Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The wake of Oregon’s Measure 37 in 2004, which enabled many property owners to challenge the state’s famously restrictive land use laws, was bound to include calls to stop new suburban sprawl in certain areas. Interestingly, the group that is leading a push for an amendment this year is winegrowers. Here’s an official state document concerning proposed Measure 49. Among other things in the long and complicated ballot measure is a restriction that subdivisions would not be permitted on “high-value farmland” (which has its own long and complicated definition). Regardless of whether one supported or opposed Measure 37, the proposed new law would, in my view, impose an unwelcome favoritism for one certain type of land use –- wine-growing –- over others.
The Oregonian newspaper opined this week in favor of the proposed restriction to help vineyards. Without more controls, it argued, development would “jeopardize thousands of acres of potential vineyard land [that wine growers] need for expansion.” Understand this: Law would be imposing restrictions on land use because of an expectation that one kind of business –- wine-growing –- might want to buy the land in the future. Is this the proper rule of government?
A prominent argument in favor of the measure is that the wine business is of growing economic importance to Oregon. But do we trust government, as opposed to the forces of the free market, to make decisions as what kinds of land use are the most economically valuable? Some growers argue that wine tourism will suffer if developments simply are allowed nearby. Is this what government is for –- to foster wine tourism (which tends to be engaged in by wealthier people, of course) over factories and stores that give jobs to lower-income people? Why wine-growers and not turnip farmers? Which group is more likely to be able to run a well-funded ballot campaign?
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Michael Gerrard on Climate Change and Land Use Law
- Touro Law hosts First Annual Conference of the Land Use & Sustainable Development Law Institute
- Abstracts for 6th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Scholarship due May 1
- Space and the City - Special edition of The Economist
- Land Value Tax Redux