Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004)
| Measure 49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modifies Measure 37; clarifies right to build homes; limits large developments; protects farms, forests, groundwater. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source: Oregon Secretary of State | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes
No
Oregon Ballot Measure 37 is a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.
The law enacted by Measure 37 allows property owners whose property value is reduced by environmental or other land use regulations to claim compensation from state or local government. If the government fails to compensate a claimant within two years of the claim, the law allows the claimant to use the property under only the regulations in place at the time he/she purchased the property. Certain types of regulations, however, are exempt from this.
Advocates for Measure 37 have described it as a protection against "regulatory taking," a notion with roots in an interpretation of the United States Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ends as follows:
That phrase provides the foundation for the government power of eminent domain, and requires compensation for governmental appropriations of physical property. It has occasionally been used to require compensation for use restrictions that deprive the owner of any economically viable use of land. See the 1922 United States Supreme Court case Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon.)
The advocates of Measure 37 employed a more expansive interpretation of the concept of regulatory taking than required by the Supreme Court, considering any reduction in a piece of property's value - for instance, a reduction resulting from an environmental regulation - to require compensation to the owner.
Measure 37 was ruled unconstitutional in a 2005 circuit court decision, but the Oregon Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that the law was not unconstitutional, and noting that the Court was not empowered to rule on its efficacy:
...
Wikipedia