Smart Growth and Stupid Tactics

Oregon is looked to as the future for "smart-growth" advocates.  Portland was the first large city in the US to define a city boundary beyond which development could not take place.  And Portland's example has become the rallying call of advocates across the country to duplicate its efforts.

But Oregon's policies have not been as popular at home as they are in other parts of the country.  In 2004, Oregonians approved a ballot measure that would have required the government to compensate landowners for the loss of property value when the government decided it had found a "higher" public use and wished to restrict the owner's options.

The voters' decision was voided in court and has been appealed.  The appeal won.

Oregon's ballot measure, which passed with a mere 61% of the vote, required authorities to either compensate landowners for any reduction in the value of their property, or exempt them from the regulations. This was the second time voters had passed the measure, the first version having been tossed out on a technicality by the state's notoriously liberal Supreme Court.

This time, however, the state's highest court surprised everyone by declaring that its only job was to examine whether the measure contravened the state constitution (it clearly did not), and that whether the measure is "wise or foolish, farsighted or blind, is beyond this court's purview." What brought about this healthy new respect for democracy isn't clear, although it could be the court is weary of intervening on behalf of every advocacy group that loses an initiative vote.

In any case, the decision is especially timely as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's egregious Kelo decision of last year. Other states are crafting versions of Oregon's law, and a few, such as Wisconsin, had put legislative efforts on hold pending the outcome of Oregon's litigation. This week's victory may well inspire more Americans to continue defending that most basic of Constitutional rights: owning property.

"Smart" growth may indeed be "smart."  But smart smart-growthers might begin to think that the "smart" way to achieve their goals might be to "attract" people to their point of view rather than forcing it through legislation or judicial fiat.