Measure 37 was not a referendum on Oregon’s
land-use laws (HCN, 11/22/04: In Oregon, a lesson learned the hard
way). The ballot measure was designed to make it impossible to have
those regulations in place. However, that is not the question that
was asked. The measure asked voters whether they would approve
compensation to private property owners for any loss in value due
to government action or regulation.
Generally, most people
believe that, as a matter of “fairness,” people should be
compensated if they lose some value to their property. I would not
want the state to condemn my house for a new highway, and not pay
me what it is worth. But if you asked most of these voters if they
would like to see all zoning eliminated, and gave them a few
examples of the consequences, such as the sprawl eating up the
lowlands around nearby Seattle, Wash., I know most voters would be
against such lack of restrictions.
Back in the early
1990s, voters in Oregon passed Measure 5, which reduced property
taxes. Who wouldn’t say, “Yes, I want to pay less property
taxes”? However, that measure has led to a huge decline in many
public services. If Measure 5 had said, “Would you be willing to
live with less government services, crowded schools, closed state
parks, etc. etc. etc., in exchange for a slight reduction in
property taxes,” I don’t think it would have passed.
These measures were Trojan Horses, designed to hide their real
intent.
George Wuerthner
Eugene,
Oregon
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Oregonians didn’t know what they were voting for.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
