|
Replies to this message are sent to an unmonitored mailbox.
To contact me, please click here: Rep.BoomerWright@oregonlegislature.gov
1. Background on SB 762 & SB 80
In 2021, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 762, a comprehensive wildfire management bill aimed at addressing the increasing threat of wildfires across the state. The bill introduced various measures, including new regulations and programs intended to enhance wildfire preparedness and response. After implementation of the bill resulted in extreme public backlash, the Oregon Legislature adopted SB 80 in 2023 to try and remedy some of these concerns. While the intent of SB 762 was to improve safety, many rural Oregonians have raised concerns about the bill's impact on property rights and the effectiveness of certain provisions.
2. Benefits of Having a Statewide Wildfire Prevention Program
A well-designed and run wildfire prevention program is essential to safeguard our homes, businesses, and natural resources from the devastating effects of wildfires. If funded and correctly, such programs can provide much-needed funding for firefighting equipment, personnel, and training, ensuring that our communities are better prepared to face wildfire threats.
Effective prevention efforts include practices like prescribed burns and forest thinning, which reduce fuel for fires and help maintain healthy ecosystems. Statewide programs can encourage cooperation between local communities, state agencies, and private landowners to develop tailored solutions that respect property rights while enhancing safety.
These ideas were the intention behind SB 762 and SB 80. Unfortunately, poor drafting and weaponization of some of the concepts have led to disaster.
3. CONS of SB 762’s Wildfire Map
Inaccurate and Overreaching Mapping: SB 762 outlined very specifically how Oregon State University and ODF must model fire risk and design the map. Because of the language of the bill and technical difficulties, both versions of the map have been fraught with errors and inaccuracies, misclassifying properties and causing undue harm.
The maps also raise due process concerns. Properties have been labeled as “high-wildfire hazard” based on five specific factors and computer modeling. They are designated without proper sites assessments or transparency in the methodology used. The public also has limited access to the data used. Above all, there is NO consideration for any actions property owners take to safeguard their properties or on the ground conditions.
Weaponization of the Wildfire Map: Many organizations and stakeholders were opposed to the adoption of the Wildfire Map because of fears that it could be weaponized to prevent people from living and working in rural areas. These fears were well founded then, as some organizations were putting forth policy papers that encouraged the legislature to prevent new or replacement homes or structures in the WUI. Unfortunately, that fear has been realized this session with SB 79, which proposes to eliminate new or replacement dwellings on properties that are high hazard and in the WUI.
Insurance: At the time the maps were rolled out, many residents experienced increased insurance premiums or policy cancellations, directly impacting their financial stability. Legislators should understand, however, that the State Wildfire Hazard Map is NOT responsible for these increases. Insurance companies have their own maps and modeling. It is also illegal for them to consider the state map. Despite these assurances, the public still believes SB 762 was responsible for their insurance issues.
Reduced Property Values: Having properties labeled as “high wildfire hazard” on a publicly available map put out by the state inherently reduces property values. Property owners have reported significant decreases in their property values because of their hazard designation. Additionally, the map, coupled with new regulations and insurance issued, made it significantly more difficult to sell homes and properties in Southern and Central Oregon.
Regulatory Burdens: Under SB 762 and SB 80, properties designated at High Hazard and in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) must comply with new defensible space requirements for existing structures and home hardening requirements for remodeled or new structures.
While Defensible Space and Home Hardening are good public health and safety regulations that are proven to keep people safe, some members of the public have expressed significant concerns about their ability to afford and comply with these regulations, and fear they risk losing their properties if they can’t comply.
For any property owner, the risk of losing their property is always a concern. Regulations, nuisance violations and civil penalties can threaten the right to own your own property. This issue is exacerbated for those who are at a heightened risk of foreclosure, such as seniors, disabled veterans, single-parents, widows, low-income households, and those who shoulder the weight of home and property ownership differently than others.
OregonWatchdog.com
The 2025 Legislature just started, and many of the bills deal with finding ways to bypass voters or eliminate voter approval of taxes.
• SB 687 — Bypass voters over gas tax: SB 687 would strike down a rule requiring voter approval of local gas taxes. Right now, politicians want to pass a 35-cent gas tax, but face stiff voter resistance. With SB 687, politicians could have dozens of local governments pass their own gas taxes or gas tax increases to back-fill ODOT projects. ODOT has also laid out a plan to increase auto registration/title fees as a backdoor way to raise new taxes.
• Bypassing voters on people’s Income Tax Kicker Refund: Oregon State Senator Jeff Golden posted an editorial in the Oregonian stating that lawmakers could vote on their-own to steal the Kicker Refund by using an emergency-style 66% threshold vote of lawmakers. Senator Golden says “We can do this in Salem with a two-thirds vote – 40 of 60 representatives, 20 of 30 senators. No easy feat, because some legislators say they don’t want to touch the kicker for any reason.” This would allow lawmakers to effectively subvert the Constitution without voter approval or voter say.
• Kicker bypass #2: Another way lawmakers this Legislative Session are looking to bypass the kicker is by adjusting how economic forecasts are performed. If the State Economist makes more risky, positive economic forecasts, then the over-collected revenue will be much smaller and, at times, there will be no Kicker refund to send back to taxpayers. This comes with extreme risks, because it means the state is basing their two year budget on an overly-optimistic forecast. If the forecast fails, then lawmakers over-spent and over-promised and then must start cutting backwards. The Oregonian ran an article on this called “Goodbye to record-breaking Kicker rebates?”
• Tolling may restart in 2026: Facing backlash, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek in 2023, pledged to pause tolling until 2026. We are one year away, and there has been almost no public involvement on the tolling plan. This means Kotek wishes to enact tolling on her own, without a vote of the people.
• HJR 6 raises a statewide property tax: HJR 6 would amend the Constitution by creating a statewide property tax. HJR 6 is indeed a referral to voters, but the trick is after the tax is enacted in the Constitution. Read the bill and you will notice very little detail to the measure. The details of the measure will be put into another bill which could pass with a simple 51% majority. This means, once the statewide tax is approved, politicians could easily adjust the tax later or add to the tax. HJR 6 is a property tax Trojan horse.
This trend to bypass voters is alarming.
| 
