Maps Show Largest Measure 37 Claims has 12 new maps online showing the extent of Measure 37 claims that are larger than 100 acres:

One of the sneaky “genius” features of Measure 37 is that it was structured in a way that made it very difficult to track its true impact on the Oregon landscape. Claims could be filed in multiple jurisdictions, in different formats, with differing levels of detail.

Well, just in case there was any doubt of the terrible damage in store for Oregon’s farmland, forests, water resources and quality of life, here it is in living color. We have compiled the location of claims of 100 acres or more and plotted them across the Oregon map, so you can see where the damage will be done. And remember: these are just the claims of 100 acres or more. There are literally thousands of smaller ones across the state. These maps were prepared by the Measure 49 campaign and are derived from public records. All claims data was collected directly from the counties and state and geocoded for GIS mapping.

One of the reasons that Measure 49 is so important is that it distinguishes between these huge, disfiguring developments and those claims where people truly just want to put a few houses on their land for their kids or their retirement. Measure 49 will stop the big development claims where they simply don't belong, while protecting property rights, and property value, for everyone else.

Some of the maps include the areas around Portland, Salem, and Eugene, and many more are available. Purple dots represent claims of larger than 100 acres:


Read the rest. Discuss.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    What's the history of land use planning in Oregon? This objective slideshow is a perfect introduction. Please vote Yes on Measure 49.

  • (Show?)

    I just saw an ad on TV that featured one lie after another. it seems to be a companion piece to this mailer. Crazy stuff like:

    "If Measure 49 passes, we'll lose the value of our property. We want to see the tradition go on... we want to farm." “Measure 49 is about stopping us from passing our property rights on to our grandchildren.” “If Measure 49 goes through...we won’t have anything left at all. Measure 49 would just take it all away.” “If Measure 49 passes we will lose all our rights — not only our rights, but our children’s and grandchildren’s.” "We told our kids we would give our property to them...We'd like to keep our farm for future generations."


  • Joel H (unverified)

    Hmm, the "Measure 37 Watch" website doesn't permit comments and doesn't include contact information for the authors, so I'll post this here hoping someone has a connection.

    They claim here that SDS Lumber Company has claims on 3,000 acres in "Mount Hood County" which, as they ought to know, doesn't exist in Oregon. Maybe they meant Hood River County? Anyway, they should fix that embarrassing error.

  • Lee (unverified)

    I'm familiar with three of the 100 acre M37 claims near Scappoose. The big purple dots do not fairly represent what the landowners planned for their properties. One parcel close to 1000 acres is an active managed forest with moderate logging that only removes the stumpage produced by the perpetual forest each year. The claim was filed because the property is held in a family trust representing four generations (the property has been in the family for over 100 years), and fiduciary responsibilities to the trust required requesting 20 acre parcels while much smaller could have been requested. The property is surrounded by 2, 3, 5, 10 acre parcels with many hobby farms or less. Similar circumstances apply to the other two smaller parcels.

    I am also familiar with a 120 acre M37 claim near Roseburg shown as a large purple dot. The elderly couple are in their late 70s and want to divide their property into 25 plus acre parcels for their children to live on or for their inheritance while they continue to live there until their deaths. They were legally advised to apply for smaller parcels.

    This post needs to examine the details of claims. Purple dots do not tell the real truth. My knowledge concerning M37 claims is that many claims will not be filed at planning agencies as that requested at the county or state jurisdictions. Plus, as this post fails to do, there are numerous soil, slope, transportation, water, waste, environmental, etc. conditions that are still in place under M37 that further restricts the already small impact of M37 claims. Remember that the pastoral, forested Bethany area just added to the Portland tri-county area UGB has more acreage, and proposed density than even all the M37 claims combined in the tri-counties. And there are not urban services to that area. One has to ask why the M37 claims locally are any worse than Bethany, or Happy Valley, or Damascus, or Stafford, or....all sanctioned by the planners. Much of these lands are class 1 and 2 soils, and additionally have forest classifications, just like this post claims we are destroying by M37.

  • John (unverified)


    Regurgitating the latest Reinhard spin on Measure 49?

    Your "details" are erroneous and preposterous.

    Gee, let’s abandon planning and zoning. Let's just erase urban growth boundaries so that development can spread out across Oregon wherever someone has held land long enough to have a Measure 37 claim.

    Or tell us more about planned services for Bethany compared to the public facility costs that Oregon taxpayers will have to cough up for Measure 37's sprawl.

  • Joel H (unverified)

    Ah, that URL seems to be fixed.

  • dddave (unverified)

    The stop of "sprawl" in not in the Oregon Constitution. The scare of "sprawl" in no way rises to a level that should encroach on my private property rights.

    Does 49 preserve the right to farm? Does 49 require govt agencies to respond at all to any claims? Time limits? Is 49 more clear and understandable than measure 37? Does 49 redefine what an "owner" is? And why do we need that redefinition?

    I am not a big fan of skinhead and Nazi parades, but I do understand that to protect my right to free speech, I also have to protect THEIR right as well. The writers of 37 were correct in giving ALL landowners the same rights, whether they owned 1 or 1000 acres. Were they all land use Nazis intente on paving over the state? No, they just knew that fair is fair and you couldn't write the law in favor of one type of landowner. Measure 49 takes care of all that, as you will have very little to NO rights. With a stroke of the pen most of the property will be designated "prime" forest or farm land and no development will take place. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF 49, to restrict. In Oregon City and probably every other city around Portland, we have 5000 sq ft lots and 50 houses on 5 blocks and that provides what quality of life? But 50 houses on 50 acres and I am a land Nazi. Clackamas county is 1.25 million acres with 38,000 in Measure 37 claims. Your desire to not have a house on my property does support crushing all our property rights.

  • andy (unverified)

    I agree with dddave. M49 is basically just a power grab being marketed as a M37 "fix". The M37 claims aren't really that big of a deal if you take a look at all of the land in Oregon and compare it to the very small percentage that has viable M37 claims. M49 isn't a fix since nothing really needs to be fixed. It is just a power grab by the bureaucrats in Salem who won't be happy until they run everything.

  • (Show?)

    OK -- let's be clear. There are 7500 claims under Measure 37, for three-quarters of a MILLION acres. That's roughly equal to ALL the land inside ALL the 241 cities in Oregon (about 800,000 acres).

    Not a big deal? Maybe not to you, if you don't have a claim for a huge subdivision next to your farm that your family's been farming for 100 years. But it is a big deal.

    And Measure 37 is such a poorly-drafted mess that even its authors have admitted it needs a fix. Measure 49 is that fix. Measure 37 gave special rights to people who'd owned their land for longer than their neighbors -- not equal rights to develop for all.

    Perhaps the best written piece on Property Rights and Conservative values is the real estate developer and unabashed Republican Donovan Rypkema piece at the bottom of this web page.

  • jaybeat (unverified)

    ddave and andy:

    Despite my urge to rise above and retain a higher level of discourse...

    Bite Me!

    The writers of 37 were correct in giving ALL landowners the same rights...


    If I bought my identical property 1 day after my neighbor, they could have infinitely "greater" "rights" than I. This makes sense only in the most, dare I say "skinhead/Nazi" reality where, "I've got mine; you can go F**** yourself" world view.

    ...fair is fair and you couldn't write the law in favor of one type of landowner.

    That's exactly what M37 does; it makes a patchwork of people who have certain "rights" right next to those who don't. It is nonsensical, in that there is no rhyme or reason, in terms of public or private interest, why I can build a shopping mall on my land, but my neighbor can't. That shopping mall sure messes up MY "rights" to use MY property the way I want, but M37 tells me I'm out of luck. As are my neighbors. And the rest of Oregon. Unless we all sink down to the level where, if you can do it, do it, and the consequences for anyone else be damned. Nice world you guys have dreamed up... NOT!

    Your desire to not have a house on my property does support crushing all our property rights.

    But YOUR supposed "right" to build a subdivision, or shopping mall, or a lard-rendering plant, WOULD crush MY property rights, AND the rights of EVERYONE ELSE IN OREGON to live in a state where you can't ruin everyone else's life for your own profit.

    M49 isn't a fix since nothing really needs to be fixed. It is just a power grab by the bureaucrats in Salem who won't be happy until they run everything.

    Of course. It is always that great, flesh-eating ghoul--"bureaucrats"--give me a break!

    Those are OUR bureaucrats, enacting the will of We the People, as expressed through our elected representatives. Their job is to act in the PUBLIC interest. Not in the interest of your wallet. Don't like what they're doing? Fine. Work for candidates who agree with you. (Lord nows, there's plenty of them.) Donate to support them. (You'll have lots of company, what with all the timber companies and developers who consider it simply a good business investment to spend money to gut our land-use system.) In fact, I'd imagine you'd be quite happy with the actions "our" Federal government has been taking for quite some time now, since it has and looks to continue to be a government of the Corporations, by the Corporations and for the Corporations (and the hyper-rich who own and control them).

    But here in Oregon, the remaining 99.9% of us may not obey our corporate masters quite as much as you'd like.

    And Measure 49 (which gives people more rights than they had before, with our without M37) will pass.

    Thank goodness.

  • Screwtape (unverified)


    I don't know what the Measure 49 proponents fear. I mean after all, people moving to Oregon are attracted by our smart planning and quality of life.

    And since that must be the case, who's going to buy all those homes way out in the middle of nowhere? I mean, if all these worst case scenarios play out, wouldn't that mean a whole lot of houses that will sit vacant and ruin landowners and developers financially?

    Are there even enough people that would move to Oregon to fill all the homes that would purportedly be built under Measure 37 claims?

  • jaybeat (unverified)

    As the middle class shrinks, and the super rich get richer, 2nd and 3rd and nth homes, especially "out in the country" on acreage, become a bigger and bigger market. Just look at Bend. (Insert barf icon here.)

    If we let them, there are certainly plenty of developers who would be willing to make a tidy profit turning rural Oregon into some kind of ex-urban rich-person's playground, like some parts of Utah, California and especially Colorado.

    Plus, a lot of these land-owners have files M37 claims to preserve their "rights" for "someday"--since corporations never die (pity), 100 years from now these "rights" could come in handy.

    Like 7,500 IEDs buried across Oregon, waiting to blow us up at the flick of switch.

  • Screwtape (unverified)


    The last I read in the Bulletin, the market in Bend is quickly going south and prices are coming down. That means people aren't moving there fast enough to support development as it is, doesn't it? That there is likely a bubble over there.

    So people shouldn't recreate? Homes are IEDs?

    And 100 years from now, there's going to certainly need to be more homes, aren't there?

    And how exactly does limiting the ability to build homes help make them more affordable to the shrinking middle class? When did making something more scarce make it cheaper?

  • Beelzebub (unverified)

    I am a bit confused about all of the maps. My understanding is that the Measure 37 rights are not transferable, so none of this property can be successfully subdivided anyways. Does anyone know of a Measure 37 subdivision that has been done?

  • jaybeat (unverified)

    So people shouldn't recreate? Homes are IEDs?

    Don't be ridiculous. Land use policy set by our government (supposed to represent the interests of all the people, not just the rich) should not enable the kinds of developments which destroy farm and forest land, lead to more driving, etc. Not to mention that developments that are only lived in part-time do nothing to help us find places to live for the new people who are moving here to really live here.

    The homes that developers want to build on M37 claims are, by and large, NOT for the shrinking middle class. We will need more housing, but not the kind that M37 encourages; quite the opposite. M49 would not make middle-class housing more scarce or more expensive; it would help blunt the kind of McMansion developments that have nothing to do with the housing needs of present or future generations.

    Plans for developments, which would radically change our state, ARE bombs which could go off at any time. A property owner's statement that they don't "really" intend to develop to the extent stated in their M37 claim is meaningless--once they secure that "right," they could do so at any time, making it impossible for communities to plan for the future.

  • Screwtape (unverified)


    Ridiculous? I'm not the one that equated a deadly weapon that indiscriminately kills soldiers and civilians in Iraq to a claim to improve private property.

    Laws for "all the people"? Last time I checked, land owners are included under the "all the people" umbrella. I think what you personally mean is "all the people that agree with me."

    Doesn't development in general change the nature of farm and forest land? And since when, anywhere, under Oregon Revised Statute or Administrative Rules is it codified that "more driving" is to be curbed or controlled like recreational drugs? What are you talking about?

    And here's another question: if there's demand for outlying McMansions as you call them, and they're not allowed to be built in the outlying areas, what do those people do instead? Might they buy the land and homes in urban growth boundries with their greater wealth that might have been bought or developed by/for people of less wealth? That sure seems like an impact upon the ability of the middle class to find and afford homes in cities to me.

    Again, it seems a bit laughable to continue calling a private development a "bomb." But you're entitled - unlike private property owners under Measure 49 it seems. All it takes is the requirement by jurisdictions that extra-urban residential development fully fund their own infrastructure for essential utility provision. As in, you don't pay for the pipes/roads/drainage, you don't get service.

    Seems like a decent way to go to me.

  • jaybeat (unverified)


    (I had refrained addressing you by name since it seemed so, er, derogatory, but, heck, what's in a name?)

    My analogy between M37 claims and IEDs is simply a way to describe something that you can't see, until all of a sudden it creates chaos and destruction. That's what an IED is. That's what a M37 claim is.

    As far as our laws are concerned, you get to vote, I get to vote. You get to write to your elected representatives. I get to write to mine. The people "who agree with me" don't get all the laws they want. Neither do you. It doesn't mean land owners aren't represented or aren't included under "all the people," but they can't do things that will hurt lots of other people, either. Civics 101.

    Developments that encourage/require more driving create more pollution, speed up climate change, use more limited fuels, create more traffic, etc., etc., etc. They are bad, and I believe our government should do everything possible to discourage them, and to encourage, promote and facilitate development (to the extent that it is needed) that is compact; transit, bike and walking friendly, and that generally has as few negative environmental impacts as possible. Since Blue Oregon is "is a place for progressive Oregonians," if you don't believe or agree with ANY of that, I suggest you go elsewhere.

    You're right that, urban or rural, the rich have a nasty way of screwing up the housing market (and most everything else) for the rest of us. That's what government is for, and in my view, we should be much more aggressive about affordable housing. (Such as, no building permits for new houses affordable only by those with incomes above the regional median unless there are an equal number of houses being built for those below.) I certainly don't think that throwing up our hands and letting anyone, anywhere, develop anything they want will make anything that anyone needs more affordable. Quite the opposite.

    Finally, private property owners can call private development (or anything else) anything they want. But development is not speech.

    I believe that all development should pay its own way 100%. Guess what. It is against the law in Oregon for a jurisdiction to require that. And who supported the law, got it passed, and regularly funds the campaigns of legislators (or their opponents) to make sure that it remains illegal? Yup. Developers. The same types who supported M37 and oppose M49. So, if you want to change that, look in the mirror.

    Plus, a new ex-urban subdivision in the Willamette Valley would likely lengthen the commute of everyone between there and Portland. Are the property owners going to pay every affected commuter for their lost time, extra fuel, the health impacts of extra pollution? If we really made development pay for its true costs, the only development that could be done profitably would be sustainable. (Gee, come to think of it, that's not a bad idea...)

    Regardless, neither M37 nor M49 would require property owners to fund necessary infrastructure. So, if you want willy-nilly development that wrecks our state, vote yes on 49. Better yet, just move to Southern California, or any place else that allows that kind development, and leave this state to those who don't want it to end up like those places.

  • pirrip (unverified)

    From reading the above exchange, it appears that jaybeat's heart is in the right place (albeit in need of a less long-winded argument), while screwtape talks like a realtor/timber company shill. I'd submit that a less complicated principle would suffice as a reason for supporting Measure 49. i.e.: Measure 37 attempted to legitimize the notion that property rights exist independently and above the common good, a notion that is neither historically accurate nor morally justifiable. Measure 49 debunks that notion.

  • jaybeat (unverified)

    Me? Longwinded? Naaaaa... ;-)

    Thanks for the $0.02, pirrip!

in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon