A new year means new Oregon laws have taken effect

From the housing crisis to public safety, Oregon has a whole set of new state laws taking effect in January. The laws range from targeting “paramilitary activity” to tax breaks for families with children. We learn more on what Oregonians can expect in the new year from OPB political reporter Dirk VanderHart.

This transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. Happy 2024. We start today with an overview of some of the new Oregon laws that took effect with the new year. They touch on everything from crime and housing to driving under the influence and wildfire risk. Dirk VanderHart is one of OPB’s political reporters. He joins us with the details. Happy New Year and welcome back.

Dirk VanderHart: Hey, same to you, Dave.

Miller: So before we get to the bills that I just said we were gonna talk about that took effect yesterday, I thought we could start with just a brief reminder of some of the more significant bills that took effect based on the 2023 Legislature before the start of the new year.

VanderHart: Yeah, sure. You know, every year, I think we pay all this attention to the January 1 bills because that is the default effective date for new legislation. But in practice, actually a lot of the most notable bills that the Legislature takes up in any year often go into effect before that, either when they’re signed by the governor or at some point shortly after. And there were a lot of those last year. The 2023 session was very concerned with housing. So we saw a $200 million housing package that took effect along with some provisions that strengthened the state’s statewide rent control law. There was also a package of more than $200 million that was meant to prompt semiconductor companies to expand operations here. That appears to be having some impact actually, with news of a possible big expansion at Intel. But those took effect early.

There were also some really controversial bills that took effect. Specifically, one aimed at expanding and defending the ability for people to receive abortions and gender affirming care. Another outlawed ghost guns. Both of those were central to the record-breaking walkout you might remember by Senate Republicans that got a lot of attention last year. So a lot of things are already in the books, but some new ones yesterday too.

Miller: OK. Let’s turn to those. Major changes to Measure 110 which decriminalized drugs like fentanyl and meth could be taken up in the short session. We can talk about that in a bit, the session that starts in just about a month. But lawmakers did make some tweaks to it in the last session. What did they do?

VanderHart: They made a series of changes I think that were aimed essentially at making the administrative side of Measure 110 work more smoothly. Beyond decriminalizing some drug possession, the law also steers quite a bit of money into this fund designed to expand addiction services around the state. Grant funding was getting caught up. That money was getting caught up in a committee that vets applications for money. And so it didn’t get out as quickly as many people hoped. There was a lot of worry about that. And the big Measure 110 bill from last year was basically a way to address that essentially by giving the Oregon Health Authority a more muscular role in getting out the money. Now, a lot of Republicans were hoping for a lot more. They have called consistently for us to recriminalize drugs. But that’s as far as lawmakers saw fit to go in 2023.

Miller: Well, so while we’re on this subject, while you’re here, there’s been an increasing chorus from some places to recriminalize drugs under Measure 110. The governor stopped short of asking lawmakers to do that after the Central City Task Force released its recommendation. She said no, instead we just want you to make it possible for municipalities to make it illegal for people to publicly consume drugs. But what about the folks who say no, basically overturn one half, the decriminalization piece of Measure 110. Where does that effort stand right now?

VanderHart: I mean, this is one of the more interesting questions for the Legislature right now and they’re going to convene in early February. So we are coming right up on this thing. Even lawmakers very, very close to discussions about what major proposals will move forward on this, have been essentially unable to tell me whether an effort to recriminalize drug possession will get serious consideration. I think a lot of Democrats are resistant to that. As you say they’re, instead, pretty likely to ban public use.

But the tenor of public opinion right now is very critical of Measure 110 and the question will be whether the Legislature looks to pass policy that stops short of recriminalization but still seeks to placate some of the critics you’re talking about. Or maybe there is support for more change. But in the background is this ballot measure we’re talking about, there are some very deep pockets connected to this and they want to put a question before voters that asks essentially, do you want to recriminalize drug possession and some other things? That’s moving slowly. There are two versions of that underway but nothing is collecting signatures yet. So we are kind of in a holding pattern just to figure out whether that has momentum.

Miller: OK. So let’s turn back to laws that are now the law of the State of Oregon as of yesterday. One of them has to do with speed cameras, something that many of our listeners, especially in larger cities like Portland, may have already encountered. They may have gotten a letter with a blurry, black and white picture of themselves in the mail. Where does that stand? I mean, what’s the change?

VanderHart: They’re going statewide. Yes, it is limited right now so speed cameras are not the law of the land in Portland. Essentially, there are ten cities that have been approved by the State to use them. The Legislature ended that restriction as of yesterday. And now the law says any city can use speed cameras as long as they foot the bill for operation. You know, this is a change that advocates would say is going to improve road safety. In the COVID-19 pandemic and afterward, I think unsafe driving practices seemed to shoot up around the country. A lot of fatalities on Portland roads specifically. Cameras like this are used primarily to deter speeding and we may be seeing a lot more of them.

Miller: Another driving-related law focused on people who drive under the influence. What is changing?

VanderHart: This is sort of a technical change. So it expands the definition of what qualifies as an intoxicant under the state’s DUII law. The concern here is that the law accounted for many of the things you think about when it comes to a DUI, driving drunk or under the influence of illicit drugs. But the definition missed some substances. One example is kratom, which is this herbal substance that can have opioid-like effects. If you take enough of it, it can impact how you drive. And under the old definition, it was not subject to the DUII law. So lawmakers sort of closed that loophole.

Miller: But you reported that lawmakers actually lessened the penalty for cyclists who bike under the influence. What’s the thinking there?

VanderHart: This was an acknowledgment that if you are riding a bike while drunk or high, you are putting yourself in danger, but probably not a lot of other people. It’s obviously far easier to inflict damage with a car than a bike. So it is still illegal, to be clear, to pilot a bike under the influence of alcohol or drugs. But the penalties have been reduced. For instance, what would have been a minimum $1000 fine before January 1st, is now a minimum $500 fine. There are caveats to that though. This doesn’t apply if someone is riding an e-bike. It doesn’t apply if they have a blood alcohol level of 0.15 or higher.

Miller: One of the new laws targets what lawmakers call “paramilitary activity.” What prompted lawmakers to focus on this?

VanderHart: Yeah, I mean, this is a reaction to these instances of extremism and, in particular, the organized armed events, sometimes clashes that seem to be occurring regularly in Portland a number of years ago. One in particular people might be familiar with is when a right wing demonstrator was shot and killed in downtown Portland by someone who identified as anti fascist. There were plenty of other examples of armed groups demonstrating in the City while carrying weapons. And this is an effort to potentially tamp down on that kind of thing in the future.

Miller: What does this new law do?

VanderHart: Yeah, a number of things. Paramilitary activity actually was illegal before the first of the year. It has been for decades. But law enforcement thought that the old law was convoluted. This creates a definition of what paramilitary activity means. And it says that if there’s a planned action, the Attorney General can ask a judge to ban that action in advance, essentially giving law enforcement more teeth to crack down. And it says if someone’s injured in the course of a paramilitary group carrying out some of their activity, they now have the right to sue, which is potentially another way to discourage that kind of thing.

Miller: Another new law is focused on domestic terrorism and specifically activities that damage critical infrastructure. What’s behind this?

VanderHart: My colleague Conrad Wilson here has done some really good reporting on a recent rash of attacks on the power grid here in the Pacific Northwest, some substations being targeted. And that’s helped create concern about homegrown terrorist activity. The activities that are actually contemplated by this bill are illegal currently but what this does is stepped up. It creates a felony classification for domestic terrorism that provides for more consequences essentially.

Miller: Lawmakers are also trying to crack down on what’s known as organized shoplifting. What prompted this change and what is the change?

VanderHart: Yeah, this is the product of a pretty massive task force that came together to take up this issue. Retailers around the country are saying organized shoplifting is an increasing problem. And it is what the name suggests. It’s not just an individual shoplifting items for themselves. It’s groups of people working in concert, often with the goal of reselling whatever they steal online. Sometimes that takes the form of these very viral videos of people sort of storming stores that you see online. This is another area where lawmakers took a tough-on-crime approach. They passed a law making it easier to build a case against someone who steals repeatedly from the business and created stepped up penalties for some of these crimes.

Miller: It’s interesting just to hear all of these increases on a focus on law enforcement. 2023 does really seem very different from 2020, when you just sort of, see all these put together.

VanderHart: I think that if anyone who’s watched the legislature in the past three years or so, it would have seen district attorneys, for instance, getting beaten on some of their core issues when they’re pushing for tougher on crime approaches. The 2024 legislature looks like a very different animal and I think they sense the wind at their backs.

Miller: OK. Another new law which is not about crime is based on an intense backlash that came from a number of Oregonians in 2022. That was after the State’s Department of Forestry released new maps showing the areas that, according to various fire scientists, are most prone to wildfire risk. What happened?

VanderHart: Yeah, not just a number of people. I mean, thousands of people pretty much freaked out at this. And the reason there was a ton of concern that people would be negatively impacted is because the State of Oregon has now declared that their homes are at high wildfire risk. That could include consequences from their insurance policies being impacted to decreasing property values. And so people pretty much inundated state officials, arguing against their homes being designated like this. The State eventually bowed to that pressure by withdrawing the map and saying it was gonna sort of lick its wounds and make tweaks and come back with another one.

Miller: So what does Senate Bill 82 do?

VanderHart: This was a way to sort of insulate against some of the concerns here. The bill specifically states that insurance companies can’t cancel a policy or raise someone’s premiums because of this Oregon Wildfire Risk Map. I mean, some lawmakers who passed this bill seem to think that it was unlikely that insurance companies would do it. But they passed this as a way to be sure that it wouldn’t happen and sort of point Oregonians to that law.

Miller: Lawmakers also passed a law that will eventually ban Styrofoam food containers. Where does that stand right now?

VanderHart: It is still coming. So the bill is now in place, as of yesterday. But the actual meat of it doesn’t kick in until 2025. When that happens, foodservice spots around Oregon will be prohibited from using Styrofoam to-go containers along with materials that include these so-called PFAS chemicals that don’t break down. Oregon businesses are also gonna be banned from selling disposable Styrofoam coolers. This is an effort to make sure Styrofoam doesn’t end up in the environment where it ends up in the food chain.

Miller: Finally, lawmakers made some changes to state law to try to meet the governor’s ambitious goal to greatly increase housing production over the next couple of years. What’s happening with building conversions?

VanderHart: As I mentioned, the bulk of housing bills passed last year have already gone into effect long before Monday. This is a notable exception. The legislature passed a bill that looks to ease up the process of converting a building from a commercial use to a residential one. Under that bill, cities of more than 10,000 people are required to say yes to such a conversion without throwing up some of the normal planning hurdles that can slow projects, make them more expensive. This is a really timely topic in cities like Portland where a lot of attention has been given to converting, for instance, downtown office buildings to housing.

Miller: Dirk, thanks very much.

VanderHart: My pleasure.

Miller: Dirk VanderHart is a member of OPBs political reporting team.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.