Update on Measure 37 claims in Portland

The following is adapted from information sent by Chris Dearth, the City of Portland’s Measure 37 manager, to the members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Measure 37, on which I served. All the accurate objective information is credited to Chris; any mistakes and all the subjective comments are mine.

Portland has dedicated a considerable amount of staff time to work with claimants to try to resolve their perceived planning grievances through the regular planning process. Currently, 36 claimants have chosen to place their claims on “hold” while the City works with them. Eight have withdrawn their claims. The Bureau of Development Services deserves high praise for dedicating the services of over a dozen experienced planners toward this effort; citizens should note that both development permit fees and general fund (taxpayer) support of staff in the Bureau of Planning are funding this work.

Of the 19 claims which have been heard by the Portland City Council, 6 have been approved. Thirteen have been denied, often because the challenged regulations were found to be exempt because they protect public health and safety. Eight claims have been withdrawn.

The remaining claims (mostly claims against sign and billboard regulations) which are not on hold were scheduled to be heard last month (mid-May) until the Legislature passed House Bill 3546, providing an additional 360 days for consideration for those filed since November 1, 2006. All Measure 37 hearings before the Portland City Council have been cancelled, except for a couple of claims filed prior to last November.

As I write this post before my trip, the Legislature is still considering House Bill 3540, which would substantially reform M37 and might be referred to the voters this fall. It looks to me as if this bill would be good for the values and principles of land use planning in Oregon, and for basic fairness, if it passes in its current form. Most notably, the bill would only allow claims for a small number of residential units. All other claims, including those for signs/billboards, commercial, industrial, etc., would not be allowed. This would change Measure 37 rules to those many people thought they were voting for, i.e. retired people dividing land for homes for their children or estate, rather than major corporations building massive subdivisions in farm and forest land and expecting taxpayers to link urban services out to them.