A new poll just released shows that Oregon voters now oppose Measure 37 by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. That’s a shocking reversal from just two years ago the measure won 61 percent support.
But the Measure 37 backlash is not terribly surprising given our understanding of the effects of the measure. In our recent report, Property Wrongs, Sightline tells the stories of Oregon residents who claim they were sold a bill of goods—that they didn’t fully understand what they were signing up for when they voted “yes.”
So there’s that. And now for the “inside baseball” stuff…
Being just a trifle interested in how to talk about the 2006 property rights ballot measures, I found a couple of interesting elements in the poll results:
- Respondents who say they “have heard a lot” about Measure 37 are much more likely to dislike the measure, for a number of reasons.
- After respondents weighed in on their current support for Measure 37, they were read a list of real life consequences of the law. The most objectionable result? The proposed mine and energy plant in a national monument.
Makes me think that education about the 2006 copycat ballot measures may be an effective antidote to them. And perhaps it’s wise to emphasize the disastrous consequences for our natural heritage.
Poll details here. It was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. And it was commissioned by Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund and the Isaak Walton League of America, both of which take a dim view of 37 and the copycat measures in 2006.
BTW, the Oregonian today had a little gem about an elderly couple with a M37 claim in Prineville. Their claim was to develop on some reserve land that was regalayted because the town wanted to preserve the amentity value of the view.In a nutshell, the couple said the heck with that and filed a claim on the reserve land. The city said the heck with that and decided to be the first city in OR to pay a claim rather than waive, as amenity values are important there. The couple said the heck with the money and the regalayshun and the neighbors, we want what’s best for us and we don’t want your money and we don’t care about your highfalutin’ views.This very thing is why these types of regulations are enacted in the first place. Fortunately, M37 gives jurisdictions the right to decide whether to pay or waive. Regards,