Read the report and other stories:
Two Years of Measure 37: Oregon's Property Wrongs

As third- and fourth-generation Oregonians, Jim and Sandy LeTourneux love forests and wildlife. But don’t call them tree-huggers. They’re loggers.

The couple loves what some might see as a tough business: running a 460-acre timber farm in the forested Coast Range of rural Yamhill County.

In 1964, Jim’s father began planting trees; and in 1976, he passed the business down to Jim and Sandy. With their two sons grown and moved away, Jim is the entire labor force these days. He plants and fells the fir, alder, and maple and Sandy keeps the books. The two don’t take traditional vacations. Health insurance is on their dime. Retirement? Not an option, at least not anytime soon.

But after 30 years in the business, the couple still cherishes the independence of being their own bosses. And for the LeTourneuxs, that means helping to protect wildlife and fish-bearing streams on their property. They keep pockets of the forest wild for the bears, bobcats, wild turkey, elk, deer, raccoons, woodpeckers, salmon, and other creatures. And they make sure the steelhead stream running through their property isn’t damaged. That ethic helped their tree farm win state awards in 1993 and 1998 for conservation and wildlife stewardship.

“We value wildlife and wildlife habitat,” says Jim LeTourneux.

But their livelihood, along with their stewardship, could slip away with a Measure 37 claim bordering their property on three sides. The LeTourneux tree farm is nearly surrounded by some 850 acres of forest owned by a Measure 37 claimant. The owner, a developer named Bob Hemstreet, filed a claim for $35 million for loss of use, and if the county doesn’t pay, he may be able to subdivide the property and build as many as 848 homes on 1-acre home sites.

The LeTourneuxs’ number-one concern is the possibility of fire from the development. They believe that big housing developments and forestry are incompatible land uses—for good reason, that separation has long been enshrined in Oregon’s land use laws. Jim wonders how the county will extend fire protection to a housing development so far away from a populated area. It’s the unforeseen issues of mixing widely different land uses that frustrate him about Measure 37.

“I’ve put a lifetime of work into putting in a timber resource,” says Jim. “Sandy and I could lose everything from a fire.”

Jim LeTourneux believes that economic development in forests is essential to protecting them. That’s why he’s been involved in the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District for 15 years, and believes strongly in sustainable forestry. But he doesn’t believe that suburban-style housing is the right kind of development.

He didn’t vote for the measure, but now it’s right next door.

“Measure 37 here in Oregon is pretty much water under the bridge,” says Jim. “Some Measure 37 claims have been warranted and fair. Some have been so egregious that voters didn’t know what they were voting in.”

Read the report
Property Wrongs: Lessons from Oregon on "property rights"