January 2001

By James Lawlor

Where do we go from here? The November 2000 elections saw voters in Arizona and Colorado reject growth limitation initiatives by substantial margins. In Oregon, voters approved a measure that requires compensation for landowners who can prove that state or local regulations have diminished the value of their property. Chapter members in all three states have been examining their options as they prepare for the next legislative session.

Arizona: Wish list. The chapter held a forum November 30 to discuss the election results and its 2001 legislative agenda. Debra Stark, vice-president for legislative affairs, notes the 1998 "Growing Smarter" act gives the state a good foundation. The law requires municipalities to adopt new comprehensive plans every 10 years, creates a growing smarter commission to promote compact development patterns, and authorizes $200 million in state matching funds over the next 10 years to help local governments acquire open space. The "Growing Smarter Plus" amendments enacted last year require plans to include a water resources element that outlines how future growth will be served by available water supplies. The amendments also authorize municipalities to establish infrastructure service boundaries and to designate infill development districts. They authorize counties to sign development agreements with landowners in unincorporated areas. Stark says the chapter opposed provisions in the 2000 act that require voters to ratify new general plans; require owners to consent in writing before their land is designated as open space, or conservation or agricultural land; and allow expedited appeals of exactions imposed as a condition of land-use approvals. The amendments also exempt land divisions of five or fewer lots from subdivision regulations. Chapter priorities for the new legislative session will focus on repealing the voter approval requirement and on educating legislators about the planning laws in general, Stark says. The chapter hopes to persuade the legislature to appoint a new study commission to review all the state's planning laws and recommend improvements. Other goals include restoring counties' downzoning authority, which was taken away in 1998, and enacting stronger regional policies on issues such as air quality and water supplies.

Colorado: Change of heart? Gov. Bill Owens opposed an amendment to the state constitution that would require voters to approve urban growth area maps. Chapter legislative cochair Jean Hagen Gatza notes that the governor's opposition also helped sink growth management legislation proposed during the last legislative session.

Nevertheless, the week after the "antisprawl" amendment was voted down by a 70B30 percent margin, Owens held a private session with some of the interest groups advocating planning reform legislation. He said growth management legislation was high on his list of priorities and promised to come up with a legislative package.

A number of groups are now working on growth legislation, says Gatza. They include the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, a statewide chamber of commerce, the Colorado Forum, a private business group, and the state home builders association. As of early December, the chapter was waiting to see what shape the various proposals took before committing its support to any of them.

Oregon: See you in court. With the bitter memory of voters' approval of Measure 7 still fresh, chapter members were considering appropriate responses as of early December. Measure 7 amends the state constitution to require that landowners be compensated for reductions in the value of their property caused by adoption or enforcement of state or local regulations. Despite a vigorous campaign against the measure by the chapter and other groups, it passed by a 54B46 percent margin.

By early December, two lawsuits had been filed: one by a group of environmentalists headed by Audrey McCall, widow of the late governor Tom McCall, and the other by the League of Oregon Cities, joined by several individual cities and counties. Both suits argue that Measure 7 violates a section of the state constitution barring ballot initiatives on multiple subjects.

Leaders of Oregonians in Action, the group that sponsored the measure, claim the suits are unfounded. However, a state intermediate appellate court reaffirmed the prohibition against multiple-subject ballot measures late in November when it overturned Measure 62, an election law reform package passed by the voters in 1998.

Still open is the possibility that the chapter, municipal governments, or other parties also will attempt to get legislation enacted to modify the impact of Measure 7. There is some concern, however, that a court ruling invalidating the measure on constitutional grounds would make it difficult to get a full airing in the legislature.