Opinion ID: 620822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Right to a Particular Land Use

Text: To the extent that the property interest provided under Measure 37 was merely a right to particular land uses, it is analogous to a zoning permit. It is well established that there is no federal Constitutional right to be free from changes in the land use laws. Lakeview Dev. Corp. v. City of S. Lake Tahoe, 915 F.2d 1290, 1295 (9th Cir.1990). Therefore, an interest in a particular land use does not constitute a protected property interest, unless the interest has vested in equity based on principles of detrimental reliance. Plaintiffs' claims to a land use property right under Measure 37 fail for two reasons. First, these claims are not ripe. See Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). In Williamson, a land developer had received the Planning Commission's approval to develop a tract of land into a residential area consistent with the county's zoning regulations. Id. at 177, 105 S.Ct. 3108. However, the regulation changed a few years later and the Commission refused to approve further development inconsistent with the new regulations. Id. at 179-80, 105 S.Ct. 3108. The developer brought an action against the Commission, alleging that a taking had occurred. Id. at 182, 105 S.Ct. 3108. The Supreme Court held that the developer's claim for a taking was not ripe, because he had not obtained a final decision regarding the application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to its property, nor had he utilized the procedures Tennessee provides for obtaining just compensation. Id. at 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108. Similarly in the present case, the Plaintiffs have not exhausted the available alternative remedies under Measure 49 to determine which land use options are currently available to them. Measure 49 claims to preserve any Measure 37 land use claims if the property owner has a common law vested right ... to complete and continue the use described in the waiver. Compiled as a note after § 195.305. Plaintiffs also have not sought to determine whether their right to develop their land pursuant to their Measure 37 waivers have vested in equity pursuant to Oregon's Holmes factors. Holmes, 265 Or. at 196-97, 508 P.2d 190. [5] Thus, under a land use characterization of Plaintiffs' Measure 37 interest, these claims are not ripe, because Plaintiffs still have potential remedies available under Oregon state law. Second, even if Plaintiffs' claims were ripe, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they detrimentally relied on their Measure 37 land-use waivers. As a result, it is unlikely that Plaintiffs' claims have vested under this theory.