오리건 주의 토지이용규제와 입법투쟁 - 오리건 주의 주민투표 법안 37과 49의 사례를 중심으로 -

Generally, the law allows owners of property to demand compensation from state and local government for statutes and rules that restrict a person’s use of real property and reduce its value. But Oregon’s land use system failed to provide citizens with an adequate level of protection from regulatory takings. The legislature and the courts went too far in developing Oregon’s land use system without providing adequate remedies for aggrieved landowners. In 2004, most Oregonians had agreed that land use restrictions were a violation of property rights. Oregon voters passed ballot initiative Measure 37. Measure 37 provided that when land use regulations enacted after purchase of the land reduced its value, the government had to either compensate the owner or waive enforcement. In fact, it fundamentally reworked governmental compensation requirements. While permanent involuntary invasions of land almost always require compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, courts have rarely found the same for regulatory restrictions. It was not until 1922, in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, that the U.S. Supreme Court held that regulations could ever constitute a taking. Measure 37 addressed Oregon voters concern that the government had gone too far in prohibiting landowners from using their land as they saw fit. However, the dramatic substantive changes proposed by Measure 37 raise a new important question. How far did the public go in tilting the balance. Planners and politicians recognize that Oregonians value individual property rights. Measure 37 has served as a wakeup call to legislators, judges, and land use officials to clarify and streamline existing law. Even if in some respects Measure 37 was a success, it failed to create an effective system of compensation for regulatory takings. On November 6, 2007, Oregonians approved Measure 49 by sixty-two percent. Measure 49 is a proposal by the 2007 Oregon Legislature to modify Measure 37 to give landowners who have filed Measure 37 claims the right to build a limited number of homes as compensation for land use regulations imposed after they acquired their properties. The Article proceed as follows. First, I provided some brief background on land use planning in Oregon. Second, I discuss by documenting the fact that Measure 37 resulted in development and the causes of Measure 37 impact. Third, I reviewed the lessons we should derive from Oregon’s experience. This Part also examine the way these lessons have played out with respect to Oregon’s Measure 49. Finally, I have reviewed as follows. The lesson offered by Measure 37 and 49 is that designing a regulatory takings system is no simple task. On the other hand, Measure 37 and 49 also demonstrates that it is possible for an initiative to succeed in a more round about way by challenging the established system and initiative’s values. The Oregon lessons provided on the ground evidence to help future legislators, courts, and scholars move beyond abstract theory and see a radically different approach to regulatory restrictions in practice. And the constitutional approach to regulatory takings on its head and requiring compensation for all losses due to post acquisition regulation, the Oregon experiment allows us to look at property through a new lens. Through this lens, classic arguments regarding land property rights, efficiency, and fairness were upended.