Anti-Sprawl Laws, Property Rights Collide in Oregon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 28, 2005; Page A01
Following is the response that the American Planning Association (APA) director sent out under their Domestic Policy Watch news. It's ironic that he would remind us of Euclidean Zoning as a justification for planning, when the APA has been trying to dismantle Euclidean Zoning across the country for many years now.
Response from the APA: March 2005 Domestic Policy Watch W. Paul Farmer, AICP APA Executive Director Welcome to Oregon 2005 Last November, Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative with a simple premise. The statute states that government should pay cash to property owners when land-use restrictions reduce the value of their property.
Further, if the government can't or won't pay, property owners can develop their land in any way they see fit. The seemingly straightforward fairness of the proposal coupled with an aggressive public relations campaign depicting a 91-year old widow supposedly unable to bequeath land to her children led to strong public support at the ballot booth. Measure 37 won 61 percent of the vote in a state often characterized as the most pro-planning in the nation. The ugly reality of Measure 37 is now becoming apparent.
Last week in a front page article, The Washington Post chronicled the story of Oregon orchard owner John Benton, just one story among many that are based on claims now being made for payments under the new statute. Mr. Benton's family has been growing fruit on a patch of land between the Hood and Columbia Rivers since the early days of the 20th century.
Over the course of the Benton family's ownership of the property, land- use restrictions have been put in place to assure the land remains agricultural. Mr. Benton has other ideas. He'd prefer to convert 210 acres into housing. Today, under current zoning, the Benton property would fetch around $8,000 an acre. As an 800-unit subdivision, Benton figures that amount would rise to $284,000 an acre. So, he presented the local government with a bill for $57 million.
Making the situation even more interesting is that fact that Benton's neighbors, under the new law, lack similar rights. They bought their land more recently and so can make no such claims. They may be stuck with farmland adjacent to a major housing development.
Enter banks and appraisers who are now struggling to determine how to value land — Benton's or his neighbors. Oregon now has two classes of landowners. One, composed of families or corporations that acquired property prior to the adoption of various land-use laws, may do whatever they choose with their land or be paid vast sums that simply don't exist in public coffers. Then there's everybody else.
This second category not only suffers the potential side effects of the new development but also may be dealt a financial blow from decreased or uncertain real estate values. Fairness in Oregon now depends on an arbitrary date, not on a democratic process. We think fairness requires a deliberative process, open to everyone, that allows citizens to choose a planning system such as Oregon's to distribute the costs and benefits of change.
What is unfair is a cleverly worded ballot initiative that makes instant kings and paupers without appeal, deliberation, or public involvement. How could this have happened? The question isn't simply an academic one. Neighboring Washington State is now considering virtually identical legislation and many observers of state political trends expect others may soon follow.
The issue of why Measure 37 was successful and how Oregon will cope is complex. This week APA, in partnership with Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer, convened a broad array of national organizations, policy experts, and political leaders to delve into the problem and strategize ways to mitigate the harm and limit the spread to other areas. Some answers though are clear enough. One: Words matter. The proponents of Measure 37 were able to frame the debate as a matter of fundamental fairness.
When voters looked at their ballot, here's the description they saw for Measure 37: “Governments must pay owners, or forgo enforcement, when certain land use restrictions reduce property value.” The election was likely lost as soon as the ballot title was approved. Two: Less really is more. Proponents presented a simple and elegantly constructed case to the public. Real individuals were hurt by the actions of a depersonalized government. Shouldn't someone be accountable? Get mad and make them pay! The democratic process that crafted and maintained the Oregon planning system is not so simply described. A look inside the numbers in Oregon at first may seem counterintuitive. One might suspect that support for Measure 37 would break down along the state's familiar urban/rural, East/West divide.
Yet, while support was higher in the rural eastern part of the state, Portland's Multnomah County was evenly split. It seems voters didn't see it as an attack on the state's long-standing planning and environmental system but as a simple issue of fairness. In fact, before the vote, focus groups and surveys showed that voters did not believe that Measure 37 was a real threat to the Oregon planning system. Measure 37 presents an important challenge to planning.
The challenge isn't limited to defense of the Oregon planning system for its own sake. It's a more fundamental challenge to ensure the public's understanding of who pays and who benefits. A thoughtful democratic process, messy and protracted as it can be, results in a broader degree of fairness to a wider range of people than a narrowly crafted ballot initiative.
Upon close inspection, most cries of unfairness have to do with unbridled self-interest at the expense of lasting value. Good planning promotes a set of shared values that protect all property owners, not just a few. It is useful to recall our history in thinking about the future of Measure 37 and its likely offspring. Our most basic land-use control, zoning, was developed and institutionalized as a tool for protecting property rights and land values.
Herbert Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce promoted standard planning and zoning enabling laws upon the urging of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Hoover and the Chamber recognized that in an urban age, willy-nilly land-use decisions would negatively affect property values. While some call Measure 37 a victory for property rights and describe its most ardent proponents as property rights advocates, nothing could be further from the truth.
Using property rights to eviscerate the ability of local citizens to preserve and protect the values that define the community through community-based plans is cynical, elitist, and undemocratic. With no appeal and no notice provisions for neighbors, Measure 37 has cast Oregon back to pre-Hoover days where the only remedy for defending your property rights from your neighbor's pig farm is a nuisance suit.
Neighbors have responsibilities as well as rights. Both must be balanced and respected. In fact, without responsibilities, rights don't exist. Measure 37 removes the responsibility side of the equation. Mr. Benton's neighbors surely have a new understanding of fairness now. Of course, the real drivers behind Measure 37 aren't Mr. Benton and aggrieved centenarians. Corporate landowners are the real muscle behind the movement.
The largest contributors to the Measure 37 campaign were timber and logging companies interested in turning large profits on commercial developments regardless of the environmental, cultural, or economic consequences for citizens. In Washington, the effort to get a similar initiative on the ballot is led by the building and corporate agriculture lobbies.
Back to the question of who benefits and who pays: In post-Measure 37 Oregon, the timber barons benefit and the taxpayers pay. Governments have the responsibility to be fair to property owners. Governments also have the responsibility to protect and empower all citizens and leave opportunity for the next generation.
Planning is the way these democratic ideals are implemented. Rest assured that we will not shrink from the challenge presented by Measure 37. We will defend effective planning efforts and work to improve the tools we use to meet the needs of a new century. Our mission, as individuals engaged in planning and as a national organization, is to ensure that citizens receive the benefits that planning can deliver. This and only this will ensure fairness and protect property rights for everyone, not just the special interests. We rise to the aid of citizens to imagine, create, and sustain communities of lasting value.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]