Laserfiche WebLink
Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Beth Forrest CS-CMO 1/13/2011 Pri 2 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: How does this differ from the current system? What recourse does elector currently have? <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 1/17/2011 Pri 2 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: This bill probably isn't going anywhere, but it has the potential to interfere with elections <br />and cost the city money. The bill would authorize a lawsuit by any elector who thinks an <br />elections official (e.g., city recorder) has violated any election law. (Current law allows <br />the Secretary of State to do do.) The court would have only 10 days to issue a ruling. If <br />the elector wins, or the official corrects the alleged violation, the elector is entitled to <br />attorney fees. The bill is unnecessary, and creates a potential for mischief; it's too easy for <br />a disaffected or partisan elector to file a lawsuit and tie up the city for little or no reason. <br />Elections officials don't need the threat of a lawsuit and attorney fees to do their jobs to <br />the best of their ability. <br /> <br /> <br />SB 0546 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Relating to tort liability for land use errors by public body. <br /> <br />Title: Eliminates requirement for special relationship to establish liability of local <br />government for economic injuries incurred by person acting in good faith reliance <br />on negligent misrepresentation by local government of effect of comprehensive <br />plan and land use regulations. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: Sponsored by Senator GEORGE (Presession filed.) <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0500.dir/sb0546.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 1/17/2011 Pri 2 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: If this bill has legs, consider Priority 1 Oppose. The bill would make cities (and counties) <br />liable for economic losses incurred by a person who relies on the city's negligent <br />misrepresentation about the effect of the city's comprehensive plan or land use <br />regulations on the person's property. It would, in effect, require city staff to act as land <br />use lawyers/consultants for developers. Predicting the effect of a land use regulation on <br />real property is difficult, and it's easy to label a good-faith mistake (a mistake that may <br />have been based in part on inaccurate information from the applicant) "negligent" with <br />hindsight. The claims against the city could be very high. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Steve Nystrom PDD-ADM 1/13/2011 Pri 2 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: The city has opposed similar bills in past sessions. Poses significant financial impact to <br />local governments. Planning defers to City Attorney for final recommendation on this <br />Bill. <br />34 <br /> <br /> <br />