Liberty
Matters News Service
November 11, 2004
Oregon Voters Approve Compensation Measure 37
Oregon voters re-affirmed their support of property rights
last week by approving Measure 37 by a 57% margin in the November 2 election.
Measure 37 requires any state government entity to compensate landowners when
land use regulations deprive them of their property rights. The proposal is a
refined version of a similar measure voters approved in 2002, but that was
deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Many landowners who have been unable to
use their property for 30 years following passage of the Land Conservation and
Development Act of 1974, consider it payback time, big time. 91 year-old
Dorothy English, who owns 40 acres on the outskirts of Portland, plans to file
for compensation. "After 31 years of having this around my neck, you bet I'm
going to make a claim," she said. "They destroyed my retirement and our lives,
really. That's stealing. I don't know any other name for it." State officials
don't know how much the claims will cost the cash-strapped state, but early
estimates peg administrative costs alone as high as $344 million. David
Hunnicutt, of Oregonians in Action, which put Measure 37 on the ballot, figures
easing restrictions on development would result in higher property taxes and
provide sufficient funds to pay landowners' "takings" claims.
Property-rights Measure Throws Oregon
Land-use Regs into Question
Federal Regulation Costs Continue to Climb
Federal regulators churned
out 4,148 new rules in 2003, down 19 from the previous year, but the cost of
the rules is nowhere to be found in the federal budget. The fiscal year 2005
budget contains $2.4 trillion in discretionary, entitlement, and interest
spending, but "federal environmental, safety and health, and economic
regulations cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars every year on top
of official federal outlays," writes Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. of the Heartland
Institute. While it is difficult to know the entire cost of government
regulations, the Office of Management and Budget offers some insight. The OMB's
latest report reveals cumulative 1993-2004 costs of major regulations at
between $34 billion and $39 billion, with benefits ranging from $62 billion to
$168 billion. However, economists Thomas Hopkins and Mark Crain find
"regulatory costs hit an estimated $869 billion in 2002, an amount equivalent
to 40 percent of all FY 2003 outlays." Crews believes Congress must control the
regulatory mania if it expects to reach the Congressional Budget Office's
speculative $13 billion surplus in 2014. It would require Congress to vote
explicitly on agency rules before they become binding and would fulfill
citizens' expectations of "no regulation without representation."
Federal Regulations Back to Near Record
Levels
2nd Bush Administration to Pursue Enviro Goals
With a Republican head-lock on the White
House and Congress, the Bush administration is poised to seek changes to
environmental policy that reflects a market-based economy. Even as the U. S.
has experienced crushing high fuel prices, Democrats and "moderate" Republicans
have refused to approve oil exploration in the far-reaches of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, a situation that House Resource Committee Chairman,
Richard Pombo, (R-CA) says will be rectified as part of a House-passed energy
bill. Additionally, Pombo indicated there would be renewed efforts to obtain
bi-partisan approval to streamline the antiquated Endangered Species Act. The
administration also plans to accelerate distribution of the remainder of the
$40 billion Congress appropriated to pay farmers and other landowners to set
aside portions of their property for wetlands or wildlife habitat, which will,
in turn, give the government or its agents de facto control over their
property. Environmental groups were quick to point out the administration
better not get cocky about pushing the environmental reform envelope because,
as Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust said; "George Bush
doesn't have to run again, but Republican lawmakers do."
GOP Plans to Give
Environment Rules a Free Market Tilt
Federal Employees Sued Under "RICO" Act
Three U. S. Forest Service
employees, along with a member of an environmental group, Friends of Fawnskin,
are being sued under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) by the Marina Point Development Associates for illegally conspiring
to deny them the right to develop their property. The federal employees; Gene
Zimmerman, Scot Eliason and Robin Eliason, are accused of "knowingly and
willfully [abusing] their authority and the cloak of their office for their own
personal benefit [in conspiring to stop the project]," said S. Wayne Rosenbaum
attorney for Marina. The development project dates back to 1981 when a group of
investors bought the run-down marina on the north shore of Big Bear Lake,
California and sought to build a 133-unit resort community on the 12.5 acre
site. The original project was approved by the appropriate government agencies
in 1983, but the project was delayed for another 21 years for a variety of
reasons. The marina owners rejected the U. S. Forest Service's offer to buy the
property at a basement price in 1999, and proceeded with construction. That
construction was halted this year when "Friends" and the Center for Biological
Diversity convinced a federal judge the project would harm the environment.
Attorney Rosenbaum contends the marina owners are victims of a conspiracy "by
the very government employees who make and are supposed to enforce the
rules."
Lawsuit:
Biologists, SB Forest Supe Abused Power to Stop Development
USFS Employees, Other Conspirators Sued by Marina Point Development Associates under Federal Anti-Racketeering Act