Document text
--> --> Court hears property compensation arguments SALEM (AP) - A sweeping voter-passed property compensation measure is invalid because it lumped numerous constitutional changes into one ballot initiative, the Oregon Supreme court was told Monday. The high court heard arguments in a case that's being widely watched, and not just because it could revive or kill the most far-reaching land use compensation measure in the nation. The court also could use the case to further shape restrictions on proposed constitutional amendments put on the ballot by initiative petition. A Marion County circuit judge in February struck down the property compensation measure on grounds it contained more than one constitutional change, so they should have been voted on separately. Approved by voters last November, Measure 7 requires governments to compensate landowners when regulations reduce property values. The other option for government is repealing regulations, which opponents say would decimate the state's land use planning system. The measure never has taken effect because of the legal challenges. Foes of Measure 7 claim it affects numerous constitutional rights ranging from free speech to home rule powers of local governments. But Portland lawyer John DiLorenzo, representing the initiative's sponsor, told the court the only change the measure makes "is that certain types of government regulations give rise to compensation" unless the government repeals the regulations. Cities and counties claim the measure could force them to pay billions of dollars of compensation they can't afford or to dismantle land use controls. "You have stripped the government of a fundamental power to regulate," said William Gary, a lawyer representing the League of Oregon Cities and several cities and counties. Janet Metcalf, an assistant state attorney general, countered that the measure "leaves government free to adjust the amount of regulation" or seek new revenue to pay compensation. The Supreme Court in 1998 made a key ruling that proposed changes have to be closely related to be put on the ballot as a single constitutional amendment. Gary argued that the measure would change more than one part of the constitution by affecting free speech as well as current property rights provisions. He cited the measure's exemption from paying compensation if a government action affects property values of businesses dealing in pornography or nude dancing. That discriminates based on the content of expression and thus would change the constitution's free speech protections, he said. DiLorenzo said such exceptions only narrow the measure and aren't separate constitutional changes. The Supreme Court didn't indicate when it will rule in the case. A related case pending before the court is an appeal of a lower court ruling striking down legislative term limits that voters passed in 1992. The court has set arguments in that case for Nov. 6. Email your... Technical questions & comments to: WebMaster Daily Tidings editorial comments & questions to: Editor Visit our other Oregon Newspapers... | Albany Democrat-Herald | Ashland Daily Tidings | Corvallis Gazette-Times | | Lebanon Express | Newport News-Times | Springfield News | Cottage Grove Sentinel | Ashland Daily Tidings 1661 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone 541-482-3456 © Copyright 2001 Lee Northwest Publishing