Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 20, 2001)
Measure 7’s future is still in question ■Various parties continue to debate the measure’s possible effects as the Supreme CocM ' reviews its constitutionality Diane Huber for the Emerald In a country founded on the prin ciple of individual property rights, people tend to get a little nervous when those rights are tampered with. Last November, 54 percent of Oregonians voted yes on Measure 7, effectively deciding that the state of Oregon had overstepped the deli cate boundary dividing public do main and private property rights. Tucked away on the last page of the state’s voter guide, Measure 7 insist ed that Citizens should require the Oregon state government to reim burse property owners any time a state regulation lowers an individual’s property value. The constitutional amendment is a check on the state’s police power, which allows the state to enforce regulations for the general good, even when individual property owners are affected. For example, zoning laws define what, where and how close together builders can build. Environmental regulations restrict building and logging along stream and riverbanks. Understate law, pop ulation densities are restricted outside cities’ urban growth boundaries. Because each of these state regu lations affects people’s property val ues, however, they are potentially threatened by Measure 7, according to 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land use watchdog group. It was estimat ed that the measure would cost tax payers $5.6 billion to pay landowners. Opponents fear the measure could cause local govern ments to be hesitant in enforcing land-use regulations. For now, local governments have breathed a sigh of relief while the amendment sits patiently at the state Supreme Court level awaiting a ruling on whether it is constitu tional. A Marion County judge ruled the amendment unconstitu tional in February. Because the measure modifies several parts of the existing Constitution, it failed to meet the requirement that amend ments must be voted on separately. This flaw is why Eugene plan ning director Jan Childs said she is n’t worried about Measure 7. She said that it will be several years until the Supreme Court even forms a de cision. Childs highly doubts the amendment will be ruled constitu tional. She doesn’t think Measure 7 poses any threat to planning in Ore gon, even if a simi lar measure were to appear on a future ballot. “If there were to be another son of Measure 7, the opposition will be much more vocal and provide ex amples to voters about the potential problems,” she said. Dave Hunnicutt, director of legal af fairs for Oregonians in Action, said that although the measure is broad, that does not make it unconstitutional. “Measure 7 is not poorly drafted when you compare it with other constitutional amendments,” he said. “Court cases will decide how the amendment applies. ” The Marion County judge didn’t give the issue much thought, Hun nicutt said. Rob Ribe, a land use pro fessor at the University, said the measure represents a backlash by Oregonians. “There is a general sense in Ore gon that we’ve taken regulation about as far as we can, and Measure 7 is evidence of that,” he said. “There’s a change in the culture. A lot of people think of individual jus tice issues ahead of environmental issues.” Measure 7 is a sign that Oregoni ans take the environment for grant ed, Ribe said. “If people are going to put free dom ahead of the environment, then that’s potentially it for environ mental protection.” Evan Manvel, director of educa tion and research at 1000 Friends of Oregon, agreed that the growing re sistance to government regulation threatens environmental protection. “If Measure 7 is upheld as consti tutional, federal laws will take over and we’ll lose local control and im plementation of environmental reg ulations regarding air and water quality and logging,” he said. But Hunnicutt said Measure 7 en hances local control by shifting eco nomic costs away from a small number of land owners and adjusts the cost to society as a whole. “Oregonians in Action has been the lone voice screaming for the last 10 years that our land use planning system can have a tremendous im pact on individuals,” he said. “The public ought to pay for it." House will examine federal mining rules By Sandra Chereb The Associated Press RENO, Nev. — A House subcom mittee will hold a hearing today in Reno on mining regulations as the Bush administration considers lift ing new industry requirements that took effect in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said the field hearing by the House Re sources mineral resources subcom mittee will explore the effects of fed eral mining fees and policy changes on the industry and on state and lo cal revenues. New regulations governing hard rock mining on public lands were issued late last year but were not put into effect until Jan. 20, the day Pres ident Bush took office. Last month, the Interior Depart ment’s Bureau of Land Management announced it would seek to sus pend the so-called ”3809” regula tions that give the federal govern ment new authority to prohibit new mines on federal land. The new rules also require smaller gold, sil ver and other metals mines to post bonds for environmental repairs in the event they go bankrupt. Current rules will remain in place until a new rule is published, ex pected to be in July, the BLM said. The mining industry argued the strict regulations would have a chilling effect on mineral develop ment and lead to decreased produc tion and layoffs. Conservationists said the more \ restrictive bonding and siting regu lations were necessary to guard against billions of dollars of envi ronmental damage. The Nevada attorney general’s of fice joined the industry in opposing the requirements. In January, it filed a federal lawsuit challenging lan guage in the rules that state officials said gave the BLM too much discre tion to deny a mining plan. Member: Paul's BICYCLE WAY OF LIFE Unique Eugene ?GMwr BtCYCL £S 152 W. 5th St. 2580 Willakenzie 2480 Alder St. 8icycleway.com Electric Bicycles SideWalker 26" Wheel Scooters University Commons observes... DAY 011508 Featuring: • Washer/dryer in each apartment - • On bus route to campus • Electronic alarm systems • Fully equipped kitchen • Private bedrooms/individual leases • Computer lab, copier and fax availabihty • Heated swimming pool • Basketball and volleyball courts • Superior workout facilities • Starting at $320 • Roommate matching service. T TNI VERSITV U —AU111V1HJW JL ♦ COM M O N S ♦ I V-. '“T _jt_ inn P !■ 1 irti; APARTMENTS Property address: 90 Commons Drive or stop by our leasing office at 90 Commons Drive (open 7 days a week) www.capstone-dev.com Recycle this paper