February 22, 2006
State High Court Upholds Oregon Property Rights Measure

The Oregon Supreme Court yesterday upheld Measure 37, which voters approved in 2004. It requires the state to either compensate property owners who lose value due to state land use regulations, or to forego the regulations. Outside of urban growth lines, most of the state is zoned for farming or forestry, and this has led to numerous conflicts involving landowners who want to develop some portion of their property, especially in the Willamette Valley. The ruling is good news. It is a blow to the Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) who believe statist intervention in rural land use matters is necessary to prevent the desecration of the countryside. Let those who want to preserve developable land in a pristine state pay for it themselves.

The Washington Farm Bureau will be trying to get on the ballot in this state Initiative 933, which is less sweeping than Measure 37; it would allow compensation to property owners in response to regulations dating back just to 1995, as opposed to any time after they bought the property. Nonetheless, the Oregon ruling may buttress the legal foundations of Washington's I-933 should it qualify for the ballot, be approved by voters, and then face legal challanges. Washington Farm Bureau government affairs director Dan Wood tells the Seattle Times:

....the (Oregon high court) ruling would undercut an argument of the (Washington) initiative's opponents; some had said after (Marion County, Oregon judge Mary) James' (October 2005) ruling that it would be difficult for the Farm Bureau to craft a law that passed constitutional muster. "They've been saying Measure 37 is unconstitutional and our initiative is like Measure 37," (Wood) said. "Now they're caught in a lie twice."....Andrew Cook, a lawyer in the pro-property-rights Pacific Legal Foundation's Bellevue office, said the Oregon court ruling could help I-933 if it passes and is challenged. "Courts do look to other states," he said. "This sets a good precedent for Washington state."

Many legal questions remain on property-rights compensation in Oregon, centering around state and local regulations, ensuring there will be no suddenly huge changes in the rural Oregon landscape. But some necessary economic growth could result, maybe even along 99W from Corvallis into the South Willamette Valley, which is often dotted with family farms for sale.

To help resolve claims against the state which are now expected to to proceed with Measure 37's approval by the court, the legislature will consider setting up a compensation fund.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 22, 2006 09:20 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I can't beleive i'm saying this, but three cheers for Oregon!

Posted by: Libertarian on February 22, 2006 09:53 AM
2. I understand the problem being faced in Oregon was that property owners who had the use of their land impacted could file a claim for loss with their municipalities, and did so. Many of the municipalities could not afford to pay out all the claims and therefore waived restrictions, enabling folks to develop their land. I can only imagine what the costs would be in Washington! And knowing our legislation, this is another route to spend our resources, as they would never want to waive restrictions. They'd rather pay out taxpayer money to protect some of their oftentimes nonsensical growth management schemes.

Posted by: katomar on February 22, 2006 10:17 AM
3. I heard that term "Watermelon" a few years ago on talk radio, when the whole CAO business was first coming up, and I love it...so fitting.

Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2006 10:55 AM
4. Just to clarify, Measure 37 does not "waive" any land use planning laws/regulations on the local, county and/or state level.

The measure allows the government agency enforcing the regualtions to "modify, remove and/or not apply" them as it sees fit if it does not decide to compensate the claimant.

The terms "waive" and "waiver" were quick, dirty and generally incorrect terms used by the media and others to try and explain what happens if no monies are paid as compensation to teh land owner.

Posted by: J Hoffa on February 22, 2006 10:56 AM
5. This is good news of course, but all the watermelons need to do is get the case reviewed in Thurston county where our judges LOVE to invent the law whenever it meets their needs and own personal agendas.

Posted by: Andy on February 22, 2006 11:57 AM
6. Howyousdoin’

Does this means I can build that “cinder block breakwater”... err...I mean use my Columbia River waterfront property again.

Forgetaboutit

Posted by: Joey bag of doughnuts on February 22, 2006 12:34 PM
7. Might be time to throw us a Watermelon eatin Picnic when 933 passes.

Posted by: GS on February 22, 2006 04:46 PM
8. How now, adjacent blue state political prisoners?

LeBeau has escaped.

Col. Klink has been reversed, UNANIMOUSLY!

Take heart.

It's a new day in Orygun.

Today M37, tomorrow the world!

or... maybe the state next door...???

One at a time.

We shall overcome.

Posted by: rickyragg on February 22, 2006 05:41 PM
9. Everytime I hear of land use restrictions, I hear "Thousand Friends of...." I have heard of "Thousand Friends of... Thurston County, Mason County, Lewis County, and on the news about Measure 37, yes, I heard that Oregon also has a "Thousand Friends" Who are these "Friends" we all have who want to tell us what to do with our own property?

Posted by: ljm on February 22, 2006 09:18 PM
10. Bingo, ljm--you hit it--I too always wondered about these mysterious "friends" who are so eager to "help" me--they pick cutesy names--more platable than "1000 Comrades" eager to collectivize the land;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on February 22, 2006 10:51 PM
11. In Oregon, 1000 Friends of Oregon only numbers 5K or so people who donate to their cause. Those 5k people think they know better than the 1,064,000 who voted yes on Measure 37.

As for building on the Columbia River...closely follow the case Columbia River Gorge Commission v. Hood River County, et al. Oregon Appellate Court No. A129652 to see how that will work out.

Posted by: J Hoffa on February 23, 2006 03:02 PM
12. Hooray for the Wa. State Farm Bureau!! IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

Posted by: Laurie on February 24, 2006 01:09 PM
13. Regarding "waiver," J Hoffa claims the term is an inaccuracy borne of the media. In fact it is the language of I-933 itself in Section 3. "This section shall not be construed to limit agencies' ability to waive, or issue variances from, other legal requirements."

Posted by: Brandon Van Every on March 1, 2006 11:38 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?