- Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004)
Oregon Ballot Measure 37 is a controversial land-use ballot
initiativethat passed in the U.S. stateof Oregonin 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations.
Content of the proposal
The law enacted by Measure 37 allows property owners whose property value is reduced by environmental or other land use regulations to claim compensation from state or local government. If the government fails to compensate a claimant within two years of the claim, the law allows the claimant to use the property under only the regulations in place at the time he/she purchased the property. [http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/MEASURE37/index.shtml] Certain types of regulations, however, are exempt from this.
Advocates for Measure 37 have described it as a protection against "regulatory taking," a notion with roots in an interpretation of the
United States Constitution.
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutionends as follows:
That phrase provides the foundation for the government power of
eminent domain. It is also used to justify restrictions on forms of regulation that are so extensive as to deprive the property owner of any economically viable use of his land (as spelled out in the 1922 United States Supreme Courtcase Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon.) [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment: Annotations pg. 14 of 16 ] ]
The advocates of Measure 37 take the concept of regulatory taking a step beyond that outlined in the Constitution, considering any reduction in a piece of property's value - for instance, a reduction resulting from an environmental regulation - to constitute a "regulatory taking," and thereby justifying compensation to the owner. [ [http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Legal/takings.aspx Regulatory Takings ] ]
Measure 37 was ruled unconstitutional in a 2005 circuit court decision, [cite news
title=Judge rules Measure 37 unconstitutional
Portland Business Journal
date=October 14, 2005
accessdate=2007-01-30] but the
Oregon Supreme Courtreversed that decision, [ [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S52875.htm MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, 340 Or. 117, 130 P.3d 308 (2006)] ] ruling that the law was not unconstitutional, and noting that the Court was not empowered to rule on its efficacy:
In the early 1970s, Senate Bill 100 and Portland's 1972 Downtown Plan established bold guidelines for the regulation of land use. Oregon became known for its land use planning. Many Oregonians take great pride in that, but others consider themselves victimized by government oversight. The strong 2004 passage (61%) of Measure 37 is considered a political backlash to that legacy of regulation, [ [http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0512/050323_news_portland.php Turf: The Green Dream: Endangered Ecotopia (Seattle Weekly) ] ] and follows several other unsuccessful efforts to restrict land use regulation:
Oregon Ballot Measure 65 (1998)and Oregon Ballot Measure 2 (2000)sought to restrict the Legislature's ability to regulate land use; both measures failed.
Oregon Ballot Measure 7 (2000)was similar to Measure 37. It was approved, but struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court.
* Measure 39, which passed in 2006, restricted the use of
eminent domain. It was promoted by Oregonians In Actionas a "natural extension" of Measure 37, and passed with very little opposition. [cite news
title=Foes of land takings widen aim
date=September 25, 2006
*Measure 49, passed in 2007, modifies Measure 37. It will scale back many of Measure 37's provisions, address questions about transferability, and fast-track some smaller Measure 37 claims.
The state of
Washington's legislature referred Initiative 164(also known as Referendum 48) to the ballot in 1995. This "regulatory takings" bill was similar to Measure 37 in its restriction of local governments' ability to regulate land use. The bill was widely criticized, and was not approved by voters. [cite news
title=Legislature votes to hamstring Washington state
work=High Country News
date=May 29, 1995
In 2006, voters in six western states considered ballot initiatives similar to Oregon's 2004 Measure 37. [cite news
author=de Place, Eric
title=Prop. 207 supporters should ask how Oregon's 37 measures up
date=October 12, 2006
accessdate=2006-12-22] All states except Arizona rejected the initiatives. [cite press release
title=Oregon's Neighbors Say "NO!" to Measure 37-Style Initiatives
publisher=1000 Friends of Oregon
date=November 8, 2006
Arizona's initiative combined the land use/regulatory taking issue central to Oregon Ballot Measure 37 with a restriction on eminent domain (similar to
Oregon Ballot Measure 39 (2006)). The Arizona initiative's proponents focused their arguments almost exclusively on the less controversial eminent domain portion of the initiative. [ [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop207.htm 2006 Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review ] ]
The Nevada initiative also combined the two issues. The regulatory taking portions of Nevada's initiative (i.e., those most similar to Oregon's Measure 37) were removed by the state Supreme Court, and voters approved the remaining restrictions on eminent domain. The Nevada initiative will be reviewed in the next election.
This surge in related initiatives reflects the rising influence of political activists who coordinate the production and advocacy of state ballot initiatives on a national level. Many of the ballot initiatives in the following table (in numerous states) have been financed by New York libertarian
Howie Richand groups he is involved with, most notably Americans for Limited Government.
2006 initiatives restricting regulation of land use and condemnation:
The following are the first three sections of the law; for a complete version, see [http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/MEASURE37/legal_information.shtml#Information_About_the_Election Oregon State Land Use site] .
# If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation.
# Just compensation shall be equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demand for compensation under this act.
# Subsection (1) of this act shall not apply to land use regulations:
## Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically recognized as public nuisances under common law. This subsection shall be construed narrowly in favor of a finding of compensation under this act;
## Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health and safety, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations, and pollution control regulations;
## To the extent the land use regulation is required to comply with federal law;
## Restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing. Nothing in this subsection, however, is intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States Constitutions; or
## Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner or a family member of the owner who owned the subject property prior to acquisition or inheritance by the owner, whichever occurred first.
Support for Measure 37
Supporters argue that Measure 37 has provided protection of the value of property by insuring that new legislation doesn't decrease property values or limit development possibilities. Timber companies and real estate developers were the most prominent supporters (and the primary funders) of Measure 37 cite news
title=Anti-Sprawl Laws, Property Rights Collide in Oregon
work=The Washington Post
date=February 28, 2005
accessdate=2007-01-12] , presumably because environmental and other land use regulations would impact them most directly.
Measure 37's sponsor,
Oregonians In Action, and various supporters drummed up support during the 2004 election using the case of Dorothy English, a then-92-year-old woman, as a " cause célèbre". Enacted zoning regulations prevented English from dividing her land into pieces that could go to each of her children. [cite news
title=Measure 37 in Court: There’s Got To Be A Better Way
author= Sam Lowry
date=January 12, 2006
Opposition to Measure 37
The following are major arguments advanced against Measure 37:
*Given that a large portion of a property's value is created by legislation (e.g. laws providing for public roads, sewers, electrical lines, parks, etc), it is unreasonable to require the government to compensate property owners for any additional legislation which might restrict property use in the name of the public good [cite web
title=Property Rights and Public Values
work=Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute
date=June 13, 2001
*Environmental impact. Since the government will rarely be able to fund the measure, many property owners, especially major developers, will be able to ignore environmental legislation enacted to protect the public good. This has already led to significant blows to state efforts to protect endangered species. [cite news
author=John D. Echeverria
title=The House takes an ax to the Endangered Species Act
date=October 11, 2005
accessdate=2007-01-17] In fact, to date existing land use restrictions have been waived in every claim filed under Measure 37.
*Questionable legality. Rulings by The Supreme Court have deferred to the State and local legislative authorities in determining what constitutes a legitimate exercise of protection of the public interest, as in the 5-4 "Kelo Decision" which allowed takings of private property when a significant public good could be demonstrated. On this ground, existing environmental legislation, even if a 'taking' under the fifth amendment, ought to be allowed as a reasonable expression of the public good.Fact|date=February 2007
*As more claims are being filed, many voters are feeling the impact of unregulated developmenthttp://www.pdx.edu/media/i/m/ims_M37brainerdreport.pdf] .
*The legislation imposes a large burden on the taxpayers, because there is no provision for funding any payoffs for claims under Measure 37 within the Measure's text. Therefore, all funds must be taken from the general budget of the municipality, which includes funding for schools, roads, health clinics, etc. In order to maintain the existing levels of protection for their communities, taxpayers would have to fund billions of dollars in compensation to landowners.Fact|date=February 2007
*The legislation is incomplete, in that it fails to dictate a method for determining property value when a claim is filed or evaluated.cite news
title=Prineville tries to save its scenic rimrock vista
date=October 30, 2006
*The campaign for the ballot measure was deceptive, claiming that the law would apply mainly to private property owners (like spokeswoman Dorothy English), when in fact the majority of claims have come from large-scale developers. One of the earliest large claims was brought by a timber company from another state. [cite news
title=Revealing the true game behind Measure 37
date=December 4, 2006
As of March 12, 2007, 7,562 Measure 37 claims for compliance payments or land use waivers had been filed spanning 750,898 acres statewide in Oregon.http://www.pdx.edu/ims/m37database.html]
The claims filed include mobile home parks in sacred native burial grounds, shopping malls in farmland, and gravel pit mines in residential neighborhoods. There are no provisions in the law that public notice must be provided to neighboring property owners when a claim is filed. Because municipalities can not afford the billions in compensation, the laws have been waived in every case.
Claims filed in
Portland, Oregon, by December 4 2006, totalled over $250 million. Many of these claims were filed by major area land developers.cite news
title=Measure 37 hammers city
date=December 19, 2006
The owners of Schreiner's Iris Gardens filed a claim in late 2006, demanding either $9.5 million or the right to subdivide their 400 acres. They assert that they have no intention of changing the use of the property, but want to keep options open for the future. [cite news
author=The Associated Press
title=Iris grower files Measure 37 claims
work=The Register Guard
date=October 27, 2006
John Benton, a
Hood River Countyfruit farmer, filed a Measure 37 claim, demanding either $57 million or the right to build 800 houses on his 210 acres of property. Neighboring farmers objected, due to the significant impact they anticipated such a change would bring to their community.
In the fall of 2006, the Palins, a Prineville couple, filed a Measure 37 claim, demanding either $200,000 or the right to develop their property, which is on a scenic portion of rimrock clearly visible from the city. The city did its own appraisal of the property's potential value, and offered $47,000. This was the first case where the government offered money instead of a waiver of land use restrictions, and highlights the Measure's lack of a clear process for determining the value associated with a claim.cite news
title=Prineville offers Measure 37 pay
date=October 26, 2006
In a January 15, 2007 article, a statewide newspaper highlighted a Measure 37-based claim in Hood River County, in which land owners aim to develop a parcel of rural land eight times the size of the city of
Hood River:cquote|As negotiations begin, Hood River is emerging as the perfect case study. No other county's Measure 37 dynamics speak so directly to Oregon's changing economy and lifestyle. [cite news
title=Will there be room for pears, paradise under Measure 37?
date=January 15, 2007
In 2007, the Oregon legislature placed Measure 49 on the
November 6 2007special election ballot. It passed with 62% in favor. [ [http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2007/11/voters_pass_reject_measures_by.html Voters pass, reject measures by similar margins Oregon, Northwest and National Politics & Elections News OregonLive.com ] ] [ Mortenson, Eric [http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1194418606131680.xml&coll=7 "Voters keep cigarette tax as is but roll back property rights"] The Oregonian. Retrieved on November 7 2007] The measure overturns and modifies many of the provisions of Measure 37. [http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov62007/ November 6 2007, Special Election] The Legislature stated that it would restrict the damaging effects of Measure 37 by limiting some of the development that measure permitted. [http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov62007/military_vp/m49_es.pdf Explanatory Statement] cquote|This measure protects farmlands, forestlands and lands with groundwater shortages in two ways.
First, subdivisions are not allowed on high-value farmlands, forestlands and groundwater- restricted lands. Claimants may not build more than three homes on such lands.
Second, claimants may not use this measure to override current zoning laws that prohibit commercial and industrial developments, such as strip malls and mines, on land reserved for homes, farms, forests and other uses. A record 117 paid arguments on Measure 49 appeared in the voter's pamphlet for that election, most favoring it. [Hogan, Dave [http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1190777108162240.xml&coll=7 "Voter guide thick with Measure 49 arguments"] "The Oregonian",
September 26 2007.] Retrieved on October 7 2007] ]
1000 Friends of Oregon
List of Oregon ballot measures
Background on Property Rights
* Georgetown University [http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/current_research/regulatory_takings/ background on the takings issue]
* a "Republican developer type" on [http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/current_research/documents/RT_Pubs_Other_Rypkema.pdf property rights] from the GELPI site
Oregon specific linkings
* State of Oregon's [http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/MEASURE37/index.shtml Measure 37 page]
* Full text of Measure 37 [http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/MEASURE37/legal_information.shtml#Information_About_the_Election]
* Portland State University project measuring the impact of Measure 37, including searchable index of claims [http://www.pdx.edu/ims/]
* [http://landusewatch.com/ Land Use Watch] articles about Measure 37 and other land use issues
* Report on [http://www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs/property-fairness/oregon-stories-m37 impacts of Measure 37]
* [http://www.friends.org/issues/M37/index.html Measure 37 resources] from land use advocates
1000 Friends of Oregon
Political and legal analysis
* [http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Statutes/OR_M37_Sullivan.htm report] on the context and effects of Measure 37
* [http://www.nbnnews.com/NBN/issues/2006-02-27/Front+Page/4.html list of issues unresolved by MacPherson v. DAS]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Oregon Ballot Measure 30 (2004) — Ballot Measure 30 of 2004 would have created a surcharge on Oregon s income tax, raised the minimum tax corporations pay in Oregon income taxes, and made other changes to the tax code to increase revenues. Similar to the previous year s defeated… … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 38 (2004) — Ballot Measure 38 of 2004 would have abolished Oregon s State Accident Insurance Fund (commonly known as SAIF Corporation), a nonprofit state chartered workers compensation provider. SAIF s assets would have been sold and the revenues from the… … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 31 (2004) — Ballot Measure 31 of 2004 was an amendment to the Oregon Constitution, referred to a popular vote by the Oregon Legislative Assembly, that permitted the Legislative Assembly to postpone certain elections in the event of the death of a candidate.… … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 36 (2004) — A van in 2009 displays bumper stickers against Measure 9 (2000) and Measure 36. Ballot Measure 36 was a 2004 initiative in the U.S. state of Oregon. It amended the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The… … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 39 (2006) — Oregon Ballot Measure 39, passed in the 2006 General Election, is a ballot measure that prohibits the government from condemning property from one private party (by eminent domain) on behalf of another private party. Advocates both for and… … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measures 37 (2004) and 49 (2007) — Oregon Ballot Measure 37 is a controversial land use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 11 (1994) — Measure 11 was a citizens initiative passed in 1994 in the U.S. State of Oregon. This statutory enactment established mandatory minimum sentencing for several crimes. The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election with 788,695… … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 41 (2006) — Measure 41 Allows income tax deduction equal to Federal exemptions deduction to substitute for state exemption credit. Election results Yes or no … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 58 (2008) — Measure 58 Prohibits teaching public school student in language other than English for more than two years. Election results Yes or no Votes … Wikipedia
Oregon Ballot Measure 59 (2008) — Measure 59 Creates an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on individual taxpayers Oregon income tax returns. Election results Yes or no … Wikipedia