Measure 37: Approaching Year Zero Plus Three

In November 2004, the Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 37 (now codified as ORS 197.352), which allows property owners to make claims for compensation if the value of the claimant's property has been reduced by land use regulations

enacted or first enforced after the claimant (or certain family members) came into ownership. The initiative, which passed by a substantial margin, was the culmination of years of work by property rights advocates and others dissatisfied with the system of statewide land use planning that had evolved in Oregon since the passage of

Senate Bill 100 in 1973. While observers of the electoral process will continue to debate the intentions and understanding of the voters who enacted Measure 37, the impact of land use restrictions on the density of development, particularly in suburban and rural areas, was clearly a central concern. Proponents of the measure were able to point to concrete examples where, as the result of regulations intervening since the acquisition of their property, individual owners were no longer able to subdivide their property to permit an additional dwelling for their children, or allow development to provide anticipated retirement income.

In 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated a prior voter initiative, Measure 7, as an impermissible amendment of more than one portion of the Oregon Constitution in a single ballot measure. While Measure 7 presented an amendment to the Oregon Constitution, Measure 37 created a purely statutory scheme under which the government was required to compensate the affected property owners unless it chose to "modify, remove, or not to apply" the regulation

within 180 days of the owner's written demand for compensation. Legal challenges to the validity of Measure 37 appear to have been resolved by the Oregon Supreme Court’s unanimous 2006 decision in MacPherson, et al. v. Dept. of Administrative Services, et al., which upheld the

constitutionality of the new law.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lane Powell PC - Environmental Law Blog | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.