Approved in November 2004, Measure 37 remains a major topic of public discussion. Most recently, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that the measure is unconstitutional, opening the door for changes in Oregonians’ relationship with the environment.
Measure 37 mandates that if a government passes a land-use regulation that detracts from the fair-market value of a piece of
property, the land-owner may file a claim and either be compensated for their potential or real financial losses or allowed to complete their intended development projects. For example, a farmer living outside an urban-growth boundary who wants to build new houses on her land could challenge restrictions forbidding her from doing so.
Questions about the measure’s legality arose soon after voters approved it. Should poor counties, unable to pay due compensation to land owners, be forced to waive land-use regulations? When it comes to land-use laws created to protect the environment or stymie growth, why should the needs of property owners be affirmed above the needs of the government?
Facing such questions, a Marion County circuit court judge in October declared Measure 37 unconstitutional, ruling that it left the Oregon Legislature powerless while giving land owners the upper hand in all conflicts between property development and government policies.
On Tuesday, however, the Oregon Supreme Court declared that Measure 37 does not violate state or federal law. In their unanimous decision, justices commented that regardless of whether or not Measure 37 will be beneficial to the state, the measure is nevertheless constitutional. Now that the highest Oregon court has ruled in favor of the measure, construction on thousands of development projects, previously put on hold while Oregon decided whether or not land-use regulations would be waived, may continue.
At this juncture, the Court’s statement affirms what each side of the debate has already concluded: Measure 37 is, to say the least, difficult to analyze in terms of right and wrong. Voters who passed the measure no doubt agreed with arguments that the government has no right to change land-use regulations and then refuse to compensate property owners who would not have bought land knowing such regulations would later be enacted. However, some citizens inherently realize that in order to protect Oregon ecosystems and to prevent urban sprawl, governments should be allowed to impose reasonable land-use laws without worrying about financial ruin.
What’s next for the measure? Future legal challenges may affect the status of this law, but Oregonians and members of the Legislature first need to careful examine their values; if creating livable communities and preserving our natural resources rank among our priorities, we need to seek ways to compensate landowners or find alternative legislative solutions. It remains vital that Oregon upholds the legacy of former Governor Tom McCall and others who believed that land-use planning will lead to a higher quality of life for all rather than wealth for a select few.