About 200 Measure 37 claims
have been filed in Oregon since its establishment in December, according to the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services.
As part of an ongoing series exploring the many facets of the measure, The
Newberg Graphic asked: What are some of the most unusual filings and aspects of Measure
37?
The measure requires city, county and state governments to compensate land
owners for loss of value to properties or forgo enforcement of land use restrictions.
Most Measure 37 claims have been filed by property owners wishing to place a
house on their property, said Ross Day, director of legal affairs for Oregonians in Action
(OIA).
But a few might be characterized as unusual.
Notable among those cases are four claims filed in nearby St. Paul. The
Marion County Planning Division received four applications from Mark and Dean McKay,
owners of large tracts of land in rural Marion County near St. Paul. The McKays have asked
the planning division to waive restrictions on their property, zoned exclusive farm use,
so they can build a casino, hotel, gas station and golf course, as well as allowing them
to place billboards on the property.
They’ve also filed requests to subdivide sections of the property to
build homes and to remove wetland restrictions from the property.
The McKays argue that the value of the acreage, were the family allowed to
build the proposed businesses and homes, would top $300 million.
Repeated calls to the McKays went unanswered.
Day rattled off a few more unusual requests filed, such as the man in
Washington County who wants to use his property to build a park, and Maralynn Abrams, a
McMinnville resident who requested a waiver on more than 300 acres of farmland just
outside McMinnville so as to construct homes and businesses.
But Day said the wackiest issue stemming from the establishment of Measure 37
is not what people want to do with their land. Rather he characterized the
“unbelievable” filing fee of $12,500 requested by Multnomah County as
“intentionally obtuse.”
“They also say land division isn’t a land use issue,” he
stressed. “That is odd. (Multnomah County) is the only one taking that position. And
they have a provision allowing neighbors to sue filers.”
But Multnomah County isn’t the only municipality that wants to make it
possible for neighbor to sue neighbor over Measure 37 claims.
An ordinance was put into place in Newberg in December that would allow
citizens of Newberg to sue their neighbors for reduction in property value, said Barton
Brierley, city building and planning director.
“If a property owner uses a piece of property and the abutting property
owners feel that use reduces the value of their property, they have a cause of
action,” he said.
The ordinance was a direct response to the passage of Measure 37, Brierley
noted, adding that so far no claims have been filed by neighbors of property owners who
have filed claims.
But Day said suing a neighbor for utilizing a Measure 37 claim is not
the answer. “What happens is if you end up suing me what I do is turn around and hold
the county liable,” he said. “So what (municipalities allowing neighbors to sue)
have actually done is exposed themselves to greater liability. The lawsuits will drive up
the cost of Measure 37 filings in counties unnecessarily.”
Day also said Attorney General Hardy Myers’ argument that Measure 37
waivers are not transferable — which means when a property is sold the waiver is not
part of the sale — is inappropriate.
“Theoretically I now have to tear down a house because after a sale I am
no longer allowed to have a house on property,” Day said. “The argument
that waivers are not transferable is the most intellectually defunct argument I’ve
heard. It’s a slap in the face of Oregonians. If the attorney general is serious
about this, it’s exactly the same kind of logic that lead to Measure 37 in first
place. It’s just dumb.”
Attempts to reach members of the Oregon Farm Bureau, 1000 Friends of Oregon
and Friends of Yamhill County for comment were unsuccessful.
Attorney general’s decision a blow to M-37
proponents
Measure 37 claimants themselves can act on waivers of land use restrictions,
but the waivers are good in-house only.
This is according to Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, who in a legal
opinion released Feb. 24 said a Measure 37 waiver cannot be passed on to a buyer.
“We believe the waiver is nontransferable,” said Kevin Neely, a
spokesman for Myers, according to The Eugene Register-Guard newspaper. “They would
have to do the development themselves.”
The implications of the opinion, which could face challenges, raised ire with
Measure 37 advocates.
“It’s beyond absurd,” said David Hunnicutt, executive director
of Oregonians in Action, in the Register-Guard story, “that the voters would vote for
a measure that doesn’t allow them to sell their property with the value conveyed
under Measure 37.” |
