Homestead mailing list

[sanrico AT highdesert.com]

Monday, December 13, 2004, 12:00 A.M. Pacific 

Neal Peirce / Syndicated columnist
Pay attention to Oregon's sweeping property-rights vote 

Could a rallying cry of property rights blow a hole in the side of the 
nation's
surging smart-growth movement? 

The worry is real following a Nov. 2 vote in Oregon, a state which since 1973 
has
been the Valhalla of rural and scenic land protection through a system of
state-mandated urban growth boundaries. 

By a sweeping 61 percent to 39 percent margin, Oregonians approved an 
initiative,
Measure 37, designed to compensate property owners for virtually any state or
local government regulation that has restricted the use of their property or
reduced its fair market value. 

If government declines to pay, the owner can go ahead and build on or 
subdivide
his property — not under current land-use or zoning restrictions, but what was
legal when he or his parents or grandparents first acquired it. 

Opponents have visions of residential subdivisions starting to sweep across 
the
rural Willamette Valley, of Cascade Mountain vistas spoiled by an eruption of
Burger Kings and Wal-Marts, of pear orchards sprouting crops of McMansions. 
How
did such a sweeping measure pass in a state that had voted repeatedly over 
recent
decades to preserve the strict system of land-use regulation inaugurated under
the now legendary environmentalist, Gov. Tom McCall? The answer seems wrapped 
up
in the ballot language stating quite innocently that government must pay 
owners
when land-use regulations reduce property value. 

Opponents made a mistake in not challenging the seemingly innocuous language,
notes Mike Burton, former executive officer of Portland's Metro Regional
Government. "Even my mother-in-law voted for this thing." 

Just read Measure 37, adds Ethan Seltzer, land-use expert at Portland State
University, "and it sounds like common sense. Unless you know what's buried in
it, you'd never bat an eye. The problem is that what it means is insidious." 

The vote is, though, dramatic evidence that the sagebrush rebellion didn't go
away with Reagan-era Interior Secretary James Watt. Efforts to pass a national
property-rights law fizzled during the Republican congressional rise of the
1990s, but 39 states debated and 15 passed laws with some protections. 

Ross Day, attorney for the conservative group Oregonians in Action that pushed
Measure 37, reports he has been receiving calls from activists across the 
United
States wanting "to find out what our secret recipe was to get it passed." 

Opponents of government regulation believe Oregon's measure can be a 
"franchise
product," a proposition sellable anywhere, says Bob Stacey, executive 
director of
the environmental group 1000 Friends of Oregon. 

But since no other state has planning laws as strong as Oregon's, there's no
other — except, perhaps, neighboring Washington — where a Measure 37 would 
have
as much impact, notes David Goldberg of Smart Growth America. 

What's clear is that Oregon is now headed into a maelstrom of legal 
maneuvers, a
lawyers' field day of claims against cash-short local governments obliged to
either lift regulations for owners with qualifying property or be liable for
court suits. How will values be set? Where will the money to pay come from? 
What
if a jurisdiction claims it can't pay? 

In retrospect, it's obvious that defenders of Oregon's land-use laws, Gov. Ted
Kulongoski among them, missed a bet in not adjusting some of the current law's
inflexible and irritating edges while they had time. Now, Kulongoski wants to 
pay
claims rather than tear holes in the land-use system — a dubious prospect as
Oregon wrestles with a $1 billion deficit. 

But there could be a silver lining: a fresh conversation that is less about 
rules
and regulations and more about how Oregon will preserve its magnificent 
natural
landscapes for future generations — balanced against the rights and interests 
of
today's property owners to develop and profit from their holdings. Shared 
beauty
versus individual rights, present against future — it is a debate every state
should have. 

But it won't be real unless the conservationists ask the tough question: What
about the varieties of government action, from highway interchanges to siting 
of
colleges and laboratories and stadiums, that dramatically improve the wealth 
of
individuals lucky (or clever) enough to have property at the right place at 
the
right time? If government has to pay for "takings," shouldn't it seek to 
collect
for the value of its "givings" — and maybe use one fund to balance the other? 

As Oregon led U.S. land conservation for decades, so could its new debate. How
about applying technologies for expert land mapping, like 
geographic-information
systems unknown 30 years ago? Or setting incentives for superior planning of 
city
and town centers to achieve more density and reduce pressure on the 
countryside? 

Sadly, Oregon's imbroglio over rights, fees, property and budgets will likely
drown all that out. But not, let's hope, for too long. 

Neal Peirce's column appears alternate Mondays on editorial pages of The 
Times.
His e-mail address is nrp AT citistates.com 




 

___________________________________________
Get free email at http://www.highdesert.com