Oregon's land-use revolt has a message for Washington

ON Oct. 14, Marion County Circuit Judge Mary James ruled Oregon's Measure 37 unconstitutional. The measure passed overwhelmingly last November and had the effect of throwing out the state's controversial top-down land-use planning system, the Oregon Land Use Planning Act (SB100), enacted in 1973.

It wasn't the first time voters had thrown this system out, and it wasn't the first time the judiciary overruled the people's will. Measure 37 was preceded by Measure 7, requiring compensation when property value was lost due to regulation, which Oregon's Supreme Court also ruled unconstitutional on thin technical grounds.

Bob Stacey, director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, who supports SB100, celebrated Judge James' decision. He said in a press release, "We are very pleased that the court recognized Measure 37 is not about fairness: It is unfair at its core. Therefore, today we are calling on the governor and legislative leaders to convene a special session and pass legislation that deals fairly with people who have borne an unfair burden... We need compensation that makes landowners whole, not waivers that make them rich."

Compensation that makes landowners whole? People who have borne a burden? Why did it take 30 years to see this? Why weren't the affected people listened to and adjustments made along the way? Why did it take two votes of the people to prompt Stacey to call on the governor to pass legislation?

I suspect that Stacey is most concerned that after the people of Oregon voted twice to moderate their land-use planning laws, they may vote the next time to destroy them.

The fact of the matter is that the Oregon laws went too far. They hurt too many people — people like my cousins, who farmed a 2,000-acre spread outside of Eugene in the Willamette Valley. The farm was started in 1908 by my great-grandfather. They ran into financial problems and wanted to sell some of the land that was least-suited to farming. The sale would have left the farm debt-free, but after years of reviews and fees, they were turned down. The family lost the farm, a loss that can never be recovered.

Just as Oregon's law went too far, King County's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) goes too far. Three elements of the new law are absolutely unacceptable to rural landowners: the 65 percent mandatory set-aside required with new permits, the mega-buffers and the wildlife-habitat provisions that relegate landowners to secondary status.

These provisions go far beyond the requirements of the Growth Management Act in that they take inordinate amounts of land, limit options and fail to achieve a balance of societal and individual interests.

Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) and our affiliates represent thousands of landowners in King and other counties. These are individual landowners, not developers, corporate or other big-money interests. There are no paid staffers or officers; the organization is all volunteer. We are concerned that government is redefining the meaning of ownership.

Is the owner to be nothing more than the name and address where the tax statement is sent? Are all land-use decisions to be made only by policy committees and bureaucrats?

CAPR has organized a referendum to vote the CAO up or down. The effort was halted by King County Superior Court. Last week, the matter was accepted for review by the state Supreme Court. Pacific Legal Foundation is also suing on behalf of some of our members, charging that the CAO is unconstitutional on its face. We also plan to partner with others to push a statewide initiative patterned after Measure 37 to be presented to Washington voters next year.

I have three daughters in their early 20s. Two are in college. One of these days, one of them is going to come home with a new husband. She might ask for her inheritance, a piece of my 20-acre Snoqualmie Valley property. I'd like that. I'd like to watch my grandkids grow up here just like I watched my kids grow up here. A landowner would be able to grant that request. Under current policy, I would be compelled by the rules to turn her down.

The preservationists and land-use-planning advocates have been in control now for years. When they had the power, they failed to achieve, or even to seriously seek, that all-important balance. Now, the pendulum is swinging back. It is hard to predict where it will end up.