Government hardly could go on: Oregon's Measure 37, implications for land use planning and a more rational means of compensation

Urban Lawyer

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 275-307

  Clune, Margaret H ^a  

^a Center for Progressive Reform   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAND USE PLANNING; POLICY STRATEGY; PROPERTY RIGHTS; REGULATORY APPROACH; STATE ROLE;

NORTH AMERICA; OREGON; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33746064490     PISSN: 00420905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (247)

1. Ballot Measure 37 §§ 1-13 (Or. 2004), available at http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2004/036text.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
2. Opinion and Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, MacPherson v. Dep't of Admin. Serv., Case No. 05C10444 (Or. Cir. Ct., Oct. 14, 2005), available at http://www.friends.org/issues/documents/M37/ constitutional-challenge/M37-Opinion-Order-MSJ.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006) [hereinafter Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion].
3. Opinion, MacPherson v. Dep't of Admin. Serv., Case No. 05C10444, SC S52875 (Or. S. Ct. Feb. 21, 2006), available at http://www.publications. ojd.state.or.us/S52875.htm (last visited Feb. 24, 2006) [hereinafter Supreme Court Measure 37 Opinion].
4. U.S. Const. amend. V. The states are bound by the rule through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Most state constitutions contain similar language, including the Constitution of Oregon, which provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation...." Or. Const. art. I, § 18.
5. Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).
6. Pa. Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
7. Id. at 412-13.
8. Id. at 412.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 413.
11. Pa. Coal, 260 U.S. at 414.
12. Id. at 415.
13. Robert V. Percival et al., Environmental Regulation: Law, Science and Policy 780 (3d ed. 2000).
14. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978).
15. 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
16. Id. at 116.
17. Id. at 118.
18. Id. at 119.
19. Id. at 124
20. (citing Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 (1962)).
21. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)
22. (citing Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 (1962)).
23. Id.
24. (citing United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)).
25. Id.
26. Id. at 138.
27. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
28. Id. at 421-22.
29. Id. at 426.
30. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
31. Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1008
32. (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-280(A)(2) (Supp. 1988)).
33. Id. at 1008-09.
34. Id.
35. Id. at 1009.
36. Id. (citing App. to Pet. for Cert. 37).
37. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
38. (citing Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895, 899 (S.C. 1991)).
39. Id.
40. Id. at 1019.
41. Id. at 1029.
42. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
43. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
44. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
45. Gerritt Knaap & Arthur C. Nelson, The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon 125 (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 1992).
46. See Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Chronology: 1969 to Present, available at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/history.shtml (follow "Chronology: 1969 to present" hyperlink) (last visited Nov. 6, 2005) [hereinafter LCDC Chronology]. A copy of the text of Senate Bill 10 is available at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/bills/ sbIO.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
47. LCDC Chronology, supra note 41.
48. Carl Abbott, Planning a Sustainable City: The Promise and Performance of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary, in Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, 207 (Gregory D. Squires, ed., Urban Inst. Press 2002).
49. Tom McCall, Governor, Address at the Oregon Legislature (Jan. 8, 1973) (transcript available in the Oregon State Archives, and it is also online, available at http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/governors/McCall/ legisl973.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2006)).
50. Abbott, supra note 43, at 211.
51. S.B. 100, 57th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1973).
52. Abbott, supra note 43, at 207.
53. Id. at 208
54. see LCDC Chronology, supra note 41.
55. Oregon's statewide planning goals are: (1) Citizen Involvement; (2) Land Use Planning; (3) Agricultural Lands; (4) Forest Lands; (5) Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources; (6) Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; (7) Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards; (8) Recreational Needs; (9) Economy of the State; (10) Housing; (11) Public Facilities and Services; (12) Transportation; (13) Energy; (14) Urbanization; (15) Willamette Greenway; (16) Estuarine Resources; (17) Coastal Shorelands; (18) Beaches and Dunes; and (19) Ocean Resources. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, A Summary of Oregon's State-wide Planning Goals, http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/ docs/goals/goalssummary.PDF (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
56. Abbott, supra note 43, at 208.
57. See Knaap & Nelson, supra note 40, at 125.
58. Id.
59. Abbott, supra note 43, at 208.
60. Knaap & Nelson, supra note 40, at 132.
61. Id. at 128.
62. Id. at 129.
63. The numbers of votes cast for and against Measure 37 are as follows: 1,054,589 for and 685,079 against. See Oregon Blue Book: Initiative, Referendum and Recall 2000-2004, available at http://bluebook.state.or. us/state/elections/elections22a.htm (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
64. The nominal substance of Measure 37 is found in its first paragraph: If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation. Text of proposed initiative petition #36 (Nov. 2004 General Election), Governments Must Pay Owners, or Forgo Enforcement, When Certain Land Use Restrictions Reduce Property Value ¶ 1 (attachment to letter from Bill Bradbury, Oregon Secretary of State to All Interested Parties (Mar. 17, 2003)), available at http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2004/036text.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006) [hereinafter Measure 37].
65. Ballot Measure 37 § (8) (Or. 2004).
66. Ballot Measure 37 § (6) (Or. 2004) (stating that if a land use regulation continues to apply to the subject property more than 180 days after the owner makes a claim for compensation, the owner shall have a "cause of action for compensation under this act in the circuit court in which the real property is located."). In the case of such a court action, Measure 37 stipulates that the property owner is entitled to collect attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred during the lawsuit.
67. Id.
68. In an attempt to pass constitutional muster, the drafters of Measure 37 included, among other provisions aimed at avoiding conflict with federal law, a section preserving the state's autonomy to impose regulations that restrict and/or prohibit common law nuisances, as guaranteed by Lucas. Ballot Measure 37 § (3)(A)
69. see Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895 (S.C. 1991).
70. Ballot Measure 37 §§ (1)-(13) (Or. 2004).
71. Ballot Measure 37 §§ (1)-(13) (Or. 2004).
72. See Pa. Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922).
73. Measure 37, Estimate of Financial Impact, http://www.sos.state.or.us/ elections/nov22004/m37_bt.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
74. See, e.g., Edward J. Sullivan, Oregon's Measure 37: Crisis and Opportunity for Planning, 57 Planning & Envtl. L. 3, 3 (2005).
75. Id.
76. Complaint at 6, MacPherson v. Dep't of Admin. Serv., No. 05C10444 (Cir. Ct. Marion Co., Or. Jan. 14, 2004), available at http://www.friends.org/ issues/M37/litigation.html (follow "Complaint-Declaratory Relief" hyperlink) (last visited Feb. 14, 2006) [hereinafter Measure 37 Complaint].
77. See also Knaap & Nelson, supra note 40, at 126-27 (noting that residents of suburban developments adjacent to farms may view agricultural practices as nuisances, and thus seek to improve restrictions on activities such as application of fertilizers and travel of slow-moving farm vehicles)
78. Daniel Brook, How the West Was Lost: How Were the People of Oregon, Once the Country's Fiercest Anti-Sprawl Crusaders, Convinced to Give up the Fight?, 2005-APR Legal. Aff. 44, 47 (2005) ("There are all sorts of things that dairy farmers live with that city folks don't like, namely the odor from the cattle." (quoting former Oregon Senator Hector MacPherson)).
79. Knaap & Nelson, supra note 40, at 126-27.
80. Ballot Measure 37 § (3)(A) (Or. 2004).
81. As the Supreme Court memorably observed, "[a] nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388 (1926). More technically, a private nuisance is an unreasonable nontrespassory interference with another's private use and enjoyment of land.
82. Mark v. State ex rel. Dep't. of Fish and Wildlife, 84 P.3d 155, 161 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). In Oregon, a plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence (a standard of proof higher than the usual civil "preponderance of the evidence") that the alleged nuisance constitutes a "substantial and unreasonable interference" with the use and enjoyment of his or her property.
83. Id.
84. (citing Smith v. Wallowa County, 929 P.2d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)
85. Jewett v. Deerhorn Enters., Inc., 575 P.2d 164 (Or. 1978)). Oregon courts make the determination on "the individual facts of a particular case," and frame their inquiry according to five guidelines: "(1) the location of the claimed nuisance; (2) the character of the neighborhood; (3) the nature of the thing complained of; (4) the frequency of the intrusion; and (5) the effect upon the enjoyment of life, health and property."
86. Id.
87. See Ballot Measure 37 §§ (1), (2), (8) (Or. 2004).
88. Hay v. Stevens, 530 P.2d 37, 39 (Or. 1975)
89. (citing Prosser, The Law of Torts § 87, at 578 (4th ed. 1971)).
90. Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 2. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Measure 37: 1) intrudes on the plenary power of the legislative body; 2) violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 20; 3) violates the suspension of laws clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, § 22; 4) violates the separation of powers clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article III, § 1, to the extent the legislative branch purports to delegate to public entities powers it does not possess; and 5) violates procedural and substantive due process, United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.
91. Id. at 23.
92. See LCDC Chronology, supra note 41
93. Brook, supra note 70, at 46, 49.
94. Brook, supra note 69, at 48.
95. See Measure 37 Complaint, supra note 68.
96. Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 2, at 10.
97. Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814, 817 (1879)
98. Hughes v. State, 314 Or. 1, 14, 838 P.2d 1026 (Or. 1992)
99. Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 2, at 11.
100. Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 2, at 11.
101. Id.
102. Id.
103. Id.
104. Id.
105. Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 2, at 11.
106. Id.
107. Id. at 13. "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." Or. Const. art. I, § 20.
108. Id.
109. Id. at 13-14.
110. Id. at 13. Although Measure 37 was not passed by the legislature, once the initiative was passed by voters, it became state law and thus subject to the same review as would a legislatively created measure, thus the voters' interest becomes the "state interest" for purposes of constitutional review.
111. Circuit Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 2, at 14.
112. Id. at 14.
113. Supreme Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 3.
114. Id.
115. Id.
116. Id.
117. Supreme Court Measure 37 Opinion, supra note 3
118. (citing Sealey v. Hicks, 788 P.2d 435, 440 (Or. 1990)).
119. Id.
120. Don Hamilton, After 32 Years, Do Laws Do Job?, Portland Trib., Nov. 11, 2005
121. see Don Hamilton, Salem Gets Back to Land Basics, Portland Trib. (Portland, Or.) Nov. 11, 2005.
122. Hamilton, Salem Gets Back to Land Basics, supra note 100 (reporting that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski "and legislative leaders are impaneling a ten-member task force to study reforming Oregon's storied land use system.").
123. Brook, supra note 69, at 47.
124. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
125. Id. at 379. Included in the redevelopment plan was a proposal to enlarge the store's parking lot.
126. Id.
127. Id. at 380. As conditions of permit approval, the City of Tigard required Ms. Dolan to: (1) dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year floodplain for improvement of storm drainage; and (2) dedicate an additional 15 foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway.
128. Id.
129. Id. at 388-97.
130. See Brook, supra note 69, at 47.
131. LCDC Chronology, supra note 41.
132. Id.
133. Id.
134. Id.
135. Measure 7's principal provision reads as follows: If the state, a political subdivision of the state, or a local government passes or enforces a regulation that restricts the use of private real property, and the restriction has the effect of reducing the value of a property upon which the restriction is imposed; the property owner shall be paid just compensation equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the property. Text of proposed initiative petition #46 (Nov. 2000 election), Just Compensation for Regulatory "Takings" § (a), available at http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov72000/measures/ 46.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
136. LCDC Chronology, supra note 41.
137. Id.
138. League of Oregon Cities v. State, 56 P.3d 892 (Or. 2002) (holding Measure 7 void in its entirety).
139. Sullivan, supra note 66, at 3.
140. Id.
141. Sara C. Galvan, Comment, Gone Too Far: Oregon's Measure 37 and the Perils of Over-Regulating Land Use, 23 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 587, 588 (2005).
142. Brook, supra note 69, at 48. However, "the same poll estimated that less than half the state's residents had ever had a run-in with planners at all, whether positive or negative."
143. Id.
144. Daniel P. Selmi, Reconsidering the Use of Direct Democracy in Making Land Use Decisions, 19 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 293, 307 (2001-02).
145. Initiatives, like Measure 37, "are legal devices whereby citizens enact legislation." Selmi, supra note 119, at 298
146. (citing Joseph F. Zimmerman, Participatory Democracy 12 (1986)).
147. Referenda, on the other hand, decide the validity of previously enacted legislation. Id.
148. (citing Joseph F. Zimmerman, Participatory Democracy 15 (1986)).
149. Jones v. Bates, 127 F.3d 839, 859-60 (9th Cit. 1997),
150. rev'd en banc, 131 F.3d 843 (9th Cir.).
151. But see Clayton P. Gillette, Is Direct Democracy Anti-Democratic?, 34 Willamette L. Rev. 609, 636-37 (1998) (comparing alleged flaws in initiative process with susceptibility of representative democracy to same flaws and concluding that "it is unclear that the initiative, as we currently employ it, is sufficiently inferior to the legislature to warrant the attacks visited on it.").
152. Selmi, supra note 119, at 295-96
153. (citing Roger W. Caves, Land Use Planning: The Ballot Box Revolution 28 (1991)
154. David L. Callies et al., Ballot Box Zoning: Initiative, Referendum and the Law, 39 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 53 (1991)
155. Nicolas M. Kublicki, Comment, Land Use by, for, and of the People: Problems with the Application of Initiatives and Referenda to the Zoning Process, 19 Pepp. L. Rev. 99, 101 (1991)
156. Mark August Nitikman, Instant Planning - Land Use Regulation by Initiative in California, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 497, 523 (1988)
157. Ronald H. Rosenberg, Referendum Zoning: Legal Doctrine and Practice, 53 U. Cin. L. Rev. 381,433 (1984)).
158. See Gillette, supra note 121, at 613
159. citing, inter alia, Lynn A. Baker, Direct Democracy and Discrimination: A Public Choice Perspective, 67 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 707 (1991)
160. Julian Eule, Judicial Review of Direct Democracy, 99 Yale L.J. 1503 (1990)).
161. Hans A. Linde, On Reconstituting "Republican Government," 19 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 193, 205 (1995).
162. Sullivan, supra note 66, at 5.
163. See id. (noting that OIA's "ads did not note that Ms. English had previously split off two portions of her property for sale.").
164. Brook, supra note 69, at 47 (describing "working-class family: a man in baseball cap and jeans and wife in a T-shirt, flanked by four blond children and the family dog.").
165. Id. at 47-48.
166. Id. at 48.
167. Id. Randal O'Toole, head of the American Dream Coalition, an ally of OIA, makes similar assertions - smart growth advocates, according to O'Toole, [T]alk about giving people more choices, but the plans they make give people less choices. Smart growth people really only accept two lifestyles: an urban lifestyle and a rural lifestyle. They don't accept that anybody should want to live in a neighborhood of plain, single-family homes. For them it's not, "What do people want?" but "What should people want?"
168. Id.
169. LCDC Chronology, supra note 41. 1000 Friends of Oregon was founded in 1975 by Tom McCall and Henry Richmond.
170. Id.
171. Brook, supra note 69, at 48 (quoting Bob Stacey, Executive Director, 1000 Friends of Oregon).
172. Id. at 48.
173. See Sullivan, supra note 66, at 5
174. Brook, supra note 69, at 48.
175. See Armando Carbonell & Robert D. Yaro, American Spatial Development and the New Megalopolis, 17 Land Lines 1, 2 (2005), available at: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=1009 (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
176. See id.
177. Id. (emphasis added).
178. Timothy Beatley & Richard Collins, Smart Growth and Beyond: Transitioning to a Sustainable Society, 19 Va. Envtl. L.J. 287, 288 (2000) (internal citations omitted).
179. For a discussion of Maryland's Smart Growth programs, see James R. Cohen, Maryland's "Smart Growth": Using Incentives to Combat Sprawl, in Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses 293-324 (Gregory D. Squires, ed., Urban Inst. Press 2002).
180. Trust for Public Land (TPL), Press Release, A Clear Victoryfor Land Conservation: Americans Approve $2.4 Billion in New Open Space Funding (Nov. 4, 2004), http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/tplvote04.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006) (citing data available in TPL's Land Vote database, available at www.landvote.org) (last visited Feb. 14, 2006) [hereinafter TPL, Press Release, A Clear Victory for Land Conservation].
181. TPL, Commonly Requested Conservation Finance Figures, Land Vote Measure Summary (1999-2004), http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/ LandVote_database_summaries.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2004) (citing data available in TPL's Land Vote database, available at www.landvote.org) (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
182. TPL, Press Release, A Clear Victory for Land Conservation, supra note 140. The overall rate of passage in Oregon is lower than the national average over the time period tracked by TPL. Oregon voters approved eight of twenty measures between 1994 and 2005, a passage rate of only 40 percent.
183. See TPL LandVote Database (1994-2005), All Measures by State, Oregon, available at http://www.conservationalmanac.org/landvote/Cgi-bin/ nph-landvote.cgi/000000A (following hyperlink "summary of measures by state, 1994-2005," select Oregon) (last visited Feb. 14, 2006). Collectively, the twenty measures represented $929,065,000 in total conservation funds at stake.
184. Id. The eight measures approved represented 94 percent of the total conservation funds at stake: $872,720,000.
185. Id.
186. National Survey on Growth and Land Developmentfor Smart Growth America (Sept. 2000), available at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/poll.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2006).
187. TPL, Press Release, A Clear Victory for Land Conservation, supra note 140.
188. Jennifer Langston, Land Rights on '06 Ballot? Days After Election Farm Bureau Launches Initiative Drive for Next Vote, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash.), Nov. 15, 2005, at B1.
189. Madelyn Glickfeld et al., Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation (Donald G. Hagman & Dean J. Misczynski eds., Planners Press 1978).
190. Daniel D. Barnhizer, Givings Recapture: Funding Public Acquisition of Private Property Interests on the Coasts, 27 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 295, 301 (2003).
191. Id. at 302.
192. See Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. & Jonathan D. Witten, Windfalls, Wipeouts, Givings, and Takings in Dramatic Redevelopment Projects: Bargaining for Better Zoning on Density, Views, and Public Access, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 325, 325 (2005).
193. Id. at 326.
194. Id.
195. Barnhizer, supra note 147, at 303.
196. Id. at 303.
197. Id. at 304.
198. Id.
199. 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
200. Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 394 (1926).
201. Oliver Gillham, The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate 16 (Island Press 2002).
202. Id. Although the law of nuisance may prevent such drastic changes in the character of development, incremental steps toward commercial, and then industrial, development in what began as a residential neighborhood may well avoid running a foul of nuisance law.
203. Id.
204. See Barnhizer, supra note 147, at 303.
205. Id.
206. Id.
207. Donald G. Hagman & Dean J. Misczynski, Introduction, in Windfalls for Wipeouts, supra note 146. "A windfall, broadly conceived, is an increase in property value caused by public action; a wipeout is an analogous decrease."
208. Id. at 1.
209. Eric Kades, Windfalls, 108 Yale L.J. 1489, 1492-93 (1999). A tax on true "windfalls," however, avoids the deadweight loss typically associated with taxes, because since windfalls are by definition unearned surprises, taxing windfalls leads to little if any distortion in private behavior.
210. Id. at 1494.
211. Id. at 1502.
212. Donald G. Hagman, Betterment for Worsenment: The English 1909 Act and Its Progeny, in Windfalls for Wipeouts supra note 146, at 491.
213. David Replogle, The Uthwatt Proposal, in Windfalls for Wipeouts, supra note 146 at 422.
214. Id.
215. Id. at 423.
216. Id.
217. Id.
218. Replogle, supra note 169, at 423.
219. Id.
220. Id.
221. Id. at 425. The Uthwatt proposal made a distinction between urban and rural lands because the proposed tax was to be built on the English rating system, and agricultural lands were not rated and therefore not assessed.
222. Id.
223. Id. Replogle notes that adoption of a betterment levy might require more accurate tax assessments and the devotion of more resources to appraisal work. Such expenditures, however, might "improve the equity of the property tax."
224. Id.
225. Replogle, supra note 168, at 425.
226. Abraham Bell & Gideon Parchomovsky, Givings, 111 Yale L.J. 547, 612 (2001).
227. Madelyn Glickfield & Donald G. Hagman, Special Capital and Real Estate Windfalls Taxes (SCREWTS), in Windfalls for Wipeouts supra note 146, at 437.
228. Id.
229. Id.
230. Kades, supra note 165, at 1533.
231. Black's Law Dictionary 112 (7th ed. 1999)
232. Kades, supra note 165, at 1535.
233. Donald G. Hagman, Zoning by Special Assessment Financed Eminent Domain (ZSAFED), in Windfalls for Wipeouts supra note 146, at 518.
234. Id.
235. Id. at 519-24.
236. Id. at 524.
237. Id. at 524 (quoting summary of House Bill 3026, introduced by Rep. Kulongoski in the 1975 Regular Session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly).
238. Hagman, supra note 185, at 524.
239. Id. at 525.
240. Id.
241. Kades, supra note 165, at 1502.
242. Hagman, supra note 185, at 525. Professor Hagman argued that a tangential benefit associated with this method of tracking value changes for ZSAFEDs may be an improved property tax assessment system, since examination of assessments would be "more frequent and more intense."
243. Id.
244. Id. at 524.
245. Edward Russo, Council Mulls Tax to Help Fund Land Use Claims, The Register-Guard (Eugene, Or.), June 14, 2005, at D1. Given that the examples of government bettertnent cited are "removing a building height limit or other barriers to development."
246. Id. at D4. The proposed tax may more closely resemble a land use permission exaction than a betterment levy or ZSAFED.
247. See Frederik Jacobsen & Craig McHenry, Exactions on Development Pet-mission, in Windfalls for Wipeouts, supra note 146, at 344.