Opinion ID: 835999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McCall Plaintiffs

Text: McCall plaintiffs' complaint included the following allegations that are relevant to our discussion: Plaintiffs are taxpayers and registered voters in Oregon. They voted in the November 7, 2000, general election. Some or all of them own land in areas that are subject to regulations restricting the use of private real property. Plaintiffs Swaim and Lewis are the Mayors of Salem and Jacksonville, respectively. Their official duties include deciding whether and how to enforce regulations that affect the value and use of private real property. McCall plaintiffs also attached, as Exhibit A of their complaint, a copy of a page of the voters' pamphlet that included the text of Measure 7, its accompanying ballot title, and a brief estimate of financial impact. McCall plaintiffs argue that they all have standing as landowners because they oppose the increased development that Measure 7 would bring about. However, on summary judgment, McCall plaintiffs McCall, MacPherson, and Swaim rested upon the allegations of their complaint, set out above, and failed to allege or show that Measure 7 would lead to increased development, how it would do so, and how, specifically, that increased development would affect them as landowners. The only specific impact upon plaintiffs McCall, MacPherson, and Swaim as landowners that we can discern from the text of Measure 7 is that, generally speaking, landowners would be compensated foror arguably might avoid altogethercertain governmental regulations of their private property. That impact is not sufficient to establish standing under ORS 28.020, because it is not sufficiently adverse, a quality that is central to the question of standing in any context. See People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or. 95, 101, 817 P.2d 1299 (1991) (so stating). [15] By contrast, McCall plaintiffs Lewis and Tipperman submitted uncontroverted affidavits in which they offered details concerning how, specifically, Measure 7 would affect them. [16] In his affidavit, Lewis avers that (1) he is the Mayor of Jacksonville and owns property there; (2) he has made effortsto date, successfulto prevent the conditional use of forest resource land outside Jacksonville as an aggregate mine; (3) he has been named as a defendant in a federal complaint filed by the owner of the forest resource land; (4) the forest resource landowner alleged in her federal complaint that, under Measure 7, she would be entitled to $50 million if Jackson County prevents her from using her land as an aggregate mine; (5) as a result of the litigation, Jacksonville is reconsidering its opposition to the aggregate mine; and (6) if the forest resource landowner succeeds in obtaining permission to mine her property, then the value of real estate in Jacksonville, including his own, will decrease. Plaintiff Tipperman, a rancher who owns a large timber and cattle ranch in Union County, avers as follows in his affidavit: In my opinion, if the county or state were to repeal or `waive' or otherwise not enforce land use law, to avoid liability for compensation under Measure 7, some surrounding and nearby parcels of land would be developed for residential and possibly commercial use. That would diminish the value of my farm, because those other uses and ranching are generally not compatible in close proximity to one another. Such development would also interfere with my ability to continue ranching and    would thus jeopardize a portion of my income.      If Measure 7 is adopted, the value and utility of [my]    ranch will be significantly diminished.    [R]ural residences and hobby farms    will sprout on adjoining tracts of land, bringing dogs which will harass the livestock and wildlife on the [r]anch, and unending trespassing and poaching by my new found neighbors and their friends. There will be other adverse consequences including reduction of stream flows (which supply water for our livestock and fish) which are already at precariously low levels during the Summer and early Fall. Although the consequences that plaintiffs Lewis and Tipperman anticipate are not certain to result from the implementation of Measure 7, they are plausible, concrete ramifications. Both plaintiffs Lewis and Tipperman introduced evidence that shows how Measure 7 would lead to increased development and how, specifically, that increased development would injure them. Because plaintiffs Lewis and Tipperman established that Measure 7 would affect their rights, status, or legal relations, we conclude that they have standing to challenge Measure 7 under ORS 28.020.