Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Measure 37
This morning’s unanimous Oregon Supreme Court decision overturns the ruling by Marion County Circuit Court Judge Mary James Merten and upholds the voter passed property compensation act as constitutional.
Of course, the court did not rule on whether Measure 37 was a wise policy choice for Oregon voters. Rather, their decision was limited to the right of voters to create Measure 37. From the decision:
The people, in exercising their initiative power, were free to enact Measure 37 in furtherance of policy objectives such as compensating landowners for a diminution in property value resulting from certain land use regulations or otherwise relieving landowners from some of the financial burden of certain land use regulations. Neither policy is irrational; no one seriously can assert that Measure 37 is not reasonably related to those policy objectives.And, that determination is the only one that this court is empowered to make. Whether Measure 37 as a policy choice is wise or foolish, farsighted or blind, is beyond this court's purview. Our only function in any case involving a constitutional challenge to an initiative measure is to ensure that the measure does not contravene any pertinent, applicable constitutional provisions. Here, we conclude that no such provisions have been contravened.
Read the news release. Read the full decision.
Discuss.
|
February 21, 2006 |
in the news 2006 | Comments (94 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: LT | Feb 21, 2006 8:40:13 AM
From the release linked above:
First, the Court determined that Measure 37 does not unconstitutionally limit the legislature's plenary power as a law-making body. The Court reasoned that nothing in Measure 37 prevents either the legislature or the people, in the exercise of their initiative power, from enacting new land use statutes, from repealing all land uses statutes, or from amending or repealing Measure 37 itself.
So there we have it. The voters can pass a measure changing 37 or any land use laws, and the legislature can ammend or repeal Measure 37.
I am grateful they spelled that out--it was not clear to the average person in 2005, I don't believe.
So now anyone can mount a ballot measure (is there time this year?) or any legislator can introduce a bill to either:
say "Transferability shall be part of Measure 37 " (although it wasn't in the measure text as I understand it) OR
to overturn Measure 37 entirely.
When I was in the capitol late last session, I learned there was a 1037-D to "fix" Measure 37, that very few people realized what the -D version actually said/ did, and that there were people who did understand it who had drastically different opinions about it--but they were a very small minority.
Clarity is a virtue.
There is now no reason OIA can't put forward something straightforward like adding transferability if that is what they want.
1000 Friends or any similar group can mount a campaign for outright repeal if that is what they want. The court has now made it clear that either is permissible.
So let's have people involved in the issue state a clear positive they support, not just attack those they disagree with or use language which sounds like propaganda.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 21, 2006 8:55:56 AM
Uggh. What a crappy start to the day...
Posted by: Winston Wolfe | Feb 21, 2006 9:06:57 AM
If I didn't know better, I would think that it is an election year for some of those judges.
Posted by: sweet victory | Feb 21, 2006 9:19:46 AM
""""""Of course, the court did not rule on whether Measure 37 was a wise policy choice for Oregon voters""""""
No, but voters decided it was wise for Oregon.
Since the high court ruled that "the measure does not contravene any pertinent, applicable constitutional provisions"
by extension, they essentially also ruled Judge Martens' ruling was outside the law.
And every single defense of her judicial maleficence that I read here on Blue
was flat out wrong.
All of the praises for her well thought out ruling were wrong.
All of the amateur legal opinions which defended Martens' ruling were wrong.
And unanimously so.
Go back and read your own comments and,
Now today's question is will anyone in the Blue M37 archives admit they were wrong?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 21, 2006 9:41:55 AM
Dear "sweet victory" -- you continue to miss the point.
We don't recall judges for making a decision they believe to be the correct one. Being overturned isn't sufficient for recall. Unless you can point to some malfeasance or corruption, there's still nothing to suggest that Judget Mertens should be recalled.
Enjoy your victory lap, but don't overreach.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Feb 21, 2006 9:44:25 AM
This OSC decision just solidifies the fact that Judge James made a terrible ruling which was in no small part influenced by her own ideological stance and bore a definite conflict of interest.
Bravo, for the Oregon Supreme Court, I didn't know they had it in 'em!
Unfortunately, land use will still be bandied about in the legislature with no real resolution.
Posted by: LT | Feb 21, 2006 9:49:47 AM
For sweet victory and all those other gloaters:
The decision does not say some of the more extreme things some believed Measure 37 says (For instance, that if someone wished to they could bulldoze some historic house in a settled neighborhood to put up a video store or some other high traffic business, or could set up a motocross track next to someone's home, then there was no due process for the affected neighbors--no one could stop the development). The decision DOES mention due process--it does not say "anyone who files a claim wins because Measure 37 says so". THAT would be a lack of due process and I don't think the decision sets aside due process.
As quoted in the press release, it says:
With regard to Article I, section 22, the Court held that Measure 37 does not "suspend" the operation of laws, but, rather, authorizes a governing body to modify, remove, or not apply use regulations in specific situations. With regard to Article III, section I, the Court held that the measure does not encroach on executive power; rather, it simply provides avenues for judicial review in specific land use cases.
Therefore, a campaign which says "the voters have spoken on 37, therefore no one has the right to change it", as the House majority leadership said of Measure 30 during the 2005 session, could create a backlash. This could be a campaign issue for legislators--do they support ammending or overturning Measure 37 as outlined in the decision?
"avenues for judicial review in specific land use cases" could well mean that if anyone goes too far they could land in court.
And I wonder about the attempt to recall Judge James or otherwise make the judge's life more difficult/ less secure. Were those of us who said that was not appropriate because the Supreme Court would always overturn a Marion County decision wrong to say so?
Do you folks who supported the repeal now look like sore winners/losers for having done that?
Or do you believe in a principle that any judge who makes one "wrong" decision should be subject to a recall? I wouldn't support that proposal, but then one of my relatives was a judge.
Sounds to me like the Supreme Court clarified the issue. The winners have the right to be happy today.
Those who are on the other side, though, have the right to say they have always admired Hector Macpherson and Tom McCall and the original SB 100 although over time any legislation could use some tweaking.
And if this becomes a further battle over a measure or legislation, telling us we have no right to admire what McCall and the others did because ha ha you won in court is not likely to win you any votes.
Posted by: Sweeter by the minute | Feb 21, 2006 10:17:02 AM
LT,
Do you remember your earlier lecture on the rule of law?
Posted by: LT | Oct 14, 2005 9:10:06 PM
All those of you who have ever used phrases like "the rule of law" should understand that is the way our system works.
".....that Measure 37 violates several state constitutional provisions, including one that bars laws favoring one group of citizens over another....." is the way one news article put it.
If someone does not like the several state constitutional provisions, they can try to change them.
Posted by: Sweet read | Feb 21, 2006 10:24:56 AM
This is an interesting read now.
Measure 37 Thrown out
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/10/breaking_news_m.html
Posted by: PanchoPdx | Feb 21, 2006 10:29:45 AM
My-oh-my.
Judge James wasn't just reversed, she was bodyslammed.
She had not one, but six(!) different theories as to why M37 violated the constitution. (5 state, 1 federal).
Every one of them rejected.
It takes a lot of judicial creativity to be overturned on six separate legal theories.
One might wonder whether she had a personal interest in the outcome?
The best spin is that she was an impetuous rookie judge who called it as she saw it, but was wrong. Really wrong. And her wrong decisions delayed justice under M37
for thousands of claimants based on novel legal theories.
Corrupt or incompetent. Take your pick. It's more obvious than ever that she deserved to be recalled.
Posted by: Al | Feb 21, 2006 10:43:03 AM
What fabulous news! As someone who is on the forefront of protecting property rights from the overreaching of government and their communist syncophants, I rejoice in this decision.
I just can't believe that the Supreme Commie Court of Oregon did it, though...They actually upheld property rights! Were they smoking something?
No matter, it's done, at last! Property owners, rejoice!
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 21, 2006 10:47:11 AM
wrong doesn't equal incompetent, Pancho. And how sad that you consider corruption an option absent any evidence whatsoever.
I seriously doubt "thousands" of claims were delayed; there were only three counties enjoined if I recall correctly.
OSC didn't "uphold property rights," they upheld the ability of the initiative process to affect the methods by which the legislature conducts its business.
Posted by: j hoffa | Feb 21, 2006 10:55:26 AM
Torridjoe,
There were thousands of state claims that were held up by her decision as well as hundreds of county claims in the 4 counties named in the lawsuit as well as those counties that put everything on hold pending the decision today.
And, yes they did uphold property rights, the property rights of those people who want to develop their land as they see fit without overbearing government influence.
Posted by: Got to laugh | Feb 21, 2006 11:01:08 AM
Posted by: LT | Oct 14, 2005 9:10:06 PM
Time to quit the scapegoating. I once worked on a ballot measure eventually thrown out by the courts, but my friends and I just groaned when that happened. We didn't say things like "wise up" or that horrible things would happen.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 14, 2005 10:02:26 PM
No one is "using" the courts. It's not like people weren't warned about the dubious nature of the initiative. Either the provision meets state Constitutional muster, or it doesn't. And I think finding five separate provisions it violates, is not an encouraging sign that it was drafted well. (Of course, many of us didn't need the sign to figure that one out).
Posted by: Gil Johnson | Oct 14, 2005 11:39:17 PM
I figured M37 wouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny. The righties are so anti-government that they don't know how to write laws.
Posted by: engineer | Oct 15, 2005 7:23:00 PM
Voters (and legislators) have been known (gasp!)to pass measures or laws which are unconstitutional, and apparently now M37 is one more example. Thank God we have a constitution!!
Posted by: Thanks, Al | Feb 21, 2006 11:01:54 AM
Al:
Thanks for elevating this conversation to the level of...cold war-era polemics. I've often thought that we need more name-calling and blind rhetoric in conversations about land use and property rights.
-AE
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 21, 2006 11:05:08 AM
What's interesting in this thread is that the gloaters who decry the "amateur legal opinions" are themselves offering amateur legal positions. Methinks your "analysis" is all about having won an important legal victory. You have. Feel free to gloat. But don't lecture us from some moral position of having insight about the true nature of law. You won. Leave it at that.
Posted by: WinstonWolfe | Feb 21, 2006 11:16:20 AM
Hey Jar-Jar Alworth...
For the love of god if you are going to condemn some for being amateur, save the baby talk for you boyfriends.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Feb 21, 2006 11:22:29 AM
Those of us who agree with the Oregon Supreme Court's decision shouldn't engage in an orgy of recrimination against Judge James or those who agreed with her decision. If the supreme court had ruled the other way, would that have made Judge James right and her critics wrong?
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, "Our decisions aren't final because they are infallible; they are infalliable because they are final."
The real kudos belong to the Oregon Supreme Court (and in particular newly designated Chief Justice Paul DeMuniz) for acting so expeditiously on this matter.
Posted by: poor loser | Feb 21, 2006 11:28:03 AM
Jeff you don't want to admit you were completely wrong.
And worse yet you have the gaul to declare there should not be any "lecture from some moral position".
What were you doing with your earlier judgement?
December 2, 2004 | Jeff Alworth
Measure 37: Proof that the Initiative Process is Broken?
"The ugly side of citizen action is that citizens often don't know what the hell they're doing. The initiative system plays to the same kind of indulgent impulses that keep us buying SUVs and watching Jerry Springer. But what's benign to entertainment is devastating to public policy."
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Feb 21, 2006 11:40:36 AM
OK kids, seveeral sane pepople have tried to explain this, but I'll give it one more try:
Judges sometimes make calls that get overturned.
The remedy for addressing calls that you feel are incorrect is the appeals process, not the recall. Recall is designed to address criminal or overtly incompetent public officials. Making a ruling that is subsequently overturned by a higher court is not a demonstration of incompetence. If it were, we wouldn't need the appeals process at all, would we?
At least some of your allies seem to understand this, as they have successfully appealed James' decision to a higher court.
********
Calling people with whom you disagree, "incompetent" or "corrupt" or "stupid" is not a legitimate argument among thinking people.
It makes you look immature and petty, which of course, may very well be the case. Still, you oughta have a little personal pride and attempt to appear rational, at least in this forum.
Posted by: Brandy | Feb 21, 2006 11:42:33 AM
Hey Jack,
Brilliant advice. I'm sure no one considered that if the supreme court had ruled the other way, that would that have made Judge James right and her critics wrong.
Imagine that? Sorry for the sarcasm.
But, what's important here is not the what if's.
But rather, we have a constitution and laws which Judge James sought
to violate with an activist's ruling. Her demonstrated gross disregard for law, and our constitution, is unquestionably solid grounds for her removal.
If she has any remaining ethics or a conscience she should resign immediately.
Posted by: Anony | Feb 21, 2006 11:55:58 AM
I seem to remember that the compromise SB-1037 was villified in a former thread by a commenter for being a weakening of our land use system. (Apparently, the better course of action would have been to wait to this very day, when M37 was simply declared unconstitutional.)
That compromise doesn't look so bad now, it seems.
This serves as a fine example of both sides run amok... each side refusing to compromise when the boat tips their way, which ensures that one way or another, Oregon's going to get a very extreme policy.
And if M37 had been tanked?... the pervasive discontent with the land use system wouldn't have simply evaporated. Here's to those who seek out lasting solutions rather than playing judicial roulette.
There's a lesson to be learned here. And now... a moment of silence for Oregon's open spaces.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 21, 2006 11:59:11 AM
what i find interesting is not that the judge was overturned -- that happens frequently and does not mean the judge was bad, just that the OSC decided she was wrong in this instance -- but the trouble they went to in saying they were not saying M37 was wise or foolish. why would they take that time unless they had doubts about its wisdom? they get many controversial cases that have huge public debate behind them, and they don't take the time to talk about the voters' wisdom. in this case, they did. had they thought M37 was good law, i believe they would not have bothered with those lines. but they did, and it's not insignificant. sometimes judges have to make decisions they don't like. i read this decision as one in which the OSC was holding their noses as they made a ruling they really wished they did not have to.
now let's get us a Dem majority in the Leg and fix this terrible law before it destroys the livability of Oregon. this is the Child of M5, and it's going to be really bad if not stopped.
Posted by: foxtrot13 | Feb 21, 2006 12:00:10 PM
Told you so. Now where all those people talking about how OIA should have gotten better legal advice? Turns out the judge's rubber stamp of the 1000 Friends arguments had a few holes in it.
Posted by: Adventuregeek | Feb 21, 2006 12:00:25 PM
Sweet, I can hardly wait for more subdivisions and strip malls! Who needs those forests anyway. After all we couldn't have ONE state that was free from sprawl, that would be some sort of commie abomination. Got to make sure everyone get's their damn "property rights" lottery ticket! Today I really really HATE what Oregon has become!
Posted by: Peter Bray | Feb 21, 2006 12:19:20 PM
Why are these right-wingers allowed to post here?
Posted by: Sid | Feb 21, 2006 12:32:43 PM
And as all these developments outside of urban growth boundries go in, who is going to pay for the infrastructure? We can't even pay for our existing infrastructure (see problems with such areas like Happy Valley.)
Unchecked development without raising taxes to pay for that development will result in a huge mess. If Oregonians honestly believe that property owners have the right to build subdivisions outside of urban growth boundries, then we need to be ready to pay for the infrastructure to support those subdivsions, which tend to require higher costs as a result of their existence outside the UGBs. And as the Happy Valley scenerio demonstrates, the taxes collected from those developments is not enought to cover long term infratructure costs.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Feb 21, 2006 12:33:14 PM
I was waiting for this line,,,
Adventuregeek said
"""""I can hardly wait for more subdivisions and strip malls! Who needs those forests anyway.""""""
Imagine that. Affordable housing and livable neighborhoods.
What forests? There is plenty of land that is neither forest, farm or wetland, that M37 frees up for reasonable and regulated use.
""""After all we couldn't have ONE state that was free from sprawl,that would be some sort of commie abomination.""""""
If you think the chaos alternative we have been witnessing is swell
it's no wonder you are confused about M37. The Urban Renewal and tax abatement subsidized developments, mandated high density and infill have turned many parts of the region into seas of concrete, roofs and asphalt without regard for any the impacts including to livability.
""""""Got to make sure everyone get's their damn "property rights" lottery ticket!"""""""
60% or Oregonians demanded they be preserved.
""""""Today I really really HATE what Oregon has become!""""""""
That's impressive. Anything Oregon "has become", that you hate, is the outcome of decades of planning and land use laws.
M37 has had very little impact to date.
Hang around and you'll never witness the destruction you imagine.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 21, 2006 12:36:24 PM
My wife & I just spent about 3 weeks driving across the country & although we were already true believers when it came to our land use protections, the trip really drove home what a special deal we have here.
This decision is obviously dissappointing - we live in one of the most beautiful, livable corners of the world and the lack of sprawl and overdevelopment isn't just a lucky break. It's a product of careful and thoughtful safeguards to protect prime farm and forest land. All that's in jeopardy now, and that's a major blow to our heritage and future.
Politically, this issue isn't settled - and I still hold hope that a more balanced & reasonable approach can be embraced by voters.
Posted by: Larry | Feb 21, 2006 12:39:09 PM
When Judge Merten declared M37 unconstitutional, I thought it was a wholly asinine decision. And a lot of the comments that I read here on BO seemed like people were really stretching to support her decision, on wholly ideological reasoning. The arguments really didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. That being said, I don't believe Judge Merten should have been the target of a recall because of her decision. However, I am VERY concerned that she seemed to have a conflict of interest in the case, and she certainly should have recused herself.
What I would love for some regular BO posters to do is to answer a simple question I have. Really look into your soul and tell me what you believe is right or wrong - Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?
Oregon could have avoided all of this mess if they had only grandfathered in existing property owners when land use changes were made. In so many other areas of local, state, and federal gov't, we see that being the case. I'm not sure how anyone couldn't see the day coming when folks would finally "have enough" and put an initiative on the ballot to regain the value that they lost.
I believe that M37 passed because most people can easily see what is fair and what is not - and not allowing someone like Dorothy English to add a couple more houses to the property that she's owned for 54 years is simply not fair.
So I'm just asking some here to strip away what your party and close friends "tell" you what to think and just answer the question - Is it fair for government entities to take away your ability to enjoy your property (as you were entitled when purchased), without any sort of recourse or compensation?
I'd love to read your simple, one sentence answers to that question. Because I think the question really is that simple.
Posted by: Sweeter yet | Feb 21, 2006 12:42:35 PM
Peter Bray wrote
>Why are these right-wingers allowed to post here?<
What makes you think only right wingers voted for and support M37?
Or did you mean "nutjobs"
At 60% approval counltess moderates, Democrats and reasonable people voter for M37.
Perhaps your own words say it best.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Aug 21, 2005 4:23:48 PM
"Clearly M37 is unconstitutional,,,,,, Let's hope that the hearing next month in Marion County sets things in motion for M37's demise. That said, of course, if M37 is vanquished by the courts, we must prepare for more onslaughts from OIA... both M7 and M37 passed with wide margins. What can be done to properly educate the public so as to head these nutjobs off at the pass?"
Posted by: Jonathan | Feb 21, 2006 12:52:00 PM
There seems to be a remarkable lack of legal acumen by those trumpeting this ruling. Reversals are not uncommon, and I don't think I've heard a lawyer say that a reversal shows incompetence or corruption. Especially when the decision contains pure questions of law, with no factual disputes, it's just not that odd. Every lawyer who gloats in a victory should know that there will come a day when they'll get slammed, which is why I don't hear many lawyers gloating about their victories (though I wouldn't be surprised if Ross is out there trumpeting, and ignoring his recent tubing in a ballot measure case).
Put another way, and sorry to be such a naive golden-rule follower, but lawyers who strive to be professional seem to understand that they may be standing in another lawyer's or judge's shoes someday. So for the non-lawyers who are having such a fun time (or who were gloating before), here's hoping you learn the pleasure of being on the losing end.
Posted by: LT | Feb 21, 2006 12:52:53 PM
Dear poor (loser/speller).
"Do you have the gall....?" is the correct spelling.
Having taken Latin in high school, I could make a couple of jokes about "gaul":
There is a famous passage students learn to translate which is something like "all Gaul is divided into 3 parts". And I believe that area of Europe is now called France.
Thank you Jack Roberts for once again adding an adult perspective:
Those of us who agree with the Oregon Supreme Court's decision shouldn't engage in an orgy of recrimination against Judge James or those who agreed with her decision. If the supreme court had ruled the other way, would that have made Judge James right and her critics wrong?
Could it be so many tune out politics because yours is often a rare civil mature adult voice?
Pop the champagne corks today folks, then read the opinion in detail.
Sounds to me like there is a process in place more detailed than "Measure 37 says we get to do this and no one can complain".
It also sounds to me like the door is open to "givings" legislation. New roads, sewers, and other infrastructure improvements can add to the value of land.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that according to this decision, someone would be within their legal rights to start a ballot measure campaign or become a legislator and sponsor legislation saying that if payment were being made for "takings" then any improvements could require a "givings" fee from the developers.
It was more than 30 years ago in an unincorporated area, but it seems to me that when there was a sewer upgrade in our neighborhood, all the homeowners were assessed to pay for it. Can't see how this decision would make such a process illegal or prevent laws being passed relating to such ideas.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 21, 2006 12:52:55 PM
"At 60% approval counltess moderates, Democrats and reasonable people voter for M37."
I believe time will show that these voters did not understand the implications of M37, and that they will wish to see it overturned when the fruit of this measure lies rotting on the ground.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Feb 21, 2006 12:55:40 PM
Larry,
Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?
No, it's a dirty rotten trick.
************
You are probably dead on the money when you say:
Oregon could have avoided all of this mess if they had only grandfathered in existing property owners when land use changes were made.
Unfortunately, Initiative petitions are driven mostly by two types of people:
Fuzzy thinking true believers that want it all now and have very little concern about any blowback that may occur. (Instant Runoff Voting) Unfortunately, these guys write laws too.
Clear thinking Lying Bastards that know exactly the results to expect when they go out to cynically manipulate the voters. (measure 5) Unfortunately, these guys write laws too.
********
BTW: I'm not saying that there aren't a precious few thoughtful petitions that get advanced. I'm just saying that they are in the minority.
Posted by: Miked | Feb 21, 2006 12:58:21 PM
Where is this lack of sprawl? Are we living in the same city? I guess you can't see it from your Pearl District condo.
But we've got sprawl from Vancouver to Woodburn? From Gresham to McMinnville? Just where is the supposed urban growth boundary, the coast? I never understood all the land use advocates patting themselves on the back about Oregon's lack of sprawl or overdevelopment... am I just imagining all those mansions on top of Mt. Scott?
As for the judge, clearly this ruling is a set back for her decisions because she was wrong on all counts...not just one or two...all of them... you can spin it any way you want, but she's been outed as a judicial activist and not a thoughtful constitutional jurist.
Posted by: LM | Feb 21, 2006 1:03:29 PM
Larry,
Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?
Those same property owners can also claim the right to stack their land with billboards, or otherwise stick it their neighbors at the public's expense, because Measure 37 is a dinner-napkin piece of lawmaking.
Posted by: LT | Feb 21, 2006 1:14:02 PM
Right you are, Tom C.
It sounds to me like the decision doesn't say "just file a claim and you'll get the regulation changed or compensation paid then and there", it talks about process to deal with claims.
I heard on the radio that there are still some cases dealing with the implementation of Measure 37.
The end result may be a process more structured than the proponents expected--wouldn't be the first time that what people thought they voted for was not the end result.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Feb 21, 2006 1:14:04 PM
Sid said
""""And as all these developments outside of urban growth boundries go in, who is going to pay for the infrastructure?""""""
Did you ask that question about SoWa or any of the developments where tax dollars pay for ALL of the infrastructure?
""""Unchecked development without raising taxes to pay for that development will result in a huge mess. """"""""""
In stark contrast to the SoWa type development all of the subdivisions and development you are talking about pay for ALL of their own infrastructure as well as System Development Fees toward system capacity increases. These developers are also required to extend services to and through their development so future expansion will be accommodated. The cost is tremendous to submit a land development application.
""""" then we need to be ready to pay for the infrastructure to support those subdivisions, which tend to require higher costs as a result of their existence outside the UGBs."""""""
Countless acres of marginal land are already adjacent to readily available services and the only thing preventing development is either the UGB or a lack of planning which developers have offered to do.
""""""""the taxes collected from those developments is not enough to cover long term infrastructure costs""""""""""
Of course they are not. Neither are the taxes collected from existing developments. Fees are collected and property taxes are at least collected for basic services. Unlike the alternative SoWa you apparently prefer. SoWa won't be paying for any services or infrastructure expansion decades.
Charlie,
Yes, we do "live in one of the most beautiful, livable corners of the world" and it has nothing to do with "the lack of sprawl and overdevelopment".
We have the worst sprawl possible. Right where most of us live.
In fact the Metro region has been so overcrowded, congested, haphazardly developed and affordability diminished that it's not as nice as it was 20 years ago. Of course many people have been sold the bill of goods that the only other choice was some mindless paving over of the whole state, (we livbe on 3% of it) and that nothing in between were possible.
The previous 20 years, going back 40 years, worked fine and we didn't have a fraction of the "planning" or the cost we have now. It ain't better or saving money.
Posted by: Jon | Feb 21, 2006 1:16:37 PM
what i find interesting is not that the judge was overturned -- that happens frequently and does not mean the judge was bad, just that the OSC decided she was wrong in this instance -- but the trouble they went to in saying they were not saying M37 was wise or foolish. why would they take that time unless they had doubts about its wisdom?
Good grief, its not their job to say whether its foolish. That involves emotions, not the law. They are there to see if rulings fit within the law. Period. Anything else is judicial activism.
Thats the problem I see with progressives. They want judges to use their emotions or personal feelings. They cant do that, they interpret the law. Thats all. Save the rest for the op-ed pages.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Feb 21, 2006 1:20:21 PM
Shhhhh. Don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: LT | Feb 21, 2006 1:20:32 PM
One more thing about Measure 37 implementation. As I understand 37, it basically says "they have to compensate me if they don't change the regulation, and my neighbors have no right to object because this is MY PROPERTY !".
If someone finds language in today's Supreme Court decision which says "Measure 37 sponsors are correct--neighbors have no right to file any complaint about the development proposals made by those filing Measure 37 claims" or something along those lines, I hope they will share it with the rest of us.
And if the decision says nothing on that subject, watch out--there may be a budding "neighbors rights " campaign.
Posted by: Larry | Feb 21, 2006 1:27:47 PM
LM - Thanks for the comment, but you didn't answer my question. And please tell me what you mean by "sticking it to your neighbor"...
The bottom line is so simple here - for years Oregon has been bending over property owners - without so much as a reach-around... Decisions on land use weren't made with the thought of how to properly treat the property owners, they were made with the idea of advancing a particular ideal. Regardless of whether you think that ideal is right or wrong, you still have to treat people fairly. And when you don't do that, year after year after year, it's only a matter of time before people rise up and attempt to "right the wrong"
And it's so disheartening to see so many on here make comments that basically say "the people that voted for this don't understand the ramifications". How condenscending.
What the folks DID understand was that their rights as landowners were being steadily stripped away. And finally, enough was enough.
That's how you get "dinner-napkin pieces of lawmaking". Had any of the anti-development folks ever come to the table with a piece of legislation or land-use laws that fairly treated property-owners, M37 would have never come to pass.
I'm still hoping you'll answer my simple question...
Posted by: Qwendolyn | Feb 21, 2006 1:29:22 PM
Larry,
"Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?"
Who said life was fair? The whole idea of government is to create a balance between personal rights and public good. I, for one, think the balance should tip more towards public good than private property rights.
Making private property rights into some kind of an all-important sacred untouchable element of society shows backward priorities.
Posted by: CG | Feb 21, 2006 1:38:16 PM
"Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?"
Nice question, Larry, but you seem smart enough to know how misleading it is. First, you must know that M37 goes much farther than that. It doesn't protect merely those owners who have had all development rights stripped away. I agree that they are sympathetic figures. But M37 protects everyone whose property value is reduced by a nickel. No sympathy there.
More generally, M37 was a great example of asking half a question. Of course it seems only fair to compensate landowners when their property value is reduced by government action. That is the only question M37 asked. The surprise, to me, is not that 60% of voters answered "yes"; the surprise is that 40% said "no."
The real question, if we were seriously interested in what voters want as public policy, would have included the "even if" that ballot measures always seem to leave out. Something like: "Should landowners be compensated for any reduction in property value, even if this will make future land-use planning effectively impossible without a significant tax increase?"
There is no evidence that the answer to that question would have been "yes," and that is why the proponents never asked it. That's how you pass a ballot measure in this state. Smart politics, but please spare us the lecture about what voters actually want, since you never asked them.
Posted by: Becky | Feb 21, 2006 1:41:40 PM
Here is an excellent, timely example of why we don't want a government attorney being able to decide whether an initiative that has been filed is constitutional or not or having the authority to prevent it from even being circulated, let alone voted on. Just as I pointed out earlier in "Idea: Initiative Reform," different people, being well-trained in the law and highly experienced, can come to different conclusions about constitutionality. Such decisions rightly belong with the Supreme Court, whose members are accountable to the voters. This time, the initiative is one you may not have cared for, but next time it could be one you strongly support - and all are subject to the same rules.
The AG already screens out the obviously unconstitutional initiatives; the rest of the time, there is simply a price to be paid for citizen access to the ballot. I happen to think it's worth the price.
Posted by: Larry | Feb 21, 2006 1:50:01 PM
Hello Qwendolyn:
I liked part of your post: "The whole idea of government is to create a balance between personal rights and public good. I, for one, think the balance should tip more towards public good than private property rights"
I agree with your first sentence and respect your honesty with the second.
But then you said: "Who said life is fair"? That line of thinking could be used to counter A LOT of things in life that I'm sure you wouldn't want to see happen. So be careful with that... To me, that argument doesn't really warrant a response.
And then you said: "Making private property rights into some kind of an all-important sacred untouchable element of society shows backward priorities" Fair enough. But I'm not talking about making property rights untouchable and sacred. I'm talking about fairness. About treating people with respect. Ya gotta respect the folks that were here before you. People who have owned their property for 30 years before a bunch of "progressive whipper-snappers" decided that the best thing for Oregon is to strip away the rights they've had.
And as for "backward priorities" - that's simply your opinion (and awfully snooty-sounding). As passage of M37 showed, most Oregonians consider that "proper priorities". I'm sorry if that doesn't align with your view.
And you didn't answer my question, either. Is it right or wrong for a gov't entity to take away those rights, with zero compensation?
Posted by: Larry | Feb 21, 2006 2:01:47 PM
Hello CG -
First off, don't overestimate my intelligence... I do that enough already on a regular basis, and it frequently gets me in trouble...
Seriously, though, I'm not saying that I'm convinced that M37 was written in the best possible way. My main point here is that it was inevitable, because land use regulations have been shoved down property owners' throats for so long here. All in the name of chasing an ideal that I don't believe most Oregonians believe in.
And it certainly wasn't unconstitutional.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Marvinlee | Feb 21, 2006 8:20:49 AM
The justices have provided a tightly reasoned reversal that merits line-by-line reading. Ample references are provided for those who wish to learn more of their source material.
A close reading reveals that the decision,while relatively clear cut, does not eliminate local government action that may impede or promote future Measure 37 claims and objections to those claims.