The end of the 180-day waiting period for all the Measure 37 claims filed before the two year anniversary of its enactment in December, a deadline established by the measure, is drawing near. Strong emotions were clearly displayed at an April 14 rally on the Capitol steps calling for changes to the measure which waives land use regulations or calls for compensation to landowners who demonstrate they have suffered financially from such regulations. If the government doesn't act on these claims after 180 days, property owners can sue for compensation. Mike Carrier, who spoke on behalf of Governor Ted Kulongoski at the rally, said, "The governor does not want to repeal the measure but he wants to reform it. Issues of fairness are central to the measure and must be preserved."

The Legislature's Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness has been holding public hearings and was considering a Senate bill that would modify Measure 37, establishing a compromise between development and effective land use management. On April 26 the committee advanced House Bill 3540 to the Ways and Means committee and it will probably move to the House floor soon. If passed it would allow the voters to choose between keeping Measure 37 intact with no changes, or modifying it by expediting the review process for property owners who want to build three houses or less. Those who want to develop up to a maximum of 20 houses would have to go through a more complicated review process to demonstrate a loss in property value.
Among those who attended the rally in support of Measure 37 were Wayne and Kat Stevens, who purchased 23 acres of land as an investment opportunity but have run up against regulations.

"We were counting on developing this property to secure our retirement," Kat Stevens said.

"We're standing up for individual rights," Wayne Stevens said. "We bought our property years ago but the law has since changed. We want to break up our property into two-acre lots but now they're saying they must be five-acre lots."

State Representative Brian Clem spoke at the rally and took questions from the crowd. He feels that there should be some level of compensation for those who are restricted from developing their land.

"I almost voted for Measure 37," Clem said. "But we need a better formula and clear criteria for evaluating whether anyone has actually lost value in their property."

Clem's farm in Hood River County is surrounded by Measure 37 claims.

"The range of claims concerns me," Clem said. "We have several instances where state companies have merged with big out-of-state industries who now want to capitalize on the provisions of Measure 37."

Big development may pose a threat to the viability of Oregon's resources.

"Water is a very limited resource and some of the claims involve land over important sources for groundwater," Mark Krautmann, owner of Heritage Seedlings, Inc. a local wholesale nursery said. "Measure 37 makes no allowance for that."

The impact of Measure 37 on farmland and Oregon's agricultural economy is a key concern for many who want to see the measure amended.

Hood River farmer Mike McCarthy sees Measure 37 as a threat to his livelihood. He argues that housing development and farming are incompatible.

"There are 10,000 to 11,000 acres involved in Measure 37 claims all around my farm. It will make it impossible for me to farm once I'm surrounded by subdivisions."

Krautmann said, "If we fragment the agricultural base so that it is less viable, where does that leave Oregon's economy? What about the jobs?"
As the legislature debates modifications to the measure, rally organizer Jim Gilbert is concerned that time is running out.

"They need to do something now. My goal is to give those people who are willing to take this on the support they need."

Governor Kulongoski shares his sense of urgency.
"Oregon is facing a crisis," Kulongoski said.

"[We] either allow these developments to proceed, with irreversible impacts on local communities, or pay compensation for speculative development, and the legislature should act sooner rather than later to uphold what the voters intended when they passed the measure."