Ballot Measure 37 adds a new statute to ORS chapter 197. As specified in the measure, the owner of private real property is entitled to receive just compensation when a land use regulation is enacted after the owner or a family member became the owner of the property if the regulation restricts the use of the property and reduces its fair market value.

If a property owner proves that a land use regulation restricts the use of the owner’s property, and reduces its value then the government responsible for the regulation will have a choice: pay the owner of the property an amount equal to the reduction in value or modify, change or not apply the regulation to the owner’s property.

The measure allows the state, county, city or metropolitan service district to adopt procedures for processing claims for compensation, but prohibits those procedures from being treated as a prerequisite to the filing of a claim in circuit court.

The measure does not apply to commonly and historically recognized public nuisances, public health and safety regulations, regulations required to comply with federal law, and regulations restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing.

The measure specifies that compensation is due if the regulation remains in force 180 days after the owner makes written demand for compensation. After that time, the present owner may file an action in the circuit court in the county in which the property is located. The measure also specifies that the present owner is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expenses, costs and other disbursements reasonably incurred to collect compensation.

The measure provides no new revenue source for payments, if any, required under this measure.

The measure defines several terms that are used in the statute including "family member" which is defined as wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent, or grandchild of the owner of the property, an estate of any of the foregoing family members, or a legal entity owned by any one or combination of these family members or the owner of the property.

Chief Petitioners' Voter Pamphlet Statements
(Chief Petitioners, Oregonians In Action)

As chief petitioners of Ballot Measure 37, it is necessary to correct the false statements made by groups who oppose common sense reform to Oregon land use system. In addition, this statement is provided in order to instruct and aid the Oregon courts, so to avoid the courts from misinterpreting our intent behind this measure, as the Oregon courts have a habit of doing.

Despite claims to the contrary, Ballot Measure 37 does not prohibit the state of Oregon and/or local governments from adopting laws that regulate public health and safety. In fact, Ballot Measure 37 specifically excludes statutes and regulations like fire codes, building codes, health codes, sanitation codes, solid wastes or hazardous waste regulations and/or codes, pollution control regulations, traffic safety regulations, from being subject to Ballot Measure 37's protections.

It is not our intention that Ballot Measure 37 be interpreted in such a way as to allow statutes, regulations, goals, ordinances or whatever other means of regulation currently defined in statute, regulation, case law etc. as a land use regulation to be bootstrapped into the definition of building codes, public health and safety codes, sanitation codes, or public welfare codes, by the courts.

In other words, there currently exists a body of law in Oregon which defines what constitutes regulation of land use. It is those regulations that are subject to the provisions of Ballot Measure 37. The state government and/or local governments should not be allowed to rename a land use regulation simply to avoid the protections of Ballot Measure 37.

In sum, it is likely that opponents of Ballot Measure 37 will continue to distort the intent and effect of the measure long after the measure is voted on. Hopefully we the chief petitioners have provided a clarity as to the intent of Section (3)(B) of Ballot Measure 37.

Thank you for taking the time to read our comments. Please join us in supporting Ballot Measure 37.

Statement #2

We are the chief petitioners of Ballot Measure 37. This statement is provided in order to instruct and aid the Oregon courts in determining the legislative intent behind Ballot Measure 37, and avoid a situation where the Oregon Courts misinterpret the intent of this law, as Oregon courts are known to do.

Several special interest groups are trying to confuse the voters about Ballot Measure 37. These groups are trying to make Ballot Measure 37 seem much more complicated than it really is.

For instance, opponents of Ballot Measure 37 are distorting the compensation protections of Ballot Measure 37. Through the normal condemnation process, the state government and local governments have an efficient statutory procedure already used to determine just compensation. The process is quick, clean, and extremely efficient and will be the basis for determining just compensation under Ballot Measure 37.

Next, opponents of Ballot Measure 37 try to confuse the issue of just compensation by claiming it will be impossible to determine what regulations will trigger a property owner’s rights under Ballot Measure 37. Again, any land use regulation (as that term is currently defined in Oregon law) enacted after a property owner acquired the property that has the effect of reducing the fair market value of your home will trigger Ballot Measure 37's protections. If, for instance, there are three regulations which reduce a property’s value, a property owner can demand use or compensation based upon the effect of any of the three regulations, or based upon the effect of all three regulation, or any combination thereof.

What’s more, subject to the statute of limitations in section (5), if a property owner submits demand for use or compensation based upon one regulation, the same property owner is not precluded from later demanding use or compensation based upon regulations that existed at the time the property owner submitted her first demand.

Please join us in voting Yes on Ballot Measure 37.

Statement #3

We are the chief petitioners for Ballot Measure 37. This statement is provided in order to instruct and aid the Oregon courts in determining the legislative intent behind Ballot Measure 37, and avoid misinterpretation of the intent of this law, as Oregon courts are known to do.

Voters are told that Ballot Measure 37 creates a large bureaucracy and red tape for property owners. Such claims are false. Ballot Measure 37 does not require any governmental unit to adopt any procedures for addressing Ballot Measure 37 claims. No applicant is required to follow a process conjured up by government. The measure makes this clear. All a property owner has to do is submit a letter or other communication demanding use or just compensation for his property – nothing more. There is no requirement that the state government or the local government adopt any new processes.

Second, voters are being told that the definition of "owner" is ambiguous. The term "owner" includes the current owners of the property. If the current owner sells an interest in her property, so long as the current owner still has a current possessory interest, or a reversionary interest in the property, the provisions of Ballot Measure 37 apply using the date the current owner acquired the property. Only if a current owner sells all of her interest in a piece of property does the date of acquisition change for purposes of determining what regulations are subject to Ballot Measure 37 protections.

Finally, opponents of Ballot Measure 37 are trying to scare voters into thinking the measure will prevent the state government and local governments from enacting nuisance abatement laws. This is incorrect. Nuisance abatement laws are exempt from Ballot Measure 37 protections, but again, a law that is currently considered a regulation of land use under Oregon law cannot be re-characterized as a nuisance abatement ordinance in order to avoid Ballot Measure 37.

Please vote Yes on Ballot Measure 37. 

TEXT OF MEASURE 37

(13) If any portion or portions of this act are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this act shall remain in full force and effect. 

RETURN TO PROPERTY RIGHTS TOP PAGE

RETURN TO CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE HOME PAGE