|
~ ~ · , ., ,~AUG. 19,,'04, 09:P4AM LEAGUE OF OR CITIES P.16×B3
<br />,,. ,],' ,:, ,Tael;ax'tified, , ballot t{tle SUMMARY states,
<br /> ,~' ":cu?r'~itly, Oregc)n constitution requirex government(s) to pay owner '~ust compensation" when
<br />' 2 ' ,', ,,,"¢"
<br /> :,: ~br~ernn, ing privatk property or taking it by other action, including laws precluding ali xubstantiat'
<br /> ;;
<br /> ' b~,h.~fii:id, l ~or' economically viable use. Meaxure enacts stature r~quiring that when state, city,
<br />',,., " , ,,,count,, )netropolitan service district enact,, or enforces land us~ regulation that restricts use of
<br />~ ': '; ', '" ,p~ivate,?eal, property or interest thereon, government mustpay owner reduction in fair market value
<br />",,,, ':, ofhff~'cted property. , interest, or forego enforcement. Governments may repeal, change, or not apply
<br /> ',' ,.., ,,'rebtrhCtii~ns, ,,. in lieu of payment; if co,mpensation not timely paid, owner not subject to restrictions.
<br /> , r "( fi ..... of
<br /> , .., ,,. 'Ap.p ~,~qfarnt rn~mber ned) acqmredproperty. Creates ctvtl right action including
<br /> ,~ '.:'atto~ri~. fees. Provides nO new revenue source for payments. Certain exceptions. Other provisions.
<br /> , ,,; some differences between Initiative 36 and Ballot Measur~ 7? ~
<br /> "'~' ? "A~ th:&,~l~ove ballot summary points out, it b important to note that the Oregon and U.S,
<br /> ., ~nst~tuuons already currently provide protection from "taking" of a landowner's property without
<br />',' ~', ,,ju risation.
<br />
<br /> ,, ',' You wiil r~call that a similar stat6wide land use regulation and compensation measure, Ballot
<br />",'..: . i., Me~shi-e 7, passed in 2000, and was later invalidated by the Oregon Supreme Com. Measure 7 and
<br /> ,I~iitiati've'36 share some fundamental principles' and mechanics for implementation. Both measures
<br /> ?,' .reiltti~ ,,s[a, te ar/d local govemmerits to set up processes for property owners to seek compensation
<br /> 9 ' ,.:, 'ii,~fo~ alain~ of reduced value on properties impacted by land use regulations. A compensation clam
<br /> ,',,,,'~'i,i:,, , .~6u!d,ko,mpme the existing fair market value of a property under new regulations ~ith what the fair
<br /> '"' :market v'alue o.f the property would be without the regulation(s). Under Initiative 36, governments
<br /> nm~y e~ther pay a claim or waive regulations.
<br />
<br /> '. · ,; J, 'i~i'~hti~e'36 differs from Ballot Measure 7 in that it is statutory rather than constitutional. You
<br /> ,, ' ; ma~, ret,all that the Oregon Snpreme Court invalidated Ballot Measure because the measure violated
<br /> ,. :"the Oregon Constitution's prohibition on a single vote amending multiple unrelated sections of the
<br />
<br />".,.", In~tia.tiv¢ 36.is not worded clearly. For example the relationship between subsection) (i) (3) and
<br />,.,, .',se~fi~ia' (~) are ambi guou~. H~wever the initiative is potentially more retroactive than Measure 7
<br />:~ ,, ", because it applies tb regulations that include affected em-rent owners' ancestors. It is also
<br />" .' piSt,¢r~tially more expansive in that its' definition of "family member" is broader. This could create a
<br />' ,", , , I,a~l~ricmbhr ~of applications for compensation by allowing claims based on ancestors of the
<br /> ',,' , , ', ctirre ,nt owner, ha,addition, there is, a question whether the "equal protecti6n" clause of the U.S.
<br /> " ~, ~ Co~tstlt{iLion and "equal privileges" clause of,the Oregon Constitution, require that a legal entity
<br /> ..... ' have ~he same fights as individuals. If so i~terpreted, a "current owner" may include a legal entity
<br /> ,' ,, ', s~tfi.h"a,s a corporation or YJ~C. Measure 7 only applied to regulations "applied 'after'the current
<br /> ~,, ..... : ow, ncr'became the owner."
<br />
<br /> ' P0rtl~/t~ first Zoning Code was adopted in 1924, some 80 years ago, yet many family ownership's
<br /> ,, ~ ~ lurid t~ifrd}y corporate holdings pre-date 1924. Many modern zoriirig regulations and developmer~t
<br /> "" "',.sta,,n.dir. d,",s were not enacted until the 1960's and 1970's. Claims could be based On regulations
<br /> ::,: ,ap[5iie4 ckca46s ago, potentially going back to when the City had no land use regulations
<br /> '" whats6ever. In general, the longer tha iandowuer's ancestral lineage, the greater likelihood that
<br />
<br />· ,,',1 :'; ,' ,. ..
<br />
<br />
<br />
|