Do You Run a Home Business? Not For Long If SB 77 Passes.

Last week, we raised the alarm about Senate Bill 77, urging property owners to take a stand against the bill and its counterpart, SB 78. After a shocking public hearing, where proponents went so far as to publicly name and shame two Oregon businesses without prior warning, the true danger of SB 77 has come into focus.

SB 77 creates new restrictions for obtaining and operating a home occupation. A home occupation permit is generally required anytime someone operates a business from a home on land zoned for residential or natural resource use.

Many types of businesses rely on home occupation permits. From start-ups, professional services, artisans, creators, retail businesses, repair services, and more, home businesses are extremely popular. Since the pandemic, the need for home occupation permits is increasing, as more people are working from home instead of commuting to town.

What started as a purported effort to “close loopholes” in the planning system has been unmasked as a direct assault on Oregon’s entrepreneurs, working families, and foundational property rights.

By imposing sweeping and unprecedented controls over home-based work, SB 77 threatens not only privacy but the very spirit of innovation and independence upon which our communities are built.

The Real Cost of SB 77 for Home-Based Businesses

1. Unprecedented Invasion of Privacy

SB 77 introduces a vague and troubling provision that a home occupation cannot “unreasonably interfere with the use of a dwelling as a dwelling.” In practice, this allows third parties to file complaints against home businesses if they “interfere” with the use of a home as a dwelling—even when the homeowner has no concerns with their setup.

Under this policy, neighbors unhappy with a home business could force county code enforcement officers to intervene, inspect the property, and determine (in their own opinion) whether the business interferes with the owner’s residential use.

This raises serious questions: How could such enforcement work in practice? Would county officials conduct routine inspections inside private homes to evaluate living and working habits? What standards would even determine if “interference” exists?

This provision not only invites abuse, but represents deeply invasive overreach that violates privacy and due process. Homeowners could face life-disrupting enforcement actions—even if they are living and working harmoniously on their property.

2. Targeting Rural and Urban Home-Based Workers.

While SB 77 is framed as protecting farms and forestland, its reach extends far beyond those areas, placing extreme new restrictions on all home occupations in zones under county jurisdiction. This includes heavily urbanized unincorporated areas like those in Washington County, where residential neighborhoods could be targeted despite lacking any farmland or timberland.

The bill creates a new, restrictive definition of home occupations, limiting them to “customary” activities conducted entirely within a dwelling and requiring that such activities be “accessory, incidental, and subordinate” to residential use. This language is both vague and impractical, effectively shutting out businesses that require workshops, outdoor workspaces, or other setups outside the home.

The restrictions make it increasingly difficult for innovative, family-run businesses to establish and operate, stifling livelihoods across urban and rural communities alike.

3. Harming Family-Run Businesses and Farmers.

SB 77 overlooks the reality of who relies on home occupation permits the most: working families, farmers, and ranchers. Many of these applicants use home-based businesses as a secondary income to sustain their households or agricultural operations. These businesses are vital to the financial security of rural families.

The bill’s new rules, such as capping client parking at just three vehicles and arbitrarily restricting advertising, impose unreasonable limitations that are out of touch with the needs of small, family-run businesses. Farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs already face challenges in obtaining permits, and SB 77’s vague, overly stringent criteria would block many of them from legally operating altogether.

The result? A regulatory system that punishes the very families and businesses it claims to protect. Without these secondary income streams, many farming families could struggle to keep their operations afloat, leading to unintended consequences for rural communities and the state’s agricultural industry.

Time to Defend the Right to Live & Work On Your Property!

SB 77 is more than just a misguided zoning bill—it’s a direct attack on Oregon’s long-standing tradition of entrepreneurship and self-reliance. These sweeping restrictions undermine property rights, limit economic opportunity, and threaten the future of our small, family-run businesses.

Now, more than ever, we need to unite to protect the values that make our communities strong.

1. Contact Legislators on the Committee: Urge them to oppose SB 77 and stand up for Oregon’s property owners and small business operators.

Please email all members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire asking them to vote NO on SB 77. Contact those legislators HERE.

Email all members of the Senate asking them to vote NO on SB 77 if it makes it to the floor. Contact those legislators HERE.

2. Spread the Word: Share this update with friends, family, and community members who could be impacted by these overreaching regulations.

The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

SB 77 doesn’t just affect zoning laws—it threatens the future of home-based innovation, the ability to use our properties freely, and the economic stability of families across Oregon. Rural communities, in particular, thrive on entrepreneurship and the hard-earned freedom to support oneself through creative and independent means.

We cannot allow narrow political interests masquerading as “farmland preservation” to undermine decades of progress and self-reliance. It’s time to mobilize, defend small businesses, and demand that property rights remain protected.

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.