Anti-Sprawl Laws, Property Rights Collide in Oregon

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
Anti-Sprawl Laws, Property Rights Collide in Oregon

By Blaine Harden

HOOD RIVER, Ore. -- The nation's strongest laws against sprawl are beginning to buckle here in Oregon under pressure from an even stronger, voter-approved law that trumps growth restrictions with property rights.

In a collision between two radically different visions of how cities should grow, claims under Oregon's new law are pitting neighbor against neighbor, rattling real estate values, unnerving bankers and spooking politicians.

The property-rights law, which was approved overwhelmingly by voters last fall and is known as Measure 37, is on the brink of wrecking Oregon's best-in-the-nation record of reining in sprawl, according to state officials and national planning experts. They say the new law illustrates a nationwide paradox in public opinion: Although voters tend to favor protection of farmland and open space, they vote down these protections if they perceive them as restrictions on personal rights.

"Measure 37 blew up our land-use system," state Sen. Charlie Ringo, a Democrat from suburban Portland, declared while presiding over a tense, standing-room-only hearing on the law that was held recently here in Hood River, a resort town in the Columbia River Gorge.

The law compels the government to pay cash to longtime property owners when land-use restrictions reduce the value of their property -- or, if the government can't pay, to allow owners to develop their land as they see fit. Because there is virtually no local or state money to pay landowners, Measure 37 is starting to unravel smart-growth laws that have defined living patterns, set land prices and protected open space in this state for more than three decades.

Although the unraveling is being watched with alarm by smart-growth advocates across the country, it is exactly what local backers of the new law say they want as recompense for what they describe as years of arbitrary bossiness in the enforcement of land-use restrictions. Smart-growth laws attempt to direct development to areas served by existing roads and utilities and curtail new housing and business construction that will sprawl out to rural areas.

"If you are going to restrict what someone can do with his land, then you have to pay for it," said Dale Riddle, vice president for legal affairs at Seneca Jones Timber Co., an Oregon firm that was the largest donor to the campaign for Measure 37.

Thanks to Oregon's new law, anti-sprawl legislation has lost political momentum across the country, according to Harvey Jacobs, a professor of urban planning at the University of Wisconsin. "It has really excited the property-rights movement and suggests to its supporters that they can challenge smart-growth laws everywhere," he said.

In the Washington suburbs, where only Maryland has passed smart-growth legislation, momentum for the enforcement of those laws began to wane under Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) well before Oregon voters approved Measure 37. Ehrlich cut funds for acquiring open space, eliminated a smart-growth secretary from his Cabinet and, critics say, supported road projects that encourage sprawl.

Land-use restrictions first began to trigger a national voter backlash in the early 1990s, when a number of states -- Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi -- passed property-rights laws to protect landowners from monetary losses caused by zoning. But none of these laws was broadly written and none has had a significant impact on local land-use regulation, according to John Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute.

Oregon's new law packs a much more powerful punch.

"It is in a different universe," Echeverria said. "It has unleashed a whirlwind. Every single piece of evidence that has come down shows that this measure is destroying the state's land-use system."

In addition to being powerful, the new law is also proving infectious.

A nearly identical bill has been introduced this year in the Montana legislature. In bordering Washington state, which is second only to Oregon in the toughness of its land-use laws, farm and building lobbies are working to put a similar initiative on the state ballot.

Measure 37 was sold to voters last year as a matter of fairness. On ubiquitous radio ads, the frail, woebegone voice of Dorothy English, who bought land in 1953, explained how land-use laws had blocked her from dividing her 40 acres for her children. "I'm 91 years old, my husband is dead and I don't know how much longer I can fight," she said. The ballot measure won with 61 percent of the vote.

State financial records, though, show that small family farmers contributed virtually nothing to the Family Farm Preservation political action committee that bankrolled Measure 37. Most of the money came from timber companies and real estate interests that stand to profit if, as many here expect, large tracts of forests and farmland are unlocked for development.

This mirrors a national pattern, according to Jacobs, at the University of Wisconsin. He says that property-rights campaigns are often sold to voters as compensation for struggling small landholders, while the support money comes from large companies seeking ways around regulations that limit resource extraction and property development.

As Measure 37 percolates through Oregon's legal and political system, it is stirring up bad blood of a kind that was on public display here in Hood River during a hearing convened by members of the state Senate committee on land use.

The star witness at the hearing was John M. Benton, whose family has been growing fruit near Hood River for nearly a century. This town, a destination resort for Columbia River wind surfers, has experienced a steep rise in real estate values caused, in large measure, by land-use laws that prevent orchards on the edge of town from being turned into subdivisions.

To take advantage of this market, Benton wants to convert 210 acres of his family orchard into housing. The resale value of his orchard, if it continues to be zoned exclusively as farmland, would be about $8,000 an acre. But if it were sold for housing, Benton said, it would fetch $284,000 an acre.

Benton and his family have filed a Measure 37 claim demanding that they be paid $57 million for their land or else be allowed to build as many as 800 houses. State and county officials say that they have no money to pay and that building appears to be the only option under the law.

The Oregon legislature, Benton told the hearing, should "quit trying to be social engineers and let the market forces and the good people in this state realize their potential."

His testimony appalled many of his neighbors, who are also longtime fruit growers in the gorge. They testified that Benton's plan to inject suburbia into orchard country could push the local fruit-growing economy into irreversible decline. They also said that development unleashed by Measure 37 would desecrate scenery that makes the gorge one of the major tourist destinations in the Pacific Northwest. Tourists, they said, do not come to the gorge to look at subdivisions.

During a break in the hearing, Benton was asked about the fury that his plan has unleashed among his neighbors.

"Life is not equal," he said. "There is a law that got passed, and there is going to be a good amount of whining going on."

Indeed, a major complaint about Measure 37 is that it has created a privileged group of landowners in Oregon.

"A whole class of owners has special rights and they can exercise them whenever they feel like it," said Ethan Seltzer, director of the School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University.

Oregonians whose families owned property before statewide land-use laws were imposed (beginning in 1973) can take advantage of the monetary and development relief offered under Measure 37, but those who bought land afterward cannot.

About 200 claims, mostly from small farms, have been filed statewide under Measure 37, according to the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission.

But the director of the commission, Lane Shetterly, said there are probably many more claimants -- some with major development plans. They are biding their time, he said, waiting for a number of uncertainties in the new law to be worked out.

First among those uncertainties is whether a qualified property owner can sell his development rights under the new law. Banks would be very reluctant to lend money, Shetterly said, if resale voids the benefits of Measure 37 and subjects new owners to land-use restrictions.

Another major problem with Measure 37 is that it requires no public hearings or notification of neighbors when a longtime landowner decides to turn a farm into a strip mall. The law, in fact, says nothing about the rights of neighbors.

In Yamhill County, an exurb of Portland where vineyards produce the state's pinot noir grape, the absence of neighbor notification has provoked emotional exchanges among neighbors and elected officials.

"My heart hurts over the lack of public notice," Mary Stern, chairman of the county Board of Commissioners and a Democrat, said during a recent hearing. "We are creating another class of victims."

In response, Kathy George, another member of the board and a Republican, said, "I am very sick also over the way our land-use laws have abused private citizens over the past 30 years."



Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...58185-2005Feb27&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle
 
Glad to see that the majority of "ignorant" voters are taking control of their lives again. Just like the rest of the overdone, court weaseled rules pushed through in the last few decades that erode property rights and individual freedom. The libs figured the sheep would never wake up and push back but the beauty of a democracy is that they can. When you get 60% of the voters active and pushing against you it is time to think about your strategy.
 
ringer, I agree with this: "court weaseled rules pushed through in the last few decades that erode property rights and individual freedom."

So, I can only conclude that you are equally upset by shrub and his passing of the patriot act which has done nothing but harm individual freedom.

I wonder why someone with beliefs like yours would support shrub? Hmmm???
 
Buzz-I really don't like the Patriot act and the loss of personal liberty that comes with it. I am hoping it is doing what was intended and will not be used to intrude on the average American. I also don't like Dubya's immigration policy. I vote for the lesser of two evils and have even voted for democrats before. If you think Kerry was a viable alternative to Bush then you saw something that I didn't. When people are spending every waking hour developing plans to kill your family on our soil it seems that we need to make necessary sacrifices. You guys just tend to put up these issues and love to argue by redirecting the conversation. I do believe the people of Oregon are right and it just doesn't sit well with the Portland and Eugene hippie crowd. Good for them.
 
ringer,

Could you please explain to all of us how Phoenix's quality of life (commuting, distance to places of employment, air pollution, etc...) is superior to Portland's? |oo
 
Why Yer Royal Highness, I certainly can since I spent my entire 56 years in both places. Phoenix has something called the SUN. Yes we have urban sprawl that will eventually make one huge city fo Phoenix and Tucson. That is caused by everyone in the snowbelt and California wanting to live here. The shitty weather in Oregon will preclude a significant sprawl problem. The real reason behind the anti-sprawl measure there was nothing to do with quality of life and everything to do with trying to prop up property values in an area that has such shitty weather that few people are flocking there.
 
Ringer, maybe you and shrub should have studied Ben Franklin a little more:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
Buzz-are you saying that Kerry, Dean and Michael Moore would be more protective of individual freedom? More likely to take your guns away and let you hunt and fight with a rock in your thong slingshot.
 
Ringer,

Did Kerry, Dean, or Michael Moore pass the patriot act? Can you find a quote where I said I support or ever did support Kerry?

I dont know what Kerry or Dean would have done...its a non-issue as far as the patriot act goes.

Maybe you deserve exactly what ol' Ben was talking about.

Oh, and please explain how GW supporting (by saying he would resign it) the AWB is not an infringement of the second? Seems to me that Shrub not only is likely to infringe on the second...but already openly admitted he would.

Your boy is really batting a thousand with your beliefs...taking civil liberty and your right to bear arms...why did you vote for him again?

At least I KNOW why I didnt vote for him.
 
ringer,

Given that the only thing you could credit Phoneix with (vis a vis Portland) was the Sun, it looks like Portland's ordinances were able to create a better quality of life. And given that the Citizenry enacted those restrictions on themselves, it looks like democracy worked. Now Big Timber and Real Estate people have funded a campaign to ruin the quality of life in Oregon. Seems like progress????

Or are you against Democracy like you are against personal freedoms?
 
I can't believe voters passed that stupid new law. Why would Oregonians want to take away laws that have been protecting the environment and making Oregon a great place to live? Existing cities have plenty of room for more housing/people. It makes absolutely no sense to spread development over a larger area than it already is. Why not give people a reason for living there instead of turning it into another California? :confused: It just makes me sick thinking the Columbia River gorge is going to be ruined. Why are people so damn stupid?
 
It's all about the $$$'s....
I mentioned this a few years ago, if you guy's want to limit what is done on these properties, then you need to buy them up and do just that.
Look at what could be done with the dollars that are spent on lawyers every year on fighting these topics back and forth, what kind of ground could be purchased and set aside with that?
I have done work for lawyers, have you seen where they have a tendancy to live?
It sure isn't in the places they want every one else to live.
It's all about personal property rights and over legislation on them.
 
I am surprised all the public lands supporters who are constantly saying, "I don't care what they do on private lands", have a problem with private landowners doing what they want with private lands. If you restrict development you drive the price of land and houses up so much that the average Joe can no longer afford to live in the city. All you good liberals should be against such economic distrimination.

Nemont
 
It is called the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area for a reason. Why should they allow devlopment anywhere in the gorge? Turning a huge chunk of land into nothing but houses and pavement is not about property rights. It is all about greed. To allow huge subdivisions in a National Scenic Area is just ludicrous. Some people simply will not be happy until this entire country is paved over. |oo |oo
 
WH,
What if it is private deeded land? If it is in public trust then fine but my reading of the constitution is that owners private property usually, not always, but usually can use it as they see fit.

I don't like houses and pavement either but if the area is wild and scenic then the public should have come forward to purchase the land in order to protect rather then take the land by passing a law saying you can't develop it. That is a taking of someone else economic value.


To make at point:
To take advantage of this market, Benton wants to convert 210 acres of his family orchard into housing. The resale value of his orchard, if it continues to be zoned exclusively as farmland, would be about $8,000 an acre. But if it were sold for housing, Benton said, it would fetch $284,000 an acre.

210 acres x $8,000=$1,680,000
210 acres x$284,000=$59,640,00

You would advocate that this family bear a cost of $57,960,000 because you don't want housing developments. That is money that they would stand to lose because of this law. That is a pretty big burden and patently unfair. If the public values that space then cough up the money to protect but don't take the property at the ballot box.


Nemont
 
Nemont, I do understand your postition but think of it from the neighboring landowner's viewpoint. A housing development would possibly be taking value away from the surrounding land, not necessarily monetary value, but other values that you can't put a price on. Isn't this why we have zoning laws? Since it is zoned as farmland, and has been in the past, Benton should have no expectation that he would be allowed to convert it from farmland to residential, and therefore no expectation that he is entitled to make money by developing the land. He has been taxed at a lower rate all these years because of the farmland zoning. How is it fair for him to now profit from this? :confused:
 
I guess it is a chicken and egg kind of thing. He was taxed at a lower rate because his land could not be classed as anything else. None of it is fair, but generally it is better for the market to set the price of things rather then legislate. Think of the people who have sold farm land to other farmers over the past 30 years, they recieved an artificially low price or think of a poor working stiff trying to buy a house but the anti growth law has limited the supply of houses so prices are through the roof. Why do you think his land would be worth $284,000 per acre? Pent up demand for land is raising the prices for it.

It is not fair, on either side of the issue. The challenge is how to balance out growth and open space. The balance had swung to far in one direction for far to long. Now the balance is going to swing the other way, probably to far and for to long. That is what happens when legislators interfer with market economics.

Nemont
 
Very well stated Nemont.

We had basically this same debate a couple years ago.
There are those here that believe if there is nothing on it (man made structures) then it is public domain.

I ran into this problem when I lived out in the Seattle area, peoples land rights were being stomped on all over the place, and it wasn't even with the ballot box, it was legislated thru closed door policy and implemented on such a small scale to start, no one know what or when these things actually came into existence.

To me, this type of action is far scarier then many other types of underhanded things that is perpetrated on the general public.

It takes away some of the most basic freedoms of the common man in the U.S.
 
Back
Top