540-B appears to create a comprehensive plan for dealing with residential Measure 37 claims, while terminating the opportunity for any Measure 37 claims on commercial or industrial properties. The limiting of M-37 claims to only residential claims may not seem like a problem, unless you happen to be a landowner of commercial or industrial properties. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument let us suppose the vast majority of voters who passed Measure 37 would be willing to extinguish the claims of non-residential property owners. Does HB 3540-B grant to residential property owners the promised fixes to residential landowners with M-37 claims? I maintain that it does not. In fact, I believe HB 3540-B will eventually eviscerate the majority of M-37 claims, whether residential, commercial or industrial. For example, here are five problems with HB 3540-B: 1. HB 3540-B limits the vast majority of Measure 37 claims to three or fewer single-family homes, including homes already on the property and regardless of the number of acres in the parcel. It also summarily eliminates all unperfected claims of landowners who have industrial or commercial properties. 2. HB 3540-B focuses on “compensation,” then makes the process to qualify so expensive and complicated that few will be able to comply with the requirements and perfect their claims. 3. HB 3540-B subtly removes from Oregon counties the right for local decision making jurisdiction. P.11, lines 7-9 4. HB 3540-B requires the claimant to hire an appraiser to determine the “highest and best use” of the M-37 property. If there existed a use for the property that was more valuable that residential, then that landowner will have no Measure 37 claim beyond the 3 house limitation, regardless of the size of the parcel of land, and notwithstanding the so called “highest and best use” was merely theoretical. 5. HB 3540-B provides a Judicial Review process that allows anyone who submitted a writing comment at a claim hearing to file a law suit in Marion County Circuit Court to challenge the granting of the Measure 37 claim when a state regulation is involved, even if the property is located far distant from Salem, such as in Lakeview or Ontario. Such law suits require citizens to hire expensive land use attorneys and make multiple trips to Marion County’s Circuit Court. The power to require average citizens to pay high legal expenses could prevent folks with valid Measure 37 claims from fighting for their rights due to multiple challenges and appeals. In order to truly “fix” the inherent problems with Measure 37, such as the lack of transferability and requiring the same claim processing for creation of a few home lots as is required for a complicated claim evaluation, the Republicans gave the House Legislators the opportunity to replace the wording of HB 3540-B with the much more rational and workable provisions of amendments included in HB 3540-B25. The benefits of the HB 3540-B25 Amendments are as follows: Grants “fast-track approval” for certain properties willing to waive Measure 37 rights as set forth in ORS 197.352;
Landowners willing to waive Measure 37 claims may partition and construct no more than five single-family dwellings (including current dwellings) on the first 10 or less acre tract of land, plus one additional single-family dwelling for every additional 10 acres in the same tract of land. HB 3540-B25, Sec. 3 (2).
Grants transferability of Measure 37 properties exempted from land use regulations, including fast-tracked properties.
Provides full rights of transferability for landowners and those rights “run with the land.” HB 3540-B25, Sec. 3 (5) & Sec. 4. Grants 180 day extension for government to process claims. Provides counties and other “public entities” 180 day extension, as needed, to process claims relating to written demands forcompensation. HB 3540-B25, Sec. 3 (1). Grants common sense placement of homes. Dwellings may be clustered when county and landowner agree. HB 3540-B25, Sec. 3 (3). The House Republicans offered the –B25 Amendments by a Motion on the House Floor during session. The Motion was to Suspend the Rule against Floor amendments and insert HB 3540-B25 into the bill being debated. The Motion was defeated on a strict party-line vote. The original Bill, HB 3540-B, was then passed by the 31 Democrat votes, and another attempt for a rational “fix” to Measure 37 was defeated. Unfortunately, the real losers were the citizens in every county who have Measure 37 claims pending and who are about to have their rights taken from them by House Bill 3540-B. Sincerely, |
