Measure 39 (restricts condemnation for private parties): Yes, with an asterisk
This measure has two parts. One part is good, but not perfect, policy. The other part has a flaw which in my view does not justify voting against the measure, but which the legislature should mend in 2007.
The first part prohibits a public body (meaning a unit of state or local government) from condemning private property if the public body intends to sell or lease the property to some other private party. Condemnations for roads and utilities are exempt. Condemnations of dangerous or contaminated property are exempt. The public body is allowed to lease portions of the condemned area to retailers who will serve patrons of the public building. (For example, the measure would not prohibit Multnomah County from condemning land for a new courthouse and then renting part of the courthouse to an operator of a coffee shop.) This measure is a response to the 2005 decision of the United States supreme court in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court said that a city could constitutionally condemn private houses to hand them over to a private developer for an economic development project.
Most jurisdictions don't abuse their condemnation power. Unfortunately for them, the excesses of a few governments have poisoned the well, and this measure is the result. Governments should interfere in the real estate marketplace with caution, because mostly they don't do it very well. I support this part of the measure, which has no fiscal impact on the government.
The second part of the measure changes one rule of condemnation. Under current law, the public body that wants to condemn your property must make you an offer before filing suit. The government can continue to make offers during the case up to the point of trial. If the jury awards you more money than the government's best offer made at least 30 days before the trial starts, then the government pays your attorney's fees and costs. Most condemnation cases settle without trial.
The measure would change this to say that the government pays your attorney's fees and costs if you're awarded more money than the government's initial offer (made before the government files suit). The government's concern is that because property values tend to go up, most owners will want to go to trial because by the time of trial their property will be worth more, and they'll be awarded more than the government's initial offer, and they'll get their attorney's fees and appraisal costs paid by the state.
I think this concern is logical but overblown; however, the proponents have a point. Under current law, the government could offer (say) $10,000 for your property before suing, then propose paying $20,000 in the suit, then make you a settlement offer of $50,000, 31 days before trial. By that time you've already run up attorney's fees and appraisal costs to get ready for trial, and you're stuck deciding whether to take the $50,000 and pay your costs (which leaves you, net, with much less than your property was worth) or to go to trial and gamble on not being awarded more than $50,000. The government ought to be encouraged to make a fair offer at the start and not on the eve of trial. I think back on the delightful case of the government (TriMet) that offered $500 for a desirable corner property in downtown Portland, only to have a court award more than $300,000 to the property owner. It seems reasonable to me for the legislature to modify this to say that the property owner recovers costs only if he or she is awarded more than the initial offer plus interest at 9% per year, so that inflation by itself doesn't encourage people to take bad cases to trial, but the need for this small fix doesn't merit opposing the measure. I intend to vote yes on 39.