09-26-16 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Home Rule In subsequent cases, the Oregon Supreme Court directed courts to presume that the state did not intend to displace a local ordinance in the absence of an apparent and unambiguous intent to do 3 so.Along the same lines, a local ordinance can operate concurrently with state law even if the 4 local ordinance imposes greater or different requirements than the state law. Where the Legislature’s intent to preempt local governments is not express, and where the local and state law can operate concurrently, there is no preemption and local governments retain their authority to regulate. As such, the Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that a negative inference that can be drawn from a statute is insufficient to preempt a local government’s home 5 rule authority.For example, where legislation “authorizes” a local government to regulate in a particular manner, a court will not read into that legislation that the specific action authorized is to the exclusion of other regulatory alternatives, unless the Legislature makes it clear that the authorized regulatory form is to be the exclusive means of regulating. 3 See, e.g., State ex rel Haley v. City of Troutdale, 281 Or 203, 210-11, 576 P2d 1238 (1978) (finding no manifest legislative intent to preempt local provisions that supplemented the state building code with more stringent restrictions). 4 See Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437, 454-55, 353 P3d 581 (2015); see also Thunderbird Mobile Club v. City of Wilsonville, 234 Or App 457, 474, 228 P3d 650, rev den, 348 Or 524 (2010) (“A local ordinance is not incompatible with state law simply because it imposes greater requirements than does the state, nor because the ordinance and state law deal with different aspects of the same subject.”(internal quotations omitted)). 5 Rogue Valley Sewer Services, 357 Or at 453-55 (concluding that explicit authorization for cities to regulate certain utilities did not, by negative implication, create a broad preemption of the field of utility regulation); Gunderson, LLC v. City of Portland, 352 Or 648, 662, 290 P3d 803 (2012) (explaining that even if a preemption based on a negative inference is plausible, if it is not the only inference that is plausible, it is “insufficient to constitute the unambiguous expression of preemptive intention”required under home rule cases). Local Government Regulation of Marijuana in Oregon League of Oregon Cities | 4 May 2016 (Third Edition)