Surgeon General’s Warning: This measure could help uninsured kids.

But the debate over Measures 49 and 50 channels the spirit of Voltaire, who once said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

While 49 and 50 are far from perfect, they both take good aim at solving two glaring 21st-century problems in our state—the danger of letting development run wild and the shame that society would tolerate uninsured kids. Here are our recommendations on those two measures, as well as on a smaller city question dealing with disabled firefighters and cops. We hope Voltaire would be proud.

Ballot Measure 49: Yes

This statutory measure is not the land-use mob’s finest hour.

They subverted the democratic process typically used to write ballot title language (see “Truth and Consequences,” WW , Oct. 10, 2007). And they included language in the proposed statute that’s cumbersome and guaranteed to create more battles.

But all of those shortcomings do nothing to erase this reality: Measure 37 is a mess and needs a fix before Oregon ends up looking like Nevada. Measure 49 will get us part of the way there.

In 2004, the property-rights group Oregonians in Action sold 61 percent of voters on Measure 37. The measure was rooted in the premise that anybody who bought property later subjected to new government regulations “restricting” its use could claim compensation from local government or a release from those restrictions.

So, say you bought land in 1960 when you could build three homes on it. And then, say that laws were passed restricting the number of homes to one. Measure 37 required local government to let you build the three homes or compensate you for your loss.

OIA passed 37 largely due to a brilliant ad campaign centered around 92-year-old Dorothy English. According to the ads, heartless bureaucrats wrongly denied English the right to subdivide her rural Multnomah County property for her children’s benefit.

In a 2004 Voters’ Pamphlet statement, for instance, ad architect and current Sen. Larry George (R-Sherwood) wrote, “the current system works for the big guys. Measure 37 will help small farmers, small property owners and the average homeowner when they face the power of government.”

In retrospect, it’s clear OIA sold voters a bill of goods. What many skeptics—including WW , which recommended a “no” vote—predicted has indeed happened.

More than 7,500 claims poured in, many filed by large timber companies or land-owners hoping to develop large subdivisions, quarries, shopping malls, go-kart tracks and just about every imaginable use. So while English might have had a legitimate beef, it appears a lot of fast-buck artists were hiding in her skirts.

The biggest filer of Measure 37 claims—covering more than 100,000 acres — and the biggest opponent of 49 is Portland-based Stimson Lumber. When Stimson CEO Andrew Miller came to our endorsement interview representing No on 49, he said his company’s claims are “political leverage.” If Stimson’s got a beef with logging regulators, fine. But that’s not what Measure 37 was supposed to be about.

Measure 49 tries to fix things by giving English what she wants but not helping Stimson Lumber. Developing up to three homes under 49 should actually be fairly easy, if the right to such development existed when the property owner bought his or her land. And, those development rights will now be transferable.

Developing more than three homes, however, will require the property owner, in the words of OIA director Dave Hunnicutt, to “turn two back flips and eat a bug.” That strikes us as an appropriate balance. Allow relief to people who want to divide their land into a modest number of lots. But don’t create a windfall for those who bought land for agriculture and logging, yet now might want to develop subdivisions or resorts.

Miller says Stimson and other big timber companies filing claims aren’t trying to get rich quick. He notes there is no market for housing or other development on many rural properties that are the subject of claims. Perhaps. But that won’t always be the case. And in the meantime, nobody who owns land next to a Measure 37 claim is likely to take much satisfaction from Miller’s argument.

Ultimately, any community—no matter how urban or rural—must balance individuals’ interests with the interests of the whole; Measure 37 empowered a relative few at the potential expense of all Oregonians, and that’s no balance at all.

Ballot Measure 50: Yes

tobacco taxes from $1.18 to $2.025 per pack to pay for children’s health insurance and

other programs.

Imagine you’re lost in the desert, nearly dead from dehydration. You stumble upon a fetid puddle with a dead bird floating on the surface. The water you slurp down ain’t Perrier, but it keeps you alive. This measure is that water.

Measure 50 would add 84.5 cents in taxes on a pack of cigarettes, now taxed at $1.18 per pack. And, within three years, the revenue will provide health insurance to an estimated 92,000 uninsured Oregonians under the age of 19.

What’s wrong with that? The tax will ensure that fewer people will smoke (both sides agree on this) and the money will be one more step toward seeing to it that health insurance is a birthright of all Oregonians. These are laudable goals.

At the same time, it feels strangely unsatisfying to grind Big Tobacco into the pavement like a cigarette butt. For starters, this measure clutters up a Constitution already crowded with 17 amendments passed by voters since 1992. That document is supposed to define governmental powers and citizens’ rights, not bail out the Legislature because it couldn’t get the job done.

Legislators in the 2007 session couldn’t get enough votes to pass a law that would raise taxes on cigarettes to insure kids, so instead they referred a constitutional amendment to do the same thing. Why? Because it only takes a simple majority in each legislative chamber to refer a constitutional amendment, while thanks to 1996’s Ballot Measure 25, it takes a three-fifths majority of the legislature to pass any new tax.

We share some of the critics’ concerns about Measure 50. For instance, not all of the money goes to kids. Some of it will be peeled off to adult health care, smoking prevention and other Department of Human Services programs. That strikes us more as a way to build political support for this measure than a well-considered policy.

There is also the argument that lawmakers had plenty of money this session—when the general fund budget increased by 21 percent. Some of that money could have easily funded children’s insurance, rather than, say, giving state agency chiefs as much as 24 percent pay increases, renovating the Capitol or sending more than $1 billion in kicker checks back to taxpayers.

Reasonable concerns all. But if this measure insures only one additional kid and reduces the number of smokers, it will be worth supporting.

Measure No. 26-93: Yes

Haven’t we been here already with the city’s Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund? Last year Portland voters approved an overhaul of the property tax-supported fund. That major reform took control of decision-making from beneficiaries and put new hires in a cheaper retirement plan.

Proponents of this latest smaller-bore reform say it means injured cops and firefighters won’t be penalized for returning to the job. They add that this reform got left on the cutting-room floor last year, and that any future tweaks can be handled administratively. Let’s hope so—voters shouldn’t have to deal with this issue every year.

Opponents of 26-93 are hard to come by. And we agree that it’s better to have our firefighters and police officers return to work after an injury and maintain their post-retirement bennies than to have them go on permanent disability. Backers estimate it would add about $11 a year to the “average residential property tax bill.” We’re counting on the increased oversight passed last year to keep those costs under control.