Oregon property law draws debate in court

SALEM – Opponents of Oregon’s nationally watched property compensation law came in for skeptical questioning Tuesday by justices on the state’s highest court.

But lawyers on both sides of the property rights debate said the outcome of the case – and the eventual fate of more than 2,500 pending claims filed by property owners seeking to build on rural land throughout the state – is difficult to predict.

The case turns on a law known as Measure 37, approved by 61 percent of Oregon voters in November 2004, which requires local governments and the state to waive land-use laws that have lowered property values, or compensate owners.

The conservation group 1,000 Friends of Oregon came into Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing with a lower court victory under its belt, after Marion County Judge Mary Mertens James agreed with their contention that Measure 37 violated equal protection provisions by waiving the law for some people – those who owned their land before development curbs were put in place – and not for others.

But the group’s lawyer, Todd Baran, was closely questioned Tuesday, in particular by Justices W. Michael Gillette and Thomas Ballmer, both of whom lingered over 1,000 Friends’ contention that a certain class of land owners was being singled out and rewarded. Generally, “classes” consist of people of a certain sex, race, religion or national origin.

Baran contended that such property owners were a “closed class” – since it’s impossible for anyone to join their numbers by turning back time and purchasing property before the restrictions went into effect.

But by that definition, Ballmer wondered, wouldn’t the state then be unable to pass laws for the benefit of Vietnam veterans, perhaps, or Hurricane Katrina victims?

And, Gillette noted, there’s a possibility that the so-called “class” might not be so closed after all, since the question of whether Measure 37 rights are transferable if property is sold is still under debate.

“It seems to me you are relying on a series of assumptions,” Gillette told Baran.

Measure 37 arrived in the court system after running into trouble on the ground, with claims sailing through some jurisdictions and stalling in others, since local governments were given little direction on how to implement the law. Legislators tried and failed to agree on a fix during the 2005 session, speeding the law’s eventual passage to the court system.