P.O. Box 230637 Tigard OR 97281 (503) 620-0258
Oregonians In Action
OIA-News
Contact Us

Legislature gives up on Measure 7 implementation

By Dave Hunnicutt


After months of negotiations, the Oregon Legislature abandoned efforts to amend Ballot Measure 7, the property rights measure adopted by the Oregon voters in November.

Dave Hunnicutt, Director of Legal Affairs for Oregonians In Action, represented OIA through the entire negotiations process.
"It’s been a long six months," said Hunnicutt. "I think we all knew in January that it would be difficult for the legislature to deal
with this issue. After all, we’ve been asking the legislature to deal with the takings issue for years, with no success. That was
part of the reason for Ballot Measure 7 in the first place."

The impetus behind the negotiations was the current lawsuit challenging Measure 7. "The lawsuit is a risk to both sides," said
Hunnicutt. "We came to the table committed to listening to everyone and trying to reach an agreement that would solve the
problems created by the land use system over the last 28 years. At the same time, if we could reach an agreement, we could
have taken away the risk to property owners that the lawsuit creates."

Unfortunately, reaching agreement proved to be impossible. "There are some people who believe that the public should be able to place whatever regulations it wants on your land, no matter what effect the regulations have on your property. At some point, negotiating with these people becomes a waste of time."

According to Hunnicutt, the negotiations broke down in four key areas - allowing government to permit a use in lieu of paying
compensation, protections for farmers and small woodland owners, the "threshold" needed to trigger a claim, and whether a
landowner could count the impacts of multiple regulations when determining whether compensation was authorized.

"Essentially, Governor Kitzhaber promised to veto any proposal that required compensation when a new regulation took away
a farmer’s ability to farm his land or a timber owner’s right to harvest timber from his property," said Hunnicutt.

"What is ironic about the Governor’s position is that the stated purpose for our land-use system is to protect the agriculture and timber industries. If that is truly what land-use planning is supposed to accomplish, then why would the Governor be opposed to protecting the ag and timber interests?"

The threshold issue was also a sticking point. "Both the state and local government lobbyists were asking that Measure 7 be
amended to provide that (as to future regulations) government could "steal" up to 25% of the value of your land with any one
regulation, or 45% with multiple regulations, before they ever had to pay you a dollar."

"In other words, LCDC could pass an administrative rule that took 24% of the value of your land, Metro could pass an
ordinance that took another 24% of the value of your land, and Multnomah County could pass an ordinance that took another
24% of the value of your land, and you would get nothing. I don’t think this was what the voters intended."

Finally, there was no agreement on how to deal with the impact of other multiple regulations. "The government lobbyists wanted to be able to adopt a single regulation which took 24% of your land without compensation, then six months later adopt another regulation which took another 24% of your land," said Hunnicutt. "After a couple of years of this, they would have taken everything, and the landowner would get no compensation. This was simply unacceptable."

OIA Legal Center is continuing its efforts in the pending court cases which challenged Measure 7. "OIA has done its part to try and work out a compromise in the legislative arena," said Hunnicutt. "At this point, we’re content with letting the Oregon
Supreme Court decide the case."