Oregon measure

Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the state’s 2004 ballot initiative known as Measure 37. Measure 37, which passed in Oregon by a 60 percent-plus margin, requires local governments to either compensate Oregon property owners who experience economic loss due to land-use restrictions or excuse them from the regulations altogether.

Farm Bureau measure

The 35,000-member Washington Farm Bureau filed final language for its own “Property Fairness Initiative” earlier this month. The initiative, I-933, would require state and local government to compensate landowners when regulations “damage the use or value” of private property.

But they’ve got opposition. The environmental group Futurewise has stated that stopping I-933 will be its highest priority this year.

The group feels that “By requiring governments to pay property owners for any rules that affect what they can do on their land, the initiative would make it generally impossible and unaffordable to protect communities from irresponsible overdevelopment.”

The Futurewise Web site states:

“The initiative supporters have three basic goals:

• “To undermine and weaken local laws intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas and limit sprawl and overdevelopment.
• “To carve major loopholes into state laws that require those protections.
• “To change the definition of what kinds of limits on private actions are politically reasonable – redefining the balance between community responsibility and individual self-interest in a very frightening way.”

The Washington Farm Bureau sees it a different way. Its president, Steve Appel, said, “We understand there are times when government must regulate land use. But government should exercise that power prudently.”

According to the Farm Bureau, the initiative would require that state and local government identify any “actual harm or public nuisance” that proposed regulations are designed to stop or prevent, identify how those regulations would affect property owners and first explore “voluntary programs with willing property owners” to address the problems. If government agencies then decide to damage the use or value of private property, they must pay for the damage.

Conservation groups, labor unions and other interests will be working to oppose the measure.

The Bureau will need to gather some 235,000 signatures by July 7 to place the initiative on the November ballot.

CAPR court case

In a related issue, on Jan. 26, the Washington Supreme Court heard the case of 1000 Friends of Washington, King County, and Center for Environmental Law and Policy v. Rodney McFarland. A decision is expected in 6 to 18 months.

Readers may recall that the Critical Areas Ordinance, a compilation of stormwater, clearing and grading, and critical areas legislation passed by the King County Council last year by a margin of one provoked the ire of many an unincorporated and rural King County resident. McFarland, president of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR), submitted the required paperwork and signatures to place the three Critical Areas Ordinances on the ballot to be accepted or rejected by the affected King County voters.

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, 1000 Friends of Washington and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy sued to stop the referenda. A King County Superior Court judge ruled that King County residents could not undo by referendum the land-use regulations.

CAPR attorneys filed an appeal to the Washington Supreme Court in an effort to overturn the decision. The Supreme Court decision, again, will be handed down in 6 to 18 months.

Pacific Legal case

Another case stemming from King County’s controversial land-use regulations is winding its way through Snohomish County Superior Court. Pacific Legal Foundation is asking the court to rule that if the government finds that a property owner when developing his or her land has caused harm, the remedy has to be proportional to the harm.