Columbia Gorge News

THE LAND USE KNOT

Measure 37 Ruling Brings Out Passions — and Glimmers of Moderation

By Dan Richardson, 11-01-05

There's nothing like defeat to bring out the graciousness, moderation and thoughtfulness in a person.

Or, you know, the opposite.

Like the state's Constitution Party, which is trying to throw out a Marion County judge who struck down Oregon's Measure 37 in a ruling Oct. 13.

As a Constitution Party press release recently encouraged people, "Come to Salem and spend some time gathering signatures. With your help, this can be a success in the effort to restrain power-intoxicated government bureaucrats and force the recognition of our God-given right to own private property."

Now sure, God is pro-private property. ("You shall not steal.") But to argue that any rule governing the use of property is wrong may be taking things a bit far. Certainly, removing a judge for a single unpopular decision would be hasty. It treads dangerously close to mob rule.

Given that there are something like 2,500 pending Measure 37 claims (including 37 in Hood River County and 2 in Wasco, according to planning officials), Judge Mary Mertens James' ruling effects governments and citizens around the state. Still, sharpening the pitch forks and lighting the torches because of a single ruling strikes at that whole separation of powers idea.

Or, as George Will wrote in a column this week, our "democracy inescapably functions under some degree of judicial supervision."

It's not like the right-wingers have an monopoly on take-no-prisoners approach to public life. One of the hallmarks of the political left has been the imposition of rules and laws via the courts, where public debate is less than an afterthought.

One much-read blogger, at Land Use Watch, is all but calling for a liberal fatwa against moderation. Liberals, he wrote, should follow the National Rifle Association's style when it comes to promoting Oregon's land use laws: "There should be no compromise
on this issue."

No compromise? Has God sanctioned the state's unchecked regulatory powers? (An eleventh commandment, perhaps? "You shall not protest the state's rules and regulations; they are for your good.")

While the poles at either end of the spectrum call for blood, the rest of us should take a deep breath before getting into the land use conversation. Some are: Oregonians In Action and 1000 Friends of Oregon — the pro- and anti-Measure 37 groups, respectively — are both heading back to court over the pending appeal of Judge James ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Which is exactly where cases like this belong.

There are absolutes in life, principles on which there can be no compromise. Regulating land use is not one of them — nor is developing private property.

One writer, in an Oregonian editorial last week, made the outrageous claim that "It's a mistake to assume that this is an either-or choice between protecting private property or preserving our land-use laws. It is possible to do both."

A thoughtful middle course? Hmmm...now that might be worth a petition.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.