County Vesting

As each county solidifies their vesting process, claimants can make a more informed decision as to if they want to attempt to achieve "vesting" with the work they have already done on their Measure 37 claim.  Measure 49 requires that Claimants have one chance to make an "election" and then they are bound by this decision for their remainder of their claim.  For this reason it is important to understand how your county will evaluate your project to determine if you can continue your project under the old Measure 37 rules.

Two Basic Approaches:

To date, we have seen counties take two basic approaches in determining vesting.  1) Schedule each Claimant for an individual vesting Hearing based on the understood definition of Common Law Vesting. or 2) Adopting an ordinance which gives Claimants a prescribed path to determine vesting AND allow claimants to apply for vesting through that ordinance.  Both approaches will achieve the same objective.  Measure 49 requires that each county adopt a program to determine vesting and these approaches will allow Claimants to discover if they are vested in their development efforts.

The second approach "adopting an ordinance and allowing Claimants to apply for vesting" is arguably a better approach for all Claimants.  The criteria to establish common law vesting has been developed through case law over the last several decades, however the criteria is subjective and can be interpreted widely depending on the tendencies of the hearings officer.  By adopting an ordinance which contains a better definition of common law vesting, Claimants are more likely to be treated consistently according to a prescribed set of standards.  In addition, subsequent appeals of a vesting decision are less likely to have merit if decisions are rendered according to a set of standards.