Oregon Regulation of Development, Ballot Measure 49 (2007)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Property
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Oregon Ballot Measure 49 was on the November 6, 2007 statewide general election ballot in Oregon as a legislatively-referred state statute. It was approved.

Measure 49 legislation by the Oregon state legislature as HB 3540 in response to its concerns about the impact of Oregon Ballot Measure 37, a citizen initiative approved by Oregon voters in 2004. Measure 49 was approved by a 62.15% majority of Oregon voters.[1]


In 2011 the Citizens for Constitutional Fairness and individual landowners argued before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they were entitled to compensation even though Measure 37 was later replaced by Measure 49. Measure 49 superseded Measure 37 by removing a provision for monetary compensation. Instead Measure 49 allowed for landowners to build up to 10 homes on the eligible properties.[2]

Election results

Oregon Measure 49 (2007)
Approveda Yes 718,023 62.15%
Election results from Oregon Blue Book website, accessed December 13, 2013

Text of measure

Ballot title

The offiicial ballot title for Measure 49 was:

Modifies Measure 37; Clarifies Right To Build Homes; Limits Large Developments; Protects Farms, Forests, Groundwater.[3]

Full text

The full text of the HB 3540, which was enacted by Measure 49, is available here.

BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
This historical ballot measure article requires that the text of the measure be added to the page.



Measure 49 was placed on the ballot by the Oregon state legislature--saving supporters the considerable time and expense of qualifying it for the ballot through citizen initiative.


Donations to the "Yes on 49" campaign included $1.2 million from the Nature Conservancy in Oregon, $1.025 million from Eric Lemelson, over $90,000 from 1000 Friends of Oregon and $50,000 from Paul Brainerd.



The main source of organized opposition to Measure 49 was through Oregonians in Action, an Oregon group that supported property rights. List of donors to Oregonians in Action (dead link).

Other opponents listed on the "Stop 49" website included the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Oregon State Grange, Oregon Family Farm Association, Albany Chamber of Commerce, Beaverton Chamber of Commerce, Corvallis Chamber of Commerce, Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, Medford Chamber of Commerce, North Plains Chamber of Commerce, Salem Chamber of Commerce, Washington County Businessmen's Association, Oregon Sportsmen Association, Hood River Agriculture, Forestry and Landowner's Association, Jackson County Farm Bureau, Josephine County Farm Bureau, Jackson County Stockmen's Association, Grant County Stock Growers Association, and the Taxpayer Association of Oregon.

Individuals opposing Measure 49 included James L. Huffman, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law school; Former State Representative Roger Martin (Lake Oswego); State Senator Roger Beyer (Molalla); State Senator Larry George (Sherwood); State Senator Ted Ferrioli (John Day); State Representative Bill Garrard (Klamath Falls); State Representative Patti Smith (Hood River); State Representative Wayne Scott (Canby); and State Representative Brian Bowuist (Perrydale).[4]

Legal challenges

On August 6, 2007, three Oregon property owners filed suit in federal court, saying that the measure's ballot title, explanatory statement and fiscal impact statement are "factually inaccurate, unfair and underhanded."[5]

Measure 49 advocates lost a ballot title challenge on September 9th. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said that the ballot would continue to have the original title on November 6th.

Opponents of Measure 49 said Measure 49 guts the original law. They said the ballot title approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature was biased because it emphasizes the preservation of farm and forest land but soft-pedals new restrictions on development.[6]

NTU perspective

Measure 49 would weaken a property-rights initiative approved by voters in 2004, by restricting the circumstances under which property owners must be compensated when a state or locality changes land-use regulations for reasons other than public safety or health.

See also

External links

Suggest a link