A quiet counterrevolution in land use regulation: The origins and impact of Oregon's measure 7

Abstract

In November 2000, Oregon voters adopted Measure 7, the nation's most absolute definition of a regulatory "taking" and the compensation required for any and all loss of potential property value because of state or local regulations. Although the Oregon Supreme Court later invalidated Measure 7 on technical grounds, it is important to understand the origins and meaning of this drastic action. This article describes the proplanning consensus that has dominated Oregon since the 1970s, examines the Measure 7 campaign and its political consequences, and analyzes the emerging tensions within the Portland metropolitan area and across the state that led to this grassroots counterrevolution.We conclude that Measure 7 does not signal the end of Oregon's land use planning system, but that it is likely to force a rebalancing of the regulatory system to address the real hardships that regulations governing land development can impose.

Is Oregon's land use planning program conserving forest and farm land? A review of the evidence

“…Among the biggest complaints are that it is too prescriptive and inflexible, that it unfairly impinges on private property rights, and it does not reflect a changed economic and social environment since its adoption 35 years ago (Abbot et al, 2003;Howe et al, 2004). Moreover, Howe (1994) suggests that the Oregon program, while innovative, does not have a mechanism for critically engaging new ideas.…”

Social conflict over property rights: the end, a new beginning, or a continuing debate?

“…As noted, in 2000, the property rights movement sponsored a citizen initiative in Oregon (Measure 7) designed to (based on who is telling the story) either blunt the impact of Oregon's longstanding program for comprehensive land use planning as it unduly and unreasonably affected individual property owners, or dismantle this program (Abbott, Adler, and Howe 2003). Measure 7 passed.…”

“…It was closely watched nationally, because of Oregon's role as a leading state in the area of land use and environmental planning (Ozawa 2004). The initiative was similar to one put before the voters in November 2000 (Abbott, Adler, and Howe 2003). The 2000 initiative passed, but it was subsequently found to not meet procedural requirements spelled out in Oregon's constitution.…”

Framing the Oregon Land Use Debate

“…In the intervening years, opponents of the land use system tried without much success to alter the system through the legislative process (Liberty 1996). By 2000, however, there was enough discontent with the system across a variety of constituencies that the opponents of regulation prevailed in getting this measure on the ballot (see Abbott, Adler, and Howe 2003). The seriousness of the challenge to the land use system is captured in the number of arguments: forty total arguments with 75 percent supporting and 25 percent opposing the system.…”

“…After all, contestation over land use planning has been a consistent feature in Oregon politics, even predating the establishment of the current system in Senate Bill 100 of 1973 (Abbott, Adler, and Howe 2003). Measure 49 was the seventh referendum on planning put before Oregon voters, and while it mitigates many of the excesses of Measure 37, it does not address many of the underlying discontents with the system.…”