In the months since Measure 49 passed in Oregon, many legal cases popped up. In today's Oregonian, we get a fun little summary of the land-use litigation action. People are watching carefully, especially those with a vested interest in the decisions. As the legal process goes, Measure 49 is often being applied retroactively, so that decisions made under old Measure 37 laws are rubbed out. From today's article:

Ralph Bloemers, a staff attorney with Crag Law Center in Portland, said the Land Use Board of Appeals' decision and others are making it clear that the limited development rights available under Measure 49 are now the rule in Oregon.

"All the big arguments that are being made to try and do an end-around on Measure 49 have been and are being rejected," Bloemers said. "The courts and LUBA are encouraging claimants to proceed under 49; they're saying that's where their rights are."

Although one lawyer in the piece claims that the way forward is "murky" due to the myriad legal challenges, I beg to differ. The official language of the ballot measure was quite clear:

Official November, 2007 Ballot Measure Language

MODIFIES MEASURE 37; CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD HOMES; LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS; PROTECTS FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER.

RESULT OF ‘YES’ VOTE: ‘Yes’ vote modifies Measure 37; clarifies private landowners’ rights to build homes; extends rights to surviving spouses; limits large developments; protects farmlands, forestlands, groundwater supplies.

RESULT OF ‘NO’ VOTE: ‘No’ vote leaves Measure 37 unchanged; allows claims to develop large subdivisions, commercial, industrial projects on lands now reserved for residential, farm and forest uses.

While opponents of retroactively enforcing Measure 49 will cry foul, claiming their pending, past, and ongoing land-use claims trump the new law, or claiming you cannot "move the goal posts" in mid-game, the Oregon voters sent an overwhelming message in November: they won't leave Measure 37 unchanged, for the future of our state.

And, lo and behold, ongoing jurisprudence is bearing that opinion out and render any "murky" talk moot. For example:

The state Land Use Board of Appeals in late January overturned Jefferson County's approval of a 60-lot subdivision, in part because the original property owner died, and the development right he won under Measure 37, the 2004 property rights initiative that Measure 49 amended, couldn't be transferred to his son.

That followed a decision by a Multnomah County judge who reversed a $750,000 damage award he'd previously granted a Northwest Portland couple. The judge ruled that Measure 49, which rolled back the development rights allowed under the earlier Measure 37, could be applied retroactively and made the couple's case moot.

Land-use planning is one of the most important things we can do. Ensuring the future of our cherished rural spaces while maintaining space for urban growth is critical, and I'm heartened that Oregonians stood firm in November against those who were all-too-ready to chop up the state into myriad subdivisions willy-nilly.

I hope that we can use Measure 49 as a guide going forward, attempting to balance development with preservation. Oregon's going to be growing in the next few decades; it's up to us to ensure that growth is smart.

Tonight, I'm off to a meeting of the Metro government's Committee for Citizen Involvement to talk about just that. I'll be writing more about my new involvement in the coming weeks, so stay tuned!