Measure 63

Argument in Opposition

As retired firefighters, we request that Oregonians vote "No" on Measure 63. While there is a simplistic appeal in the notion of allowing homeowners to do what they want with their residences, the fact is that Measure 63 ignores some basic public safety standards.

In the 1970s, as wood stoves became popular, fire officials saw an alarming increase in fires involving the devices. As a growing number of fires occurred, there was actually some discussion among fire officials about banning wood stoves. But an analysis showed that the problem wasn't with the was with their installation, often done by "do it yourself" homeowners who failed to follow the instructions that came with the stove. Measure 63 could return us to those days.

The measure also doesn't take into account the safety of Oregon's firefighters, whether paid professionals or community members serving as volunteers. Firefighting has always been a dangerous undertaking, but it will become even more so when responders can no longer assume that the homes they enter meet certain standards for structural integrity and fire resistance.

In November of 2002, three Coos Bay firefighters died in a fire that started after a waste incinerator was installed in a business without a legally-required permit or an inspection. While this occurred in a commercial building, Measure 63 would dramatically increase the odds for similar incidents to happen in homes throughout Oregon.

Firefighters know the hazardous nature of what they do. As a result, they value building codes and the safety offered to both residents and responders by sound code enforcement.

Please protect your family and support your local firefighters by voting "No" on Measure 63.

Tim Birr, retired Tualatin Valley firefighter
Randy Leonard, retired Portland firefighter and Portland City Commissioner
Tom Whelan, retired Salem Fire Captain and former State Representative
Tom Chamberlain, retired Portland firefighter and President of Oregon AFL-CIO

(This information furnished by Tim Birr, retired firefighter from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue.)

Argument in Opposition

The Oregon State Fire Fighters Council, Oregon Fire Marshals Association and Oregon Fire Chiefs Association urge all Oregonians to vote "No" on Measure 63 because it would greatly endanger the lives of Oregonians, including firefighters. As emergency first responders, we put our lives on the line every day and Measure 63 would place unnecessary and avoidable risks on an already dangerous job.

The State's building codes have been developed over the last 34 years to ensure that houses remain safe through renovations. Un-permitted work would have a drastic affect on key systems, such as gas lines, electrical wiring and structural integrity. Risks to first responders would include explosions, exposure to toxic substances and unexpected collapse. Homes with un-permitted work done without professional inspection are a risk to the families that reside in those homes, neighbors, and the firefighters and paramedics charged with protecting them.

Building codes give firefighters a level of certainty when responding to an emergency. As a home burns, firefighters cannot track down the owner to discuss how home renovations were conducted and when the home was last inspected. The few certainties firefighters do have would be thrown out the window.

When a homeowner invests in properly permitted and inspected work, he or she should feel safe that neighbors have done the same. Adding an electrical switch or altering a waste disposal system seem like simple jobs. But as most firefighters will tell you, these "simple" improvements are still a critical fire risk. That simple renovation could become a fire and public health risk to the entire neighborhood and to those who would respond to help.

Please join Oregon's firefighters in voting
"No" on Measure 63.

Oregon State Fire Fighters Council
Oregon Fire Marshals Association
Oregon Fire Chiefs Association

(This information furnished by Bob Livingston, Oregon State Fire Fighters Council.)

Argument in Opposition

As an experienced servant and one of the most non-partisan Representatives in the Oregon Legislature, I know the difference between real solutions that make our communities better and ballot measure fluff.

Measure 63 will not make our communities better. Frankly, Measure 63 is another example of ballot measure hucksters like Bill Sizemore trying to turn Oregon's elections into a for-profit business.

As a homeowner, I am concerned that Measure 63 will aggravate the already high level of instability in the mortgage industry. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to sell or finance a home with un-permitted improvements because structural integrity will not be inspected; therefore true market value becomes a guesstimate.

As a husband and father, there is nothing more important to me than the safety of my wife and daughter. As a contractor, I understand that if we eliminate the permitting process, we would eliminate safety inspections as a consequence. Safety standards are set by code so you and I can sleep well knowing that the walls of our homes are not going to cave in and come crashing down on our family and friends.

Under Measure 63, your neighbor's unsafe home improvement could place your family at risk. In an earthquake, flood or fire, home remodels that lack structural integrity and would otherwise fail inspection can compound an already dangerous situation, and threaten the lives of our emergency responders.

The question you must ask yourself is whether or not you believe that the men and women who risk their lives protecting others should be unnecessarily subjected to additional risk to their own personal safety. For all of us who benefit from safer neighborhoods because of their service, I believe the answer is unequivocally, 'no.'

Please join me in voting 'No' on Ballot Measure 63.

Mike Schaufler
State Representative
(D-Happy Valley)

(This information furnished by State Representative Mike Schaufler.)

Argument in Opposition

If you're an average Oregonian, Ballot Measure 63 will cost you money.

We'll explain how in the next paragraph, but first the basics. Measure 63 would exempt homeowners from having to take out a building permit for any home improvement project of $35,000 or less. It goes without saying that's a very bad idea from a safety standpoint, and you'll see numerous statements in this Voter's Pamphlet from people who understand the safety issue. That alone should be enough to sink Measure 63.

But if for some reason you don't care about safety, here's another reason to reject Measure 63 — collectively, it will cost all of us money. That's because whatever county you live in, your tax bill is based on the collective value of your home and all of the others in your community. So if the value of your neighbor's home is deflated, you end up paying more of the bill than you should. It's simple math.

If you're unsure about any of this, we urge you to call your county's assessor's office and ask for more details. We are Oregon AFSCME Council 75 (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), and we represent hundreds of assessor office workers in counties throughout the state. They know their stuff, and they can explain to you in great detail how Measure 63 would negatively impact accurate property assessment and taxation.

What's the real bottom line with Measure 63? It's nothing more than an attempt by Bill Sizemore to have one new thing on the ballot. Yes, Measure 63 is a Sizemore measure. He has three other "re-run measures" that have been defeated previously — Measure 59, Measure 60 and Measure 64 — so he's looking for something "different" to try and spark some interest. But a measure that leads to consumer safety issues and costs most of us money isn't very interesting.

Vote NO! on Ballot Measure 63!

(This information furnished by Don Loving, Oregon AFSCME Council 75.)

Argument in Opposition

Vote "NO"

Measure 63 jeopardizes the safety of our homes. By exempting improvements to homes that have traditionally required local building permits and safety inspections, the measure erodes the foundation of thousands of years of building code development designed to ensure safe housing.

Nothing is more important than your family's safety. Getting a construction permit before you build or remodel helps protect your loved ones from potentially deadly mistakes. Faulty work can cause house fires, water damage and structural instability.

Getting permits ensures that a certified inspector will examine your project to ensure it's safe and up to code. Your family can rest easy knowing the job was done safely and avoid costly repairs down the road and preserve your biggest financial investment – your home.

The International Code Council is dedicated to protecting the health, safety and welfare of people by creating better buildings and safer communities. This is accomplished by providing the highest quality of codes. Oregon has been a leader in the adoption of these codes to ensure the construction of safe structures.

Building codes, permits and inspections are valuable to homeowners because they provide:

The public safety and health consequences of Measure 63 affect not only those homeowners doing exempt improvements without the benefit of safety inspections but also their neighbors, friends and future owners of the home.

Oregonians want to know that building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing work done on their homes is done safely to code. If this measure passes, that peace of mind is gone.

The International Code Council and the dedicated local code officials trained to promote safety in the construction of homes and buildings, we urge you to vote "No" on Measure 63.

International Code Council

(This information furnished by Kraig Stevenson, Senior Regional Manager, International Code Council.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 63-Threat to Homeowner Safety

and Flood Insurance Eligibility

Measure 63 would strip residential property owners and renters from the protections of building permits and inspections.

Risk to Safety
Through the building permitting, and following inspection, process, the safety of improvements is verified through compliance with applicable building codes. By exempting improvements from this process, the Measure would strip residential home occupants from assurances regarding the structural or seismic integrity of their homes or the electrical or plumbing safety of improvements.

Provisions of the Measure are inadequate to ensure the safety of improvements for the protection of future owners or renters. Owners making improvements need only provide "detailed descriptions" of improvements to potential purchasers. There's no requirement to provide proof that improvements met applicable building codes and no disclosure requirements to renters.

Loss of Flood Insurance
Waiving building permit requirements for all projects under $35,000 in value per year, including additions and alterations to buildings within Special Flood Hazard Areas, may cause communities to be unable to enforce the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulatory standards. Failure to comply with NFIP regulatory standards can result in higher flood insurance prices or loss of federal flood insurance entirely. In those communities that cannot comply with NFIP standards, property owners are unable to obtain flood insurance. If there is a flood and a natural disaster is declared, these property owners and communities are not eligible for reimbursement for damages from the federal government.

Lack of Enforcement for Unlawful Improvements
The Measure provides no enforcement mechanism for unlawful improvements. It will be up to neighbors to seek enforcement of violations of building setbacks, height or safety regulations. Not only can this result in neighbors incurring costs of enforcement, property owners (both those making improvements and potential purchasers) may incur penalties for violations or be forced to remove unlawful improvements.

Make your voice be heard by voting NO on Measure 63.

Ed Sullivan
American Planning Association, Oregon Chapter

(This information furnished by Ed Sullivan, Oregon Chapter, American Planning Association.)

Argument in Opposition

Building Permits Save Lives
Vote NO on Measure 63

On December 3, 2007, a "hundred-year" storm ripped through the northwest coast of Oregon, destroying or damaging thousands of homes and disrupting thousands of lives. The storm caused $70 million in insured losses and generated more than 15,000 claims – most from homeowners facing devastation in the storm's wake.

As bad as it was, it could have been worse if homes at "ground zero" of the storm had been rebuilt or remodeled without building inspections ensuring strict adherence to uniform building codes. But with Bill Sizemore's Measure 63, Oregonians risk even greater damage from the next storm.

Is Your Property at Risk From Your Neighbor's Building Project?

A building project that has not been inspected is a danger not only to the structure and its occupants, but to its neighbors as well. If your neighbor's remodel project is unsafe, could a fire or collapse at their home severely damage your home and family?

Insurance Rates Rise and Fall on Risk Experience

Oregon homeowners pay the second-lowest insurance rates in the U.S., according to the nation's Insurance Commissioners. Risk of loss plays a key role in homeowners' insurance rates. Experience and common sense suggest that increased risk of loss associated with structural failures of non-inspected building projects could impact what consumers pay for insurance coverage – and could increase personal liability exposure for homeowners. In addition, fewer inspections could result in "cutting corners" in building projects, which could lead to increased litigation, higher losses and higher liability insurance costs for contractors. That could raise the cost of home construction for all consumers.

Measure 63 is unsafe for Oregon homeowners. On behalf of agents and insurers who provide homeowners' insurance to Oregon's families, we urge you to vote NO.

Submitted by:

American Insurance Association
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of Oregon
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Professional Insurance Agents of Oregon/Idaho
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

(This information furnished by Kenton Brine, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.)

Argument in Opposition

No on 63

On its face, Measure 63 looks like a reasonable approach to home remodeling and light construction. This could not be further from the truth. Oregon's permitting and inspection system is what keeps our homes safe to live in. The exemption from inspection could have disastrous effects on our safety. The structural, electrical, and plumbing systems in our homes are very complex and governed by numerous building codes.

We are trained professionals that have seen first hand the work done by homeowners and fly by night contractors that think they know how to do electrical work. The so called safe guard in this ballot measure requiring a licensed electrical contractor to sign off on the installation is far less than adequate. Inspections need to be done before the walls and ceilings are covered with finish. No cursory inspection can bring to light all unsafe conditions that may exist. Just because it works, does not mean that it is safe. Ask any electrician if they would sleep well knowing they were in a house not wired by a licensed electrician. The peace of mind gained from knowing your house was built to code will be lost if this measure succeeds.

Don't let your neighbors unsafe remodeling project affect your family's safety and lower your property value as well. This measure has the potential to ruin the small construction industry by opening the door to the shoddy building practices of untrained and unskilled workers.

Please join us in voting "NO" on Measure 63 and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Oregon State Association of Electrical Workers
Consisting of IBEW Locals 48, 89, 112, 125, 280, 659, and 932

(This information furnished by Larry Taylor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 280.)

Argument in Opposition

Mayors Oppose Measure 63

Measure 63 seems simple, but the truth is that Measure 63 will put Oregon families at unnecessary risk. Oregon has long been a leader in promoting safe building construction through the promulgation and administration of effective building codes. History has shown that building codes protect the public from health and fire hazards, substandard construction and natural disasters.

Without the administration of effective building codes and inspections, there is no way to ensure the construction of many home additions and remodels will meet the minimum requirements to safeguard the public's health and safety. Measure 63 will limit the ability for the State to effectively permit and inspect the construction of many home additions and remodels and ensure consumers are protected against health, safety and fire hazards.

For many home additions and remodels, Measure 63 will eliminate the building permit process that ensures proper contractor licensing to protect consumers from construction fraud. Measure 63 will lead to fewer safety inspectors. Flaws in construction will likely go unidentified and unseen until there is an emergency like a fire or flood. Catastrophic events that push the limits of structural integrity are precisely why building codes were created.

The Oregon Mayors Association adopted a resolution in opposition to Measure 63, because permits and safety inspections are essential to ensuring the safety of our citizens. As city mayors, we ask you to join us and vote "No" on Measure 63.

Richard Kidd, Mayor of Forest Grove (President of Oregon Mayors Association)
Alice Norris, Mayor of Oregon City
Bob Andrews, Mayor of Newberg
Charlotte Lehan, Mayor of Wilsonville
David M. Fuller, Mayor of Wood Village
Hank Williams, Mayor of Central Point
Joe Dominick, Mayor of Ontario
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor of Lake Oswego
Kathie Oriet, Mayor of Carlton
Ken Hector, Mayor of Silverton
Lisa Phipps, Mayor of Rockaway Beach
Lori Hollingsworth, Mayor of Lincoln City
Neil Friedman, Mayor of Westfir
Virginia Carnes, Mayor of Pilot Rock

(This information furnished by Mayor Alice Norris, Oregon City.)

Argument in Opposition

No On 63 Ballot Text

Measure 63 is a dangerous measure that would threaten lives and cause havoc in the electrical and construction industries. In the electrical trade, there are no short cuts. Licensed electricians work diligently to prevent on the job injuries and to ensure that their work meets code, protecting homeowners from electrocution or fire today and for generations to come. When you remove the permitting process and inspection, you open the door to unskilled workers who don't understand the intricacies of electrical installation. The subtleties of the electrical code are in place to protect your family and your home.

Proponents of Measure 63 suggest that all will be fine because it requires the electrical work to be completed by or signed off by a licensed electrician. The reality is that no reputable licensed electrical contractor would assume the liability of someone else's work. And without a building permit, there will be not inspection – something licensed electricians rely on to insure this critical work has been done properly.

Reputable contractors who invest large sums of time and money to ensure that their work is done safely stand to lose out to shoddy, unlicensed contractors or to homeowners unprepared for the challenges of installing electrical systems properly, safely and according to code. Those few dollars that homeowners hoped to save by cutting corners can result in the job actually costing twice as much as it should have.

Measure 63 is a bad idea that would hurt that would hurt all Oregonians including renters, homeowners, and their families. Vote No on Measure 63 to keep Oregon's homes safe for everyone.

Oregon-Columbia Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association
Oregon Pacific-Cascade Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association
Independent Electrical Contractors of Oregon

(This information furnished by R. Terry Hatch, Oregon Pacific-Cascade Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association; Timothy J. Gauthier, Oregon-Columbia Chapter, NECA; John Killin, Independent Electrical Contractors of Oregon.)

Argument in Opposition

Elected Officials Oppose Measure 63

As elected officials, we strive to solve the very real problems that effect Oregon families. By contrast, Measure 63 will create additional problems and raises concerns with potentially devastating consequences to the safety of our communities.

Measure 63 will allow work to be done on gas lines, electrical wiring and public water lines without a permit or safety inspection. This is a very frightening idea and dreadful public policy. The notion that we will somehow be better off by waiving building permits and safety inspections, could not be further from the truth.

As Americans, home ownership is one of our most important and significant financial assets. Home improvement projects that are built properly, in accordance with building codes and pass a safety inspection, enhance this investment and boost market values in our neighborhoods.

Measure 63 is another invention of Bill Sizemore and like many of Sizemore's flawed attempts to govern by initiative; Measure 63 is a reckless idea that will ultimately compromise the safety of our families, neighbors and emergency first responders.

It is our hope that we can stand together as Oregonians to show the special interests that fund Bill Sizemore's campaign that Oregon elections are not for sale; that their money doesn't speak louder than our voices. This government belongs to each and every Oregonian.

We have come together as public servants; not to tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know in order to make an informed decision.

It is one of our greatest honors to serve the people of Oregon.

Please join us and vote "No" on Measure 63.

Representative Phil Barnhart (D-Central Linn and Lane Counties)
Representative Terry Beyer (D-Springfield)
Representative Peter Buckley (D-South Jackson County)
Representative Chris Edwards (D-West Eugene, Junction City, Cheshire & Alvadore)
Senator Rick Metsger (D-Mt. Hood)
Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham)
Senator Bill Morrisette (D-Springfield)

(This information furnished by Senator Rick Metsger.)

Argument in Opposition

NO on Measure 63

As school principals, superintendents and central office staff, we are charged with a responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of school-aged children. That is why all buildings that are constructed or remodeled on school grounds are built in accordance with building codes and pass safety inspections; to insure the safety of our children.

Measure 63 – A threat to children's safety

Measure 63 lets people attempt large home remodeling projects without building permits or safety inspections, including projects that involve tinkering with natural gas lines, public water lines and seismic structural integrity. One neighbor's faulty remodel project could threaten the safety of entire neighborhoods and local emergency responders.

As education professionals our first concern is for children, their education and their safety. Issues like this one defeat that mission. It also can destabilize the value of our communities and threaten funding for our children's education. Read Measure 63 closely and please vote "No".

Our children deserve better than Measure 63.

For the safety of our children, please join the Confederation of School Administrators and vote "No" on Measure 63.

The Confederation of School Administrators

(This information furnished by Chuck Bennett, Confederation of Oregon School Administrators.)

Argument in Opposition

The Oregon Remodelers Association urges Oregonians to
vote NO on Measure 63

Consequences of this measure include:

Vote NO on Measure 63

Oregon Remodelers Association

(This information furnished by Phil Peach, Oregon Remodelers Association.)

Argument in Opposition

The Oregon State Building and
Construction Trades Council
Asks You to Vote NO On Measure 63

Vote No on Measure 63 because Oregon's Building Codes, Permits and Inspections are there to protect the public health and safety. Exempting an unknown number of home improvement projects from Building Permits and Code Inspections as Measure 63 would do, places our families, friends and property at risk.

Vote No on Measure 63 because without the permits and inspections, unscrupulous and unlicensed contractors will be poised to defraud unsuspecting homeowners. We are the highly trained and licensed men and women that work hard every day to provide quality homes for Oregonians. We do that so you can sleep safely at night, knowing that work on your foundation, walls, roof, electrical and plumbing were done to code.

Vote No on Measure 63 because your neighbor's shoddy home improvement project that circumvents the building permit and inspection process will reduce your home's value too. There is nothing worse than uncompleted work or poorly designed home improvements, especially when you take pride in what is on your side of the fence.

Vote No on Measure 63 because un-permitted home improvements may be hidden from you when you buy a new home, only to rear their ugly head years down the road. The measure states that sellers are required to inform potential buyers of any un-permitted improvements, but what if they don't? How does one track the seller down years later when the roof leaks, there is dry rot or an electrical fire?

Measure 63 means our families, friends and property
will be at risk.
Vote NO on Measure 63.

Submitted by:

Oregon State Building & Construction Trades Council
Bricklayers Local 1 of Oregon
Ironworkers Local 29 United Association of Plumbers & Steamfitters.

(This information furnished by Bob Shiprack, Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council.)

Argument in Opposition

Associated General Contractors Urge You to
Vote NO on Measure 63

Safety is job number one for the 1100 members of the Associated General Contractors Oregon-Columbia Chapter. We're asking for your NO vote on this dangerous ballot measure because:

For those who own or rent single family residences, you can quickly see the horrible consequences of this measure. Oregonians want to sleep safely at night knowing that work on their foundations, walls, roofs, electrical and plumbing was done to code. If this measure passes, those assurances are lost.

Without building permits, local inspectors won't know what projects to inspect – and that leaves homeowners without the guarantee that their remodel meets the safety and fire standards set by law. Improper wiring or plumbing isn't just the problem of the person who owns the home – it can hurt everyone in the community; future buyers whose home values would be diminished, neighbors whose homes would be devastated in the event of a fire, or the water supply of the community if plumbing devices aren't installed properly.

These are serious consequences for a seemingly simple ballot measure. As construction professionals, we urge you to vote NO on Ballot Measure 63. Protect yourself and keep our communities safe by rejecting this measure.

Associated General Contractors, Oregon-Columbia Chapter

(This information furnished by John Rakowitz, Associated General Contractors, Oregon-Columbia Chapter.)

Argument in Opposition

Your Local Plumbing & Heating/Cooling Contractors
Say Vote NO on Measure 63

Measure 63 Means Unsafe Work

Permits Protect You and Your Home

This message is brought to you by the
Oregon Plumbing Heating and Cooling Contractors Association

We are a statewide association of contractors assisting our members with education programs, business development and representing them before local and state government.

Our goal is to help contractors deliver the highest quality of products and services to customers like you.

Join The Plumbing, Heating & Cooling Contractors
In Voting NO on Measure 63

(This information furnished by Linda Lindsten, Oregon Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, Inc.)

Argument in Opposition

Measure 63- Flawed in its Design

Oregon's consulting engineers are committed to protecting the public's health and safety through the use of proper design and innovation. In addition, if we believe that initial designs are flawed, it is our professional duty to make corrections before going to the construction phase of a project. To this end, we see great flaws in the design of Measure 63 and encourage all Oregonians to vote "no'.

Measure 63 would rewrite current law to allow property owner's to make significant structural or other alterations without the required building permits or safety inspections now required by law. While potentially appealing, upon closer scrutiny this could take a small project and turn it into a significant project augmented over several calendar years. These projects could undermine the professional design that was in the original structure and have a major negative impact on the safety of current occupants and any future occupant of the home or structure

Measure 63- Public Safety and Your Investment at Risk

When someone plays with natural gas lines, public waterlines, electrical wiring and beams supporting the floor and ceilings, the codes and safety become non-existent. Removing the well established assurances of knowledgeable review, inspection, and records of work done puts the homeowner in a position of high liability to the public and friends. Future owners want to know what work was done and that it was done using proper and accepted design and construction practices. The absence of this information will lead to uncertainty and put the entire investment at risk.

Today, with the ever changing technology of home construction materials and methods, work on homes should be done checked and recorded.

Oregon's consulting engineering community urges you to vote "no" on Measure 63.

Gregg Scholz, President
American Council of Engineering Companies of Oregon

(This information furnished by Gregg Scholz, president, American Council of Engineering Companies of Oregon.)

Argument in Opposition

A Threat to Oregon's Workers and Families
Vote NO on Measure 63

Every person that steps onto a property deserves the peace-of-mind that its structures were built to code. From utility workers to mail delivery personnel, firefighters to our own families, all should be protected. Measure 63 would destroy 34 years of State safety guidelines and put those that provide essential services at risk. These risks include:

Oregon's emergency service, health and public works personnel do all they can to ensure their work is safe and effective. They focus on the details in home building codes and inspections because the smallest change can have a drastic impact on their communities.

Failure to have certain home projects inspected can have a ripple effect from neighborhood to neighborhood. One homeowner's plumbing project can cause a public safety hazard for nearby homes, schools, offices, etc. From a property value standpoint, even if unpermitted work looks and works fine, the mere knowledge that there is unpermitted work in a neighborhood block is likely to decrease property values for that entire neighborhood. Furthermore, insurance rates would likely increase, cutting families' income for food, gas and other commodities.

On behalf of Oregon's workers and families, please voteNO on Measure 63.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), Oregon
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Oregon Council 75

(This information furnished by Ralph Groener, Oregon AFSCME.)

Argument in Opposition

Associated Builders and Contractors
OPPOSE Measure 63

Promoting a safe work place is part of Associated Builders and Contractors' mission statement. That's why the men and women of ABC are asking you to vote NO on Measure 63.

Measure 63 tosses safety aside. Un-permitted work by unlicensed contractors will dramatically increase in Oregon, resulting in shoddy work and dangerous safety hazards.

Although the intent of Measure 63 is to exclude small scale construction projects, the text of the measure is flawed and vaguely worded, resulting in a glut of un-permitted work—even on large projects.

Oregonians rely on contractors everyday—knowing that work on their home was done to code. If this measure passes, that peace of mind will go out the window.

Vote NO on measure 63 to continue protecting Oregon families.

Vote NO to protect the integrity of Oregon's housing market for all Oregonians.

And vote NO to ensure a safe workplace for our construction workers.

Again, work site safety is paramount to the successful completion of construction projects and the men and women of Associated Builders and Contractors ask you to vote NO on Measure 63.

Please vote NO on Measure 63.

Associated Builders and Contractors

(This information furnished by John Killin, Associated Builders and Contractors.)

Argument in Opposition

63 Would Invite Deceit
and Compromise Safety Standards

I'm Mike Sterle. I work for the City of Beaverton. On its face, Measure 63 might seem like a fairly innocuous way to avoid red tape. Those of us in local government know better.

Measure 63 is an ill-advised attack on neighborhood safety standards and worse. This measure calls for a laissez-faire approach to major structural improvement that is an invitation to deception and disaster.

Nobody wants more government than we need, but there's a reason for local code enforcement. It protects all citizens — including the home and farm owners it purports to benefit — against inappropriate development, ill-advised projects and unscrupulous contractors.

Even by today's standards a $35,000 improvement is no small matter — and the way Measure 63 is worded, if it passes, unscrupulous individuals could actually hide projects costing $70,000 and more from reasonable oversight by doing them over two years or in several installments.

Sometimes it makes sense to cross the T's and dot the I's. I know it may feel like a pain to have to go down to City Hall for approval when you are adding a spare room or redoing the barn, but I have to tell you plenty of homeowners are thankful once the experts weigh in and explain why the plans won't work.

The present law balances individual rights with community needs. It protects us all — owners, neighbors, future buyers – from safety hazards, shoddy work, inequitable tax assessments, reduced property values, insurance rate increases and fraudulent contractors.

It also keeps firefighters, police, medical technicians and other emergency responders from encountering life-threatening surprises due to unscrupulous, unlicensed contractors.

Please join me in voting to protect our neighborhoods and safeguard consumers by defeating Measure 63.

Mike Sterle, Lead Mechanic at the City of Beaverton

(This information furnished by Arthur Towers, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 503.)

Argument in Opposition

Dear Oregon Voter,

My name is Pete Sorenson and I am a Lane County Commissioner and former State Senator from Eugene. I attended school in North Bend, and graduated from the University of Oregon with three degrees. After college, I worked for former Congressman Jim Weaver and worked for the Secretary of Agriculture during the Carter administration. I want to write to you today in the hope that you will join me in voting NO on Ballot Measure 63.

I, like many of you, have done home improvement projects. I have built a deck and planted a garden at my home in South Eugene. In doing this, I have always gone through all the legal channels of obtaining permits. Yes, this can get annoying, but I realized that this entire process of permits and permission from city governments is designed to maximize my safety and that of those who visit me. The elimination of building permits will create an "open-season" on building with no sort of check on safety and structural soundness.

I live in an older home in South Eugene. When I was first moved in, I attempted to screw in a new light-bulb into our kitchen fixture. I screwed it in, but It wouldn't turn on. When I consulted a local contractor to fix the problem, he alerted me that the lighting fixture had been improperly wired and could have electrocuted me if I had attempted to fix it myself. With the passage of this measure, this situation would happen to many more Oregonians, and the consequences could be very severe.

My fellow Oregonians, this measure is a petty attempt by Bill Sizemore to eliminate a crucial safety check on our lives. We need building permits to ensure our society stays safe and sound. I ask for all of you to join me in voting NO on Ballot Measure 63.

Pete Sorenson

(This information furnished by Pete Sorenson, Pete Sorenson Committee.)

Argument in Opposition


Environmental Advocates Vote NO on Measure 63

Measure 63 is irresponsible. Measure 63 would allow certain construction projects to override all state and local environmental laws designed to protect our rivers, the ocean, and fish and wildlife habitats. By allowing unpermitted building along rivers and beaches, there would be no safeguards against irresponsible construction that would pollute our waters.

Measure 63 is unsafe. If passed, Measure 63 would make it possible to sidestep inspections on construction to existing structures—even where the construction would threaten our drinking water. Living downstream from one of these projects could be hazardous to your family's health.

Please join us in saying No to Measure 63.
It's unsafe and irresponsible.

Oregon League of Conservation Voters

Oregon Natural Resources Council ACTION

Oregon Wild

Sierra Club

WaterWatch of Oregon

(This information furnished by Jessica Stevens, Defend Oregon.)

Argument in Opposition

Protect Renters!

Vote No on Measure 63

The Community Alliance of Tenants is a grassroots organization dedicated to empowering renters and advocating for safe, affordable housing for all Oregonians.

All Oregonians have the right to feel safe in their homes. But Measure 63 threatens that safety for Oregon renters, who could be victims of their landlords' shoddy, uninspected construction. Tenants shouldn't have to worry that building modifications made by their landlords could endanger them and their families. But if Measure 63 passes, that is exactly what would happen.

Shoddy, unpermitted wiring, plumbing and gas lines are a major threat to our families and communities. The danger is even worse in multi-family apartment buildings, where fires can spread quickly, risking the lives of many families all at once.

In fact, Measure 63 doesn't even require landlords to disclose to renters that work was done without a safety inspection.

Measure 63 is a recipe for disaster for Oregon's renters. We need real protections for renters, not this shortsighted, poorly-written measure that threatens Oregonians' safety.

Assure the safety of all renters by voting NO on Measure 63!

Community Alliance of Tenants

(This information furnished by Ian Slingerland, Community Alliance of Tenants.)

Argument in Opposition

Defend Oregon OPPOSES Measure 63
Because it puts families and property in danger
from unsafe construction

Here are just some of the groups from around the state who
OPPOSE Measure 63:

1000 Friends of Oregon
Carpenters Local 247
Community Action Partnership of Oregon
Community Alliance of Tenants
Confederation of Oregon School Administrators
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Elders in Action Commission
Eugene-Springfield Solidarity Network/Jobs with Justice
League of Women Voters, Oregon
Multnomah County Democrats
NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon
Northwest Oregon Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Oregon AFL-CIO
Oregon AFSCME Council 75
Oregon Alliance of Retired Americans
Oregon Education Association
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Oregon Natural Resources Council ACTION
Oregon Opportunity Network
Oregon State Fire Fighters Council
Oregon Wild
Portland Jobs with Justice
Representative Diane Rosenbaum
SEIU Local 49
SEIU Local 503
Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson
Senator Mark Hass
Senator Peter Courtney
Senator Richard Devlin
Senator Rod Monroe
Senator Suzanne Bonamici
Sierra Club
Tax Fairness Oregon
WaterWatch of Oregon
Working Families Party of Oregon

For more information:

(This information furnished by Jessica Stevens, Defend Oregon.)