Land-use battles warming up
11/12/01
DAVE HOGAN
A year after Measure 7 promised to shake up Oregon's land-use system,
petitioners are filing a record number of ballot initiatives that would
make
changes large and small in those laws.


More than 30 of the 144 statewide initiatives filed so far for the November
2002 election deal with Measure 7 or other land-use issues.
Some would make fundamental changes: Allow many more rural property owners
to build a home on their land. Require voter approval for expanding urban
growth boundaries. Compensate owners who lost the chance to build a home
because of changes in regulations.
None of the initiatives has been cleared for signature-gathering. But the
unusually high number of filings means Oregonians probably will face at
least a few critical decisions next year involving the landmark planning
system created in 1973.
Supporters of the system, wielding the initiative weapon for the first time,
have filed more proposals than critics. Many of their initiatives are
designed to reduce or erase the impact of Measure 7, which has never taken
effect because of court challenges.
Both sides say they're weary of being unable to move land-use changes past
a
political stalemate between a Republican-controlled Legislature and
Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber.
"While there have been adjustments to the (system), there have not been
significant strengthenings or weakenings," said Evan Manvel of 1000 Friends
of Oregon, the land-use watchdog created by former Gov. Tom McCall, a
Republican who ushered in the land-use system. "And to both sides, that
can
be frustrating."
Measure 7 was a product of that dissatisfaction, which hasn't dissipated.
Voters can expect more land-use initiatives on the ballot in future years,
said Larry George of the property rights group Oregonians In Action.
"I think this is going to become a regular occurrence," said George, whose
group led the Measure 7 campaign.
Disgust at legislative inaction Oregon voters have seen only six land-use
initiatives on statewide ballots in the past 31 years. They rejected repeals
of the system in 1976, 1978 and 1982.
This year, nearly all of the land-use proposals have been filed with the
secretary of state since July 30, after the Legislature could not come up
with a compromise to replace Measure 7. The land-use filings have averaged
more than two a week, accounting for most of the initiatives filed during
that time. And more are expected.
That has pushed the number of initiative petitions far ahead of the pace
for
the 2000 election, when 106 initiatives had been filed at the same point.
A
record 18 initiatives made the ballot.
Measure 7 was the only one of five initiatives by land-use system critics
that made the 2000 ballot. It requires state and local governments to
compensate property owners if regulations reduce the value of their
property. Opponents sued to challenge the measure's constitutionality. The
Oregon Supreme Court heard oral arguments Sept. 10, and a ruling is not
expected before next year.
But no one knows if the ruling will come before the election or whether
it
will be in time for more initiatives to be filed in response. Petitioners
have until July 5 to submit the required number of signatures to make the
ballot.
Many of the initiatives are similar, a common practice so petitioners can
choose what they see as the most favorable ballot title approved by the
attorney general's office.
Manvel estimated there are 10 to 12 distinct proposals. He and others say
they expect no more than three or four to make the ballot, mainly because
of
the expense of measure campaigns.
More aggressive tactics Critics of the land-use system are back again
because they're frustrated with what they say is state government's
unwillingness to address shortcomings in the system. They also view
Kitzhaber as a roadblock to their legislative proposals.
They are particularly critical of how the system restricts the construction
of homes on rural land. One of Oregonians in Action's proposals would allow
a single-family home on any lot zoned for exclusive farm use.
But they're being out-filed by the system's supporters, who haven't used
initiatives to push their cause before. Alarmed by Measure 7's passage,
and
talk that governments may not enforce land-use rules to avoid compensation
payments, they have decided to be more aggressive.
"People are tired of playing defense on our side," Manvel said. "Our
opponents have used the initiative system the last several election cycles,
and we want to use it as well."
Supporters also say they're frustrated at being unable to get their ideas
through the Republican-led Legislature. And they want to stem the spread
of
Measure 7 beyond Oregon, said Mari Margil of the Sierra Club's Oregon
chapter. "This could set up something really devastating for the rest of
the
country," she said.
Many of the initiatives, including proposals to repeal or nullify Measure
7,
come from the Oregon Community Protection Coalition and its members, who
include 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, Oregon
League of Conservation Voters, Ospirg and the Sierra Club.
Two proposals would replace Measure 7 with a limited compensation system.
One would require the Legislature to spend $5 million a year for easements
on farmland where owners guarantee it will remain undeveloped. Another would
prohibit expanding urban growth boundaries to include highly productive
farm
or forest land in the Willamette Valley.
Manvel said it could cost $1 million to get such a measure passed in the
face of expected opposition from homebuilders and developers. His group
and
the coalition say they haven't decided which proposals to try to put on
the
ballot.
Neither have supporters of Measure 7, although George said Oregonians In
Action plans to file at least four more initiatives in the next week or
so,
including one that would require voter approval of more land-use matters.
He
said the group will push only one or two initiatives toward the ballot --
for this election.
"We're already starting to draft some for 2004," George said. You can reach
Dave Hogan at 503-221-8531 or by e-mail at davehogan@news.oregonian.com.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml