Case Title: Hunnicutt v. Myers

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2002-02-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  February 25, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

DAVID J. HUNNICUTT

and LAWRENCE B. GEORGE,
	Petitioners,
	v.
HARDY MYERS, 
Attorney General, 
State of Oregon,
	Respondent,
	and
EVAN MANVEL,
	Intervenor.
(SC S48996)

	En Banc
	On modified ballot title filed February 14, 2002.*
	No appearance by petitioners.
	Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed
the filing of modified ballot title for respondent.  With her on
the filing were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D.
Reynolds, Solicitor General.
	The modified ballot title is certified.  The appellate
judgment shall issue in accordance with ORS 250.085(9).
	*333 Or 264, ___ P3d ___ (February 7, 2002) (referring
ballot title for modification).
		The court in this ballot title review proceeding
determined that the Attorney General's certified ballot title for
a proposed initiative measure, which the Secretary of State
denominated as Initiative Petition 112 (2002), failed to comply
substantially with statutory standards.  Hunnicutt v. Myers, 333
Or 264, ___ P3d ___ (February 7, 2002).  Under ORS 250.085(8),
the court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for
modification.  The Attorney General has filed a modified ballot
title for the proposed initiative measure, and no party to the
ballot title review proceeding has objected.  See ORS 250.085(9)
(setting out period within which party may object to modified
ballot title and requiring court to certify modified ballot title
if no objection filed).
		The modified ballot title for Initiative Petition 112
(2002) states:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION:  NO COMPENSATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS HAVING CERTAIN PURPOSES UNLESS RIGHT PRE-DATED 2000

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE:  'Yes' vote provides that
property owners have no right to compensation due to
government regulations having certain primary purposes
unless compensation right existed before 2000.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE:  'No' vote rejects proposal
providing that property owners have no right to
compensation due to certain government regulations
unless right to compensation existed before 2000.
		"SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  Provides that,
except as required by state constitution as it existed
before 2000, property owners have no right to
compensation due to government regulations having
certain primary purposes.  Primary purposes are: 
protecting air, water, fish, wildlife, food supply,
preserving farm, forestland, promoting jobs, affordable
housing, public health, safety, community livability,
and reducing taxpayers' burden from new development. 
Before 2000, state constitution provided for payment of
just compensation when government takes private
property for public use, but not when property value is
only reduced.  A 2000 measure provided for compensation
when some government regulations reduce value.  That
measure was challenged on constitutional grounds; when
ballot title was prepared, challenge was not resolved. 
This proposal would limit the 2000 measure's effect by
exempting many regulations."
		The modified ballot title is certified.  The appellate
judgment shall issue in accordance with ORS 250.085(9).