Document text
51 °F Forecast | Road Cams Saturday, May 7, 2005 Today's News | Shop Our Valley | Tempo | Health | Community | Home Delivery | Contact Us SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion Tempo AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map SPECIAL SECTIONS Since We Asked Outdoor Journal Menu Guide How To Guide Health Readers' Choice Real Estate Showcase Real Estate Guide Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Wedding Guide Passport to the Rogue Valley SHOP OUR VALLEY AutoFinder HomeFinder JobFinder Classified Place an ad TOP JOBS EXTRA Ashland News NIE Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People Volunteer Moving here? eSouthernOregon CUSTOMER SERVICE FAQ's Advertise with us Home Delivery Employment Contact Us Media Kit Oregon Road Conditions & Cams Email Story to a Friend February 2, 2005 County feud with state over Measure 37 heats up By DAMIAN MANN Mail Tribune Oregon’s land-use agency has warned Jackson County it may be overstepping its authority if it approves Measure 37 claims on forest or farm land without recommending state review. John Renz of the Department of Land Conservation and Development said that, unlike other counties in Oregon, Jackson County doesn’t feel property owners should file a state claim form along with the county claim form. "As far as I know this is the only county that hasn’t cooperated with us," said Renz, who is the department’s southern regional representative . Measure 37, approved by voters in November 2004, allows property owners to seek compensation if they believe land-use regulations have caused a loss in the value of their property. Advertisement Jackson County commissioners next week are expected to approve three of the 18 Measure 37 claims filed here. But Renz cautioned there could be a legal cloud over the legitimacy of any county approvals because the state hasn’t reviewed the claims. Commissioner Jack Walker said this is another attempt by the state to make it difficult for people to get approval for their claims "If they want to throw the wrench into the gears here, the public is going to come back with something worse than Measure 37," he said. He said the measure was created to give back local control of property rights to individual landowners and to stop decades of land-use laws that have stifled these rights. "The LCD has no power in dictating anything with Measure 37," he said. Renz countered that the claim form materials that Jackson County makes available specifically caution claimants that they might also have to file paperwork with the state. On the county’s Web site it states: "Please be aware that filing a Measure 37 claim with your local jurisdiction may also require the filing of a claim with the State of Oregon." Walker said, "We say that, but we don’t demand it." He said that if a property owner feels that land-use regulations created by the county have devalued their property, then the claim should be filed with the county and not the state which created the bad regulations in the first place "They (the state) are the ones who caused it (Measure 37) through their administrative rules and arrogance," he said. Renz said land-use laws affecting forest or farm land were enacted by the Legislature in the 1980’s, and as a result, the state should be the one to determine whether a claim qualifies for either a waiver of zoning regulations or compensation for the loss in value of the property. He said ambiguities in the language of Measure 37 make it difficult to determine which governmental entity has responsibility for dealing with the claims. Although he believes a claim should be filed with both the local government agency and the state, Renz said, "We don’t know if it is a ‘must.’ " At various governmental summits held recently to discuss Measure 37, there hasn’t been consensus over the issue of where to file. Lane Shetterly, director of DLCD, said the question over filing two different claims should not be construed as the state asserting control over the county. He said the consensus among counties is that they are not requiring but recommending filing both claims. He said it is in the best interest of the claimant because property owners could be exposing themselves to potential litigation, or find they are unable to get a bank loan. "What if the bank says they want to see a waiver from the state too," he said. "It’s in the interest of property owners to cover both bases." Oregonians in Action, the group the created Measure 37 states on its Web site: "Because it is often not clear whether state or local government is ultimately responsible for adopting the land use regulations that have taken the value of your property, we suggest that you err on the side of caution and file claims with both the state and your local government." Steve Rinkle, an attorney for the county, said that he believes there is nothing in Measure 37 that would require coordination by both the county and state over claims. He said the county encourages people to file a claim with the state if they feel that their property rights have been harmed specifically by the state. "Only the property owner can decide who they want to file a claim with," he said. He also said there is much confusion about how to interpret the measure, with each local government entity left to draw its own conclusions. "All 36 counties in the state have a different take on the interpretation of Measure 37," he said. Proposed motion has strong words for LCDC The Jackson County Board of Commissioners is expected to approve a motion today to intervene in opposition to a constitutional challenge to Measure 37 filed in Marion County Circuit Court. The motion to intervene criticizes the state Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Following are excerpts from the proposed motion: "Since enactment of the Senate Bill 100 (1973), the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Department of Land Conservation and Development have egregiously ignored and violated the civil rights of property owners in Oregon, and compelled local governments to participate in unjust land-use practices, and their inappropriate and unjustified actions have given rise to the need for legislation in the form of Measure 37." "The failure of the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Department of Land Conservation and Development to properly regulate the use of land in Oregon demonstrates that they cannot be entrusted to properly defend the constitutionality of Measure 37." Reach reporter Damian Mann at 776-4476, or e-mail [email protected] Mail Tribune Home | Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life | Opinion AP News | Archives | Site Map | Community | Classified Copyright © 1997-2005 Mail Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Feedback Free Music Downloads Conference Calls - $50/Month Home Security Systems Trunks, Footlocker, Trunk, Footlockers home equity loans helzberg diamonds Distance Education Diamonds Paris Hilton Online Poker Auto Insurance Mesothelioma Slippers Student Loans Tatoo tcg student loan consolidation teleconferencing Website Design & Marketing Memory Foam Mattress w2 forms Tatoos Mortgage Calculator Free Home-Loan Referrals Payday Loans Advertisement s