Kelli, sound very complicated! So does this law state that the county/state can regulate what the property can be used for but the property owner deserves just compensation for it's value for other uses. Also that aside form this right there is no procedure that exists to ensure or make that just payment? Really confusing! 

Hi Danny-

The measure itself IS very complicated. This post is just an update. You may want to take a look at Measure 37- Good or Bad for Oregon?  to become better acquainted with what Measure 37 does say. There are a few restrictions as to who qualifies for this waiver. Essentially, if a property owner has had "restrictions" put on their land since they purchased it and they are still the original owner of said land, they may qualify for a waiver that would allow them to use the land as if no zoning restrictions had been put into place.

Scenario- Said owner purchases property in 1970...10 acres, zoned R1 for 1 acre parcels. No use restrictions in place at time of purchase. In 1974, county rezones property to 10 acre minimums. Under Measure 37, original property owner could have filed for waiver to allow use for 1 acre parcels even though current zoning would not allow it. If county or state refused, property owner could file suit for compensation based on difference in value between the two.

All claims had to be filed by December of last year. 

To answer your questions-

1.) Essentially, with certain criteria such as ownership for said period of time.

2.) I think that the ensuring of payment on claims is one of the "gray" areas surrounding M37.

Trust me when I say it is very confusing for all of us as well. Thanks for your question and comment: )

Hi Kelli, I did not vote for Measure 37. I liked the principle of the idea, but implementation is another thing. Oregon Land Use Laws are a major reason Oregon has become as livable as it is. To change these laws for a select few is not wise. One of the biggest problems is that local governments are threatening that the "Waiver" may not be transferable to a new owner. Much is left that needs to be cleared up. I hope our Legislature is up to it!

Hi Wayne-

Good points! I agree that M37 needs some state level intervention to get all the grey areas crystal clear. M37 does have its merits but it has been very confusing for most of us from the start. The waivers are turning a lot of land owners into would-be developers and that certainly may be an issue.

Thanks for your comments : )