Oregonians in Action

01/11/2022

We've moved our FB page to Oregon Property Owners Association - all the OIA news is now being posted on that page. Please go to our new FB page, check out our website (www.oregonpropertyowners.org) and our YouTube channel (Oregon Property Owners Association). We'll be posting there exclusively from now on. We're still the same organization - we just have a new name!

oregon property owners association Slide OneOREGON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONSlide Twotalking Oregon Property Owners Association is a non-partisan, non-profit organization representing Oregon home and property owners. As Oregon’s largest property owners association, our mission is to protect the ...

12/07/2021

Want to know a main reason why it's so hard for people to buy a home in Oregon? This pie chart says it all:

Despite significant population growth for the last three decades, our state agencies have managed to make 98% of Oregon property off-limits to development. We are trying to cram nearly all of our population on 1% of our land base, and that 1% is not expanding to meet our population demands. Consequently, the cost to buy the small amount of land that can be developed is so high (nearly $800,000/acre in many parts of the Metro area) that it is impossible for a builder to build a home that is affordable to a working class family.

Oregon was great when working families could afford to own their own home, as opposed to renting. That's the American dream. Unfortunately, those in charge of our state don't believe in that dream. It's time for a change.

11/10/2021

We have good news related to last week's post on DLCD and their proposed rule to make farmers tear down their homes if they don't make $80,000 in farm income every year.

Yesterday, DLCD (the state's land use planning agency) issued a memorandum clarifying that their proposal will not 1) add new requirements for farmers and their dwellings, including new income requirements, 2) will not apply to existing farmhomes, and 3) will not require elderly or disabled farmers who can no longer run the farm to demolish or move from their homes.

Your phone calls/emails were effective - the agency heard you loud and clear!

We still have concerns with the new proposal and how it will impact housing for farmworkers and the farmer's children who need to live on the farm to help their parents operate it, and we'll fight to make sure that any new proposal creates no new hurdles for farmers needing to build homes for their help. But DLCD is now on record that they won't try to force farmers to tear down their homes or move if they don't make enough money or can no longer manage the day-to-day farm operation. In 49 other states (even California), that'd be a no-brainer. Here, we have to breathe a sigh of relief and be grateful that it hasn't gotten that bad - yet.
Thanks for all your help getting the message out!

11/04/2021

Please like our new page. The new name better reflects who we are, our mission, and who we represent.

While our name has changed, the people and structure at OIA is the same. So if you like what we're doing, we'll still be here - just with a different name.

https://www.facebook.com/OregonPropertyOwnersAssociation

Oregon Property Owners Association is a non-partisan, non-profit organization representing Oregon home and property owners.

11/03/2021

UPDATE: Thanks for all your replies, but PLEASE understand that 1) this is a DLCD Staff request to LCDC, their commission - LCDC may decide not to adopt this proposal - that would be great, and 2) If LCDC adopts this proposal, IT WILL ONLY APPLY TO APPLICATIONS FOR NEW FARM DWELLINGS, NOT EXISTING DWELLINGS. So if you're house has already been built, this will not apply to you. But if you build a new house or replace your existing house after the rule takes effect, then the new rules would apply. So don't panic yet! We'll keep you updated!

Farmers beware! The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon's state land use planning agency, is considering a proposal that would require farmers to remove their homes if they cannot meet the income levels needed to put the home on the property in the first place.

Oregon is the only state in the US to require farmers to meet income thresholds before building a farmhouse on the property. In Oregon, a farmer must make $80,000 in farm sales for two years in a row before being allowed to build a farm house on the farm.

Under this new proposal, DLCD would be able to demand that a farmer demolish a home if the farmer no longer meets the income levels that were met to get approval to build the home. In other words, if a farmer has a down year and does not make $80,000 in farm income, DLCD wants to be able to demand that the farmer tear down the house! Needless to say, this is nuts!

The new proposal is in the early stages and has not been drafted, but will be discussed by LCDC at their upcoming meeting on November 18-19. Let's hope they rethink this idea before it ever gets off the ground.

09/22/2021

If you own forest zoned property, you probably received a letter from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) late last week informing you that a recent change to Oregon law might affect your ability to use your property. That law is House Bill 2225, and it was passed in 2019. To date, however, it has only effective in four counties (Lane, Polk, Jackson, and Clackamas). The law takes effect in a number of other counties on November 1, 2021. If you want to build a house on your forest zoned property, now or in the future, you need to pay attention to this bill, as it may stop you from building on your land.
We've been getting quite a few phone calls the last couple of days about the bill. If you have any questions about how the bill works, give us a call and we'll answer your questions. Do it quick, however. You can still turn in an application and avoid the October 31 deadline.

05/19/2021

FEMA is working hard to get temporary housing built for victims of the Labor Day wildfires who are still homeless. Do you know what's making FEMA's job really difficult? If you guessed Oregon's land use laws, you're right. We're hearing that FEMA has never had a more challenging time trying to site emergency housing than they're having now, and our land use laws are the prime reason for difficulty. It's another example of why no other state has adopted our land use system.

05/05/2021

More good news for wildfire victims AND businesses that had to shut down due to COVID-19 orders - yesterday, the Oregon House passed SB 405A on a unanimous vote.

The bill protects property owners with non-conforming uses on their property. A non-conforming use (NCU) is a use that was legal when it was started, but would no longer be allowed because of changes to state or local land use laws.

Under the current law, a property owner with a NCU on their property must operate the use continuously, and if the use is destroyed by wildfire or other natural catastrophe, it must be rebuilt within one year of the date it was destroyed. Those two requirements created problems for many Oregon property owners with NCU's.

The first sign of trouble resulted from the COVID-19 orders that temporarily halted many Oregon businesses. Some owners with NCU's were forced by the COVID-19 orders to shut down their events. For events that may have occurred only once or twice a year, it was likely that the use would stop for more than a year, meaning it would be considered abandoned under state law and lost forever.

It's not fair to a property owner to punish them for complying with the COVID-19 shut down orders, and the legislature agreed. In fact, we first started working on this bill last June, before the Labor Day wildfires, and the bill only addressed NCU's that were halted by the COVID-19 orders.

The Labor Day wildfires created another problem for owners with NCU's. Given the scope of the devastation, it is unrealistic to expect most people who lost their home or business to the Labor Day wildfires to begin the rebuilding process by the end of the summer, so the legislature extended that deadline to September 30, 2025. The additional four years should be enough for everyone who wants to rebuild to start the process.

Now that the bill has passed both the Senate and House chambers, it is on its way to the Governor's desk for signature. The bill has an emergency clause, meaning it will take effect immediately upon signature by the Governor. If you have a NCU that was impacted by the COVID-19 orders or the Labor Day wildfires, you have additional protection. Thanks to Senators Floyd Prozanski and Fred Girod for their work on this bill. It's another example of what happens when the legislature creates bipartisan legislation.

05/03/2021

Good news for Oregonians who lost their homes and businesses during the Labor Day wildfires - tomorrow, the Oregon House will vote on House Bill 2289, a bill that we've worked on since shortly after last fall's fires.

The bill creates a clear and simple path for property owners to get the approvals they need to rebuild their homes and businesses. No red tape, no hearings, no appeals by NIMBY's, and very little cost to the property owner. It is a HUGE win for property owners, and is being done in a bipartisan manner, something that's pretty rare in these parts on important issues.

We're very proud of our work on this bill. From the first call immediately after Labor Day with Rep. Brian Clem to our appearance in the Interim House Ag and Land Use Committee in late September, urging them to start working immediately on this issue, to the many hours of work drafting and redrafting the language to make sure it was done correctly, this is a great bill, and passage looks very promising.

A big thanks to Rep. Clem for his constant work and effort to steer this bill in the right direction, and to Representatives Jami Cate, Paul Evans, and Jack Zika for their co-sponsorship of the bill. Imagine that - two Democrats and two Republicans working together on a bill to help Oregon property owners. What a novel idea!

If the House approves the bill tomorrow, it will move on to the Oregon Senate for review and approval. We're optimistic that the bill will pass and be signed by the Governor. This is great news!

01/21/2021

We have been getting calls and email asking about House Bill 2238, a new bill introduced in the 2021 Oregon Legislative Session. There's a link to the bill at the bottom of this post.
For such a short bill, it has generated a ton of controversy. We think the bill does two things:
1. Eliminates a property owner's right to receive compensation when the government temporarily (not permanently) takes your property (real or personal property) during a government declared emergency, unless you have a right to compensation under the Takings Clause of the Oregon or United States Constitutions; and
2. Clarifies that the Governor has the authority to take private property (real or personal property) during an emergency if needed as a result of the emergency. We use the word "clarifies" here because we believe that Oregon law already gives the Governor that power, and this bill simply makes it clear that the Governor has that authority.
Based on comments we've received and have read, it's also important to set out what we believe the bill DOES NOT do. The bill DOES NOT:
1. Apply to any government action that takes property except in the case of an emergency declaration by the Governor. In other words, the bill is limited to emergencies only.
2. Allow the Governor to take property without compensation if compensation is required by the Takings Clause of the United States or Oregon Constitutions. The interpretation of the Takings Clause when private property is taken as a result of an emergency is complicated and extremely fact-specific (meaning each situation is unique), but the government can be required to pay compensation under the Takings Clause in some instances even if the property is only taken for a short time and then returned. For an interesting overview of the government's authority to confiscate property during an emergency, with citations to multiple decisions of the US Supreme Court, take a look at Orr v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 140, a 2019 decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
3. Allow the Governor to ignore any of her other constitutional obligations related to temporary or permanent confiscation of private property. For example, an order requiring the confiscation of fi****ms that violates the owners 2nd Amendment rights will result in the invalidation of the emergency order, notwithstanding this bill. This isn't controversial - the Oregon legislature cannot override the US Constitution, and can only refer amendments to the Oregon Constitution to the voters for approval or rejection.
In short, a lot of the comments we've been receiving about HB 2238 are overblown and based on a misunderstanding of the bill and constitutional principles. If HB 2238 passes, it won't be as devastating as some people are making it out to be. Nevertheless, HB 2238 is a bad bill that we will work to defeat.
The primary reason HB 2238 is a bad bill is because it impliedly overturns ORS 401.192(3), which requires the state to compensate a property owner any time the Governor seizes private property, or restrains its use as a result of a state declared emergency. The compensation provisions were enacted by the Oregon Legislature in 1983, and have remained unchanged to this day. If HB 2238 passes, property owners who have their land or personal property taken by the government, but who have not suffered a taking or been deprived of any right under the Oregon or United States Constitutions will not have a claim for compensation, even though the current law allows EVERY property owner to seek compensation when property is seized during an emergency.
To be clear, what the compensation provisions of ORS 401.192(3) require, and when they apply, is an open question. In fact, even though the law is nearly 40 years old, it has never been interpreted by the Oregon appellate courts. But the language of the law is clear, and it doesn't require the property owner to prove that the seizure of their property as a result of the emergency order also violates their constitutional rights. In other words, the existing statute seems to provide even greater protection for property owners than both Constitutions, and the Oregon legislature is free to remove those extra protections. That's what HB 2238 appears to do, and that's why we're opposed to it.
Here's a link to the bill:

11/27/2020

A big shout out to Yamhill County Commissioner Mary Starrett for her efforts to protect private property owners from trespass by the county tax assessor. When the Yamhill County Tax Assessor asked the County Commission to approve an order authorizing county tax officials to trespass onto private property to "look around," Commissioner Starrett contacted us. We told her that Oregon law does not authorize the tax assessor to trespass onto private property (including inside buildings) to see if there has been new development, and it would violate one of the most important elements of property ownership, the right to exclude others from the property. At the hearing on the proposed county order, Commissioner Starrett led the charge to defeat the order, and was able to convince a majority of the County Commission that the order was unfair and unnecessary. Yamhill County residents should feel good knowing that Commissioner Starrett is on their side.

11/03/2020

Oregon Property Owners Association is a non-partisan, non-profit organization representing Oregon home and property owners. As Oregon’s largest property owne...