Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

".----"" ( )) Ii Ii I' il )1 ,I :1 I ,I 'I I II (' -'\ ) ~ December 25, 20081 Volume 21 No. 24 Eventually, the Citizens brought a legal action against the county. They argued that the Measure 37 waivers were biriding, constitutionally protected contracts between them and the county. DECISION: County's Measure 37 waivers were valid and enforceable. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon conclud- ed that the county's Measure 37 waivers were constitutionally protected contracts, which the county had to honor. Tn reaching its conclusion, the court noted that under the Contract . Clause of the United States Constitution, states could not pass any law that impaired the obligation of contracts. In determining whether Mea- sure 49 substantially impaired the Citizens" Measure 37 waivers that were granted by the county, the court looked at whether: (1) there was a contractual relationship; (2) a change in law impaired that contractual relationship; and (3) the impairment was substantial:' . The court llrst found th~t the county's Measure 37 waivers were "bind- ing coritracts." They were in effect settlement agreements, allowing the county and the Citizens to avoid litigation. They also involved mutual con- sideration since the Citizens agreed to drop claims for monetary compen- sation and the comity waived otherwise applicable zoning regulations. Next, the court foimd that the county's refusal to honor the Citizens' Measure 37 waivers "obviously impaired its agreements with [the Citizens]," and that "impairment was substantial by any definition of the word." The court assumed that Measure 49 had a significant and legitimate public purpose. Still, the court noted that even if the Measure had a valid public purpose, it could violate the Contract Clause if its effects went be- yond its legiti.pJ.ate purpose. Under the county's interpretation, Measure 49 would not just modify the Citizens' con:tractual rights under the Mea- sure 37 waivers, it would eliminate them. "To avoid an interpretation of Measure49 that would violate the Citizens' rights under the Contract Clause," the court concluded that Measure 49 did not apply to the Citi- zens' Measure 37 waivers. See, also: General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 112 S. Ct. 1105,117 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1992). Case Note: The court concluded alternatively that the Measure 38 waivers were final quasi-judicial orders, which Measure 49 could ~Otl rescind without violating the separation of powers. j -_/ @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 3 '59