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