Document text
Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Local Issues Obituaries Weather Archive Revels Etcetera Backpage Hot Topics Most Viewed Forum Photo Galleries Video Readers Polls O-Zone Online Games Movie Preview Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad February 22, 2006 37 claims have city surrounded City may expand urban growth boundary to maintain input over outlying development By Robert Plain Ashland Daily Tidings Ashland will consider expanding its urban growth boundary, according to City Attorney Mike Franell, as a result of the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold Measure 37, the voter referendum that gives property owners the right to be compensated for changes in land-use laws enacted after their land was purchased. “Basically, it means we have to go back and wrestle with whether we want to consider expanding our urban growth boundary to better control the growth that could occur around the city,” he said. “Measure 37 could mean a lot more growth that we don’t want. It creates a new dynamic to consider. It isn’t something we want to deal with.” Passed by voters in the 2004 election, Measure 37 allows property owners who have owned their land longer than governing zoning laws to either develop their land as they could have when they acquired the property or be justly compensated by the government. A Marion County circuit court in 2005 declared the measure unconstitutional because it created two classes of land owners in the state and stripped the Legislature of its power to create new laws. But the Supreme Court disagreed with this finding, saying, “We find none of these arguments to be persuasive.” Franell said, after watching the oral arguments, he was confident the case would be decided in this manner. He said there are some federal constitutional matters with regard to the law, but he doubts Measure 37 would ever make it to the United States Supreme Court because there “aren’t enough issues of national concern. It’s really a states’ rights issue,” he said. To date, there has been only one Measure 37 claim filed with the city of Ashland. Franell said the Bemis developers filed a claim stating that the Ashland City Council had reinterpreted the big-box ordinance for their planning action. He said this claim has already been dismissed on its merits and he doesn’t believe the Supreme Court’s decision will revitalize it. However, there are at least 21 Measure 37 claims surrounding the city that Franell and Mayor John Morrison believe could have negative impacts on Ashland’s adherence to a compact urban form. “It makes it more difficult to plan for the long term,” Morrison said. “Oregon’s land use laws are designed to concentrate development near urban cores. [Measure 37] will allow for more development in a more random pattern.” Although Ashland has an agreement with Jackson County to be consulted on “areas of mutual concern,” neither Franell or Morrison were confident that the agreement would allow the city to foster the kind of development it would like to see happen. “Whether we will be able to work with the county in regards to design guidelines, I don’t know yet,” Morrison said. Jackson County, which has already approved 89 Measure 37 claims out of the 189 filed, has been one of the more supportive county’s of the measure. “Bring ‘em on,” said County Commissioner C.W. Smith after hearing that Measure 37 was upheld. He said the county will begin processing claims again immediately. The City of Ashland has already challenged in court Jackson County’s legal authority to approve a Measure 37 claim for 18 acres on South Valley View Road, just west of the I-5 exit. Chuck Kinney, and others, are proposing to construct a welcome center that would include a grocery store and a restaurant. But because of the Tuesday’s ruling, Franell said, “Most likely [Tuesday’s ruling] will make [the suit] moot.” Morrison said Ashland does have the option of financially compensating landowners rather than allowing their developments but said he doesn’t think “buying our way out of the situation” is a sound path to pursue. “We’re going to make every attempt to work with the property owners near the city,” he said. John and Susan Pierson, who are considering a Measure 37 claim for land they own just outside of the urban growth boundary on East Main Street, said they found out about the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday afternoon. They own 237 acres, straddling Interstate 5, and would like to create a subdivision on both sides of the highway, according to their attorney. “When I turned on the TV it was on,” John Pierson said. “I thought, there might be some justice in the world. The world is turning a little better today.” Damian Mann contributed to this report. Staff writer Robert Plain can be reached at 482-3456 x 226 or [email protected]. --> Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.