What Is 2007 Oregon Ballot Measure 49

Content on WhatAnswers is provided "as is" for informational purposes. While we strive for accuracy, we make no guarantees. Content is AI-assisted and should not be used as professional advice.

Last updated: April 15, 2026

Quick Answer: 2007 Oregon Ballot Measure 49 reversed parts of Measure 37 (2004) by requiring landowners to pay for development rights instead of forcing governments to compensate them, aiming to balance property rights with land-use planning.

Key Facts

Measure 49 passed on November 6, 2007, with approximately 61% voter approval
It applied to claims filed under Measure 37 that had not yet been resolved
Replaced the 'compensation or release' requirement with a 'negotiated settlement' model
Reduced potential state and local government payouts from billions to hundreds of millions
Allowed landowners to develop up to 10 lots per claim under specific conditions

Overview

2007 Oregon Ballot Measure 49 was a state initiative designed to amend the controversial Measure 37, which had been passed in 2004. Measure 37 had required local governments to either compensate landowners or allow development if land-use regulations reduced property value. This created financial strain on local budgets and sparked widespread debate over property rights versus community planning.

Measure 49 sought to strike a balance by modifying the compensation mechanism while preserving some property rights. It passed on November 6, 2007, with about 61% of the vote, reflecting public concern over uncontrolled development and fiscal responsibility. The measure specifically targeted unresolved claims under Measure 37, offering a more sustainable approach to land-use disputes.

Measure 49 applied only to unresolved claims from Measure 37, preventing new claims after its passage.
Landowners could request development rights on up to 10 lots per claim, depending on parcel size and zoning.
The measure eliminated the automatic right to compensation, replacing it with a negotiated settlement process.
It aimed to reduce the estimated $2 billion liability cities and counties faced under Measure 37.
Measure 49 preserved some development rights but required adherence to environmental and infrastructure standards.

How It Works

Measure 49 introduced a structured process for resolving land-use disputes that arose under Measure 37, focusing on negotiation rather than forced compensation or development. It redefined how landowners could seek relief when regulations diminished their property value, emphasizing compromise over confrontation.

Term: Landowners could file a claim for up to 10 developable lots. The number depended on parcel size, location, and compliance with local planning rules.
Negotiation requirement: Governments were no longer forced to pay compensation; instead, they could offer cash settlements or limited development rights.
Lot limits: A maximum of three lots could be developed immediately, with additional lots subject to infrastructure and environmental review.
Eligibility: Only claims filed under Measure 37 before January 1, 2008, were eligible for resolution under Measure 49.
Environmental review: All proposed developments required compliance with state environmental laws, including wetland and habitat protections.
Timeframe: The law gave landowners and governments 18 months to negotiate; failure to agree allowed limited development rights by default.

Comparison at a Glance

Below is a comparison of Measure 37 and Measure 49 to clarify key differences in approach, cost, and land-use impact.

Feature	Measure 37 (2004)	Measure 49 (2007)
Compensation	Required government payment if regulations reduced value	Replaced with negotiation; no automatic payout
Development Rights	Full development allowed if no compensation	Limited to up to 10 lots per claim
Cost to Government	Potential liability: $2+ billion	Reduced to hundreds of millions
Claim Deadline	Claims accepted until 2007	Only pre-2008 claims eligible
Environmental Review	Minimal requirements	Mandatory for all proposed developments

The table shows how Measure 49 shifted from a rigid, compensation-based model to a more flexible, negotiation-driven system. This change reduced fiscal risk while still acknowledging legitimate property rights concerns. By capping development and requiring environmental review, it supported sustainable growth.

Why It Matters

Measure 49 represented a pivotal shift in Oregon’s approach to land-use policy, balancing individual rights with community planning needs. It prevented widespread sprawl and protected public funds while offering landowners a fair path to development.

Financial protection: Saved local governments from potentially bankrupting compensation demands under Measure 37.
Environmental safeguards: Required compliance with state and federal environmental laws for all new developments.
Urban planning: Prevented uncontrolled sprawl by limiting lot creation and requiring infrastructure review.
Legal clarity: Provided a clear, enforceable process for resolving land-use disputes.
Public support: Reflected broad voter approval for balanced, fiscally responsible land-use reform.
National precedent: Influenced similar debates in other states facing property rights versus planning conflicts.

By reining in the most extreme consequences of Measure 37, Measure 49 helped stabilize Oregon’s land-use system. It remains a key example of how direct democracy can correct policy overreach through thoughtful revision.