David J. Hunnicutt is the president of Oregonians in Action, which calls itself “an association of property owners working together to protect property rights in Oregon.” In 2004, the organization was the chief proponent of Measure 37.

Very briefly, walk me through how Measure 7 came about, what happened with Measure 7, and then how Measure 37 came about?

Well, Oregon has centralized land-use planning, where decisions are made mainly by the state and then carried out by local government, without much flexibility for cities and counties in Oregon to make their own planning decisions. We’ve had that system in place since 1973, and the results have been predictable. Property owners who wanted to make use of their property, from something as simple as building a home on their land to something more complicated involving commercial or industrial development, have had a hard time doing that in Oregon, because of our statewide system. It’s the only one of its kind. The legislature had a number of opportunities and had been asked over the years — since 1973, when our system was created — to make those changes, but didn’t. So finally, in 2000, the voters in Oregon, with 53 percent [of the vote], approved ballot Measure 7, which was a constitutional amendment that provided that when government regulations changed after you bought the property in a way that limited or prohibited what you could do with the land and also lowered its value, under Measure 7 you were entitled to compensation for the value that had been taken from you. That measure was immediately challenged by a number of cities and environmental organizations and in November of 2002 was declared invalid by the Oregon Supreme Court on constitutional grounds — on the theory that Measure 7 made more than one change to the constitution. Voters in November of 2004 then responded and passed Measure 37 with 61 percent of the vote, [carrying] 35 out of the 36 Oregon counties. [It was] similar to Measure 7, but a statutory change instead a constitutional one.

Was the thrust of Measure 37 similar or identical to Measure 7?

It was similar to Measure 7, but we had the advantage of hindsight and history with Measure 7, where we had an opportunity to see what the reaction to the measure would be from those who were opposed to the measure, so we could take that into account in the drafting of Measure 37. The main difference between Measure 37 and Measure 7 is that, under Measure 7, the only remedy for the government was compensation. Under Measure 37, we provide that in lieu of compensation the governing body can modify or remove the regulation to give the property owner the right to use the land in the way that he or she could at the time that they bought it — [which is] what, frankly, 99 out of 100 property owners in that situation want anyway. They don’t want a check, they don’t want money, they simply want to be able to use the land in the way that they could when they purchased it.

Now you’re aware that there are four states now that have regulatory takings initiatives on the ballot, given some recent court decisions. And you’re probably aware that a gentleman named Howard Rich has been the primary funder of most or all of these initiatives this year. But apparently, he was not that involved in Measure 37. Is that correct?

That’s correct. It’s not a question of being not that involved. He was not involved at all in Measure 37.

Who were some of the primary backers of Measure 37, then, two years ago?

Our main funding source for the measure was grass-roots folks. We’re a longtime, well-established organization. We’ve been around since 1989 in Oregon. And because Oregon has a unique and controversial statewide planning system, property rights has been a real issue in Oregon for years now. Our funding for Measure 37 came predominantly from family-owned, Oregon-based companies. Folks in the timber industry were the main source of funding, but also the Jeld-Wen folks [a window and door manufacturer based in Klamath Falls], A-dec — a dental equipment business in [Newberg,] Oregon. Oregon businesses were concerned with the future of the state and the state’s land-use.

Let’s jump to the present. Clearly, if you talk to people on the other side of Measure 37, people who were opposed to it or are opposed to it, you hear a lot of horror stories. You hear about thousands of claims [and] many, many waivers — as you point out, no real money changing hands, but a lot of waivers being granted. And, although you don’t hear about a lot of activity on the ground, in terms of major development, again you hear some horror stories. I guess I would ask you to respond to some of those concerns that are being expressed.

Well, during the campaign for the measure, the opponents of Measure 37 had what I called “the parade of horribles” — they would say that, if the measure passed, the day after the measure took effect, you’d have a pig farm in the middle of a residential subdivision, a 7-Eleven in a quiet neighborhood, and a nuclear waste dump and a tire-burning plant and all of these other things. [They were], I guess, making the assumption that property owners were simply waiting to make the absolute worst, most destructive use of their property that they could and ignoring the fact that Measure 37 has a health and safety exemption, a nuisance exemption, and a number of other exemptions that would have prohibited exactly what it was that they were talking about. Since the measure passed, the number of claims has been less than 3,000 — or somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 claims, assuming that all of the claims are approved, and that’s a flawed assumption because the state is denying [some] claims. We’re looking at approximately 150,000 to 200,000 acres of land that would be impacted by the measure. That’s 150,000 to 200,000 acres of land in a state that has 61 million acres of land. So, when you put it into perspective, approximately 2 percent of Oregon is developed, the remaining 98 percent is undeveloped. As a result of Measure 37, we go from 2 percent to somewhere around 2.25 percent, so it’s really been a blip on the fabric of Oregon. It really hasn’t changed the landscape much at all. But for those property owners who bought a piece of property with the expectation that they were going to be able to do something with it and had those rights stripped away over the course of the years, either through one decision or multiple decisions, Measure 37 has been a godsend. We’ve seen nothing but positives come out of the measure, and folks have come to us and said, “This is the first time in over 30 years that I’ve gone down to the local planning office and they’ve actually been nice to me.” So the impact on the state has been small, but the impact on those with claims has been tremendous.

What kinds of development do you think we can expect over the next few years? Are we talking single-family homes, again assuming a number of these claims are granted, or are we talking more significant types of development?

What we’re seeing is well over 90 percent — and I would venture to guess it’s closer to 95 percent, or maybe even higher — of the claims have been in rural areas. The focus of our state’s planning system has been in rural areas. I like to say that we’ve managed to beat the tar out of the guy with 20 acres of underbrush in the middle of nowhere. So it’s no surprise that the vast majority of claims have arisen out of the rural areas and you can count on one hand the number of claims that don’t involve residential. What we’re talking about are large-acreage home-sites or the person who wants to build a home on their land, but can’t. In Oregon, we have a rule in our farm zones — which is almost all the rural areas of the state — that requires a property owner to make $80,000 in farm income for two years in a row or three out of the last five years, just to build on their land. So it’s no surprise that the majority of claims are from people who either want to build a home on their land or somebody who owns farmland that wants to create 10-acre homesites so that others can move out to the country and enjoy that kind of lifestyle.

Clearly you won handily in 2004, 61 percent to 39 percent. Why do you think the ad campaign was so successful? One of your associates sent us some of the TV ads, or maybe all of them from 2004, and we’ve seen them. Clearly they worked. What message do you think came across? Why do you think those ads were successful?

Well, I don’t think it was as much that the ads were successful as much as the fact that land use in Oregon has been extremely controversial and well-publicized. What surprised us in our polling was that the number of people who had or knew someone who had an experience with the land-use system reported that their experience was overwhelmingly negative. I think the lesson to be learned here is the flaw that occurs when you adopt a statewide, centralized planning system and take away the power of cities and counties to make planning decisions for their own communities. To me, it wasn’t as much the ad campaign for the measure — or the ad campaign against the measure — that led to the passage, it was just a recognition by Oregonians that our legislature hasn’t responded. We’ve got a 1973 planning system, based on a 1973 economic model, that’s had devastating impact on the individual, and we need to do something about it.