P.O. Box 230637 Tigard OR 97281 (503) 620-0258
Oregonians In Action
OIA-News
Contact Us

There have been many articles and "letters to the editor" published in newspapers around the state about Measure 7. Here is one published in the Newberg Graphic, January 1,2001.





Measure 7 the people’s response to Government Shenanigans

By Leonard Rydell

Once again, one person [a judge]has decided that he knows better than 54 percent of Oregon’s voters. Measure 7 is on hold
while the attorneys figure it out.

Unfortunately, Measure 7 should never have been necessary as we already have constitutional protections and compensation
requirements for government takings.

The United States Constitution states that "...nor shall private property be taken without just compensation." Section 18 of the
Oregon Constitution is worded slightly different, but states that, "private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the
particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation."

There appears to be a lot of rhetoric regarding the issue, a lot of misunderstanding by the public, and deliberate confusion by
opponents of Measure 7 regarding the real issues involved. These range from quotes of $5.4 billion of dollars of property value being taken by the government in Oregon every year, to predictions of the end of Oregon’s land use planning system and public beach access.

I feel that the reason that the bill passed is that finally the Oregon courts’ repeated interpretation that a "regulatory take" is not a "constitutional take" finally affected too many people.

You can note by reading them that our U.S. Constitution and Oregon Constitution do not differentiate between regulatory takes and constitutional takes. They just use the words "take" or "taken." The average person on the street knows what it means, it means, "you don’t have something that you had before."

You may have purchased a buildable lot, now you can’t get a building permit. You might have bought a tree, now you can’t cut and sell it. You might have bought a some developable property, and now you can’t. A right that you used to have is gone, and you probably didn’t know that it happened.

These rules on the state level were passed with the support and advice of the Oregon Attorney General’s Office. One gem of
this advice that I vividly remember is when Melinda Bruce, assistant Attorney General, with a straight face advised the Oregon
Board of Forestry that the spotted owl rules were not a "constitutional take" because if you can’t harvest the trees on your land
to protect owls, "you can always build houses on it."

Based on this logic, I suggest that other examples of a "regulatory take" as defined by Oregon Courts and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office would be:

--A thief takes $95 out of your billfold and leaves $5. No take occurred because you still have the $5 of your money. A
constitutional take of your money would only have occurred if the thief took your entire $100.

--A bank won’t let you withdraw your life savings. No constitutional take occurred because you still have your money, it is still
earning interest and you still have to pay taxes on the interest that you are earning, even though the interest is in your bank
account.

If we applied this logic to freedom of speech, it is not a violation of your constitutional rights if you can say what ever you want
even though government prohibits anyone from listening to you. It is not a violation of your rights if you can write what ever you want even though government prohibits you from letting anyone read it.

Imagine government allowing The Newberg Graphic to continue to publish as long as they don’t sell, give or deliver their paper
to the public. Would the Graphic go broke before their court case wound its way for several years up to the U.S. Supreme
Court, assuming of course that the Supreme Court agreed to take the case?

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court recognizes what the word "take" means, even though our judge in Marion County does not. When South Carolina imposed a building restriction on a beach front lot in the Lucas Case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is a taking and South Carolina bought the lot.

South Carolina then removed the restriction and sold it at fair market value. When Oregon’s planning system, LUBA and the
state Supreme Court required the involuntary dedication of a pathway as part of the Dolan’s plumbing store expansion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was a take and the City of Tigard paid compensation. Our Oregon courts have not got the
message.

A case used to justify regulatory takings is Penn Central where they wanted to tear down a historic structure and build a new
building. When approval was denied, Penn Central sued for a regulatory take and lost, the court ruling that no take occurred as they can continue to use their existing building. Compare that to my tree farm.

I purchased a tree and the land that it grows on, and instead of a premature harvest, I elected to let it grow. While it was
growing, the state, without direct notification to me, passed a rule that I could no longer cut it, sell it or plant a new one in its
place. My allowable use for the tree was terminated.

Any ideas how I can get the dollars back that I spent buying that tree? Or was I just plain stupid to ignore bank interest rates of 15 percent in the Carter years to buy a tree so that you could have paper to read this?

So why does Oregon’s Attorney General’s office have such a hard time with the issue? Why will they defend a government
agency’s taking of your right but not defend citizen’s right during the regulatory process?

It is going to take a better person than me to get an answer. It is going to take the efforts and votes of you and all Oregonians
who feel that government should continue to be of the people, by the people and for the people.

Guest Column by Leonard Rydell—Consulting civil engineer and land surveyor and Newberg resident