Oregon high court overturns property-compensation measure
By The Associated Press
10.08.02
SALEM, Ore. — The Oregon Supreme Court has struck down a voter-passed property-compensation measure as unconstitutional.
The measure would have required state and local governments to pay compensation to property owners when government regulations reduced their property values.
The high court ruled on Oct. 4 that Measure 7, passed in November 2000, contained multiple constitutional changes that should have been voted on separately.
The court focused on a provision in the measure that said compensation wouldn't have to be paid when regulations prohibited using property to sell pornography.
In the unanimous ruling, the court said the measure affected both free-speech rights and separate constitutional property rights that now require compensation, for example, when government condemns land for a public use.
Thus, the court said in an opinion by Chief Justice Wallace Carson Jr., the measure contained too many changes to be rolled into one ballot proposal under the state constitution's "separate vote" requirement. Measure 7 "therefore is void in its entirety," Carson wrote.
The measure also would have exempted governments from paying compensation when regulations barred using property for nude dancing, selling alcohol or operating a casino.
An effort will be launched to put a revised compensation measure on the ballot, says a spokesman for Oregonians in Action, the Tigard-based property-rights group that led the campaign to pass Measure 7.
Opponents had claimed the measure could have had a devastating fiscal impact on government. State fiscal analysts estimated state and local governments could have faced paying $5.4 billion a year in claims for compensation.
"Obviously this is good news for taxpayers," said Tom Towslee, spokesman for Gov. John Kitzhaber, who strongly opposed the measure.
"While there's a need to address the issue of legitimate private property rights versus regulation, this measure was never the answer," Towslee said. "It was a blank check that would have cost Oregonians millions or billions of dollars" while schools and other programs are inadequately funded, he said.
"Once again the Supreme Court has spit in the face of Oregon voters," said Dave Hunnicutt, legal counsel for Oregonians in Action.
"It's ironic that the reason the court invalidated the measure is because it didn't go far enough" in providing compensation to "porno store owners," Hunnicutt said.
The court since 1998 has struck down three other measures on the same grounds.
Hunnicutt said his group would ask the 2003 Legislature to send to voters a revised measure. If that fails, he says, the organization will work to put a new measure on the November 2004 ballot by initiative petition.
A Sacramento, Calif., free enterprise-property rights organization also called for a "redoubled effort to reclaim property rights for Oregonians."
"When regulations steal a landowner's ability to use private property, the government should pay for what it took," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Ben Waggoner.
The decision upheld Marion County Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb. The measure never took effect because of court orders blocking it during the judicial reviews.
The land-use watchdog group 1000 Friends of Oregon said Measure 7's huge price tag would have made state and local officials reluctant to even enforce land use and environmental regulations.
"It means we would have had no land-use laws," said Robert Liberty, executive director of 1000 Friends.
Liberty also said while the 2003 Legislature might want to discuss the property-compensation issue, the state's chronic budget problems would make it difficult to move in that direction.
"This wouldn't be a great time to present a whopping new tax bill to people at a time when we are dealing with a budget shortfall," he said.
Voters approved Measure 7 by a 54-46 ratio, with most of the support from rural areas.
Plaintiffs in the court challenge included Audrey McCall, wife of late Gov. Tom McCall, who was a key figure in the statewide land-use planning law passed by the Legislature in 1973.
The League of Oregon Cities, which represents 238 of the state's 240 incorporated cities, also sued. Critics contended more than 90 types of local and state regulations could have triggered claims for compensation.