Opinion ID: 835999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: League Plaintiffs

Text: League plaintiffs' complaint sets out the following allegations respecting standing: Plaintiffs City of Eugene, City of Portland, Junction City, City of Veneta, and City of Beaverton are municipal corporations with home rule powers granted by the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiffs Multnomah County, Benton County and Washington County are counties with home rule powers granted by the Oregon Constitution. Plaintiffs    Stein and    Katz are citizens of the State of Oregon, and electors and taxpayers. League plaintiffs also attached the text of Measure 7, as well as its accompanying ballot title and a brief estimate of financial impact, as Exhibit A of their complaint. The estimate of financial impact provided: Direct costs to the state are estimated to be $1.6 billion per year. Local government direct costs are estimated to be $3.8 billion per year. League plaintiffs did not submit affidavits in further support of their standing under ORS 28.020; consequently, the allegations in their complaint constituted the only material respecting standing before the trial court on summary judgment. As to the League plaintiffs Stein and Katz, as with McCall plaintiffs McCall, MacPherson, and Swaim, neither the allegations in the complaint nor the attached exhibit demonstrates how Measure 7 would affect them. Accordingly, they lack standing to bring this challenge. The local government plaintiffs consist of municipal corporation (city) plaintiffs and county plaintiffs. In respect of the city plaintiffs, the UDJA specifically treats municipal (and all other) corporations as persons for purposes of the act. ORS 28.130. Accordingly, a city, like any person, has standing to bring an action under the UDJA if that city's rights, status or other legal relations are affected. ORS 28.010. In respect of the county plaintiffs, this court has recognized that declaratory relief is available to counties under the UDJA. See Tillamook Co. v. State Board of Forestry, 302 Or. 404, 416, 730 P.2d 1214 (1986) (recognizing county's standing to bring declaratory judgment action against state). When we examine the text of Measure 7 (Exhibit A of League plaintiffs' complaint), specifically, subsection (a), we see that, because cities and counties are forms of local government that pass[ ] or enforce[ ]    regulation[s] that restrict[ ] the use of private real property, Measure 7 will have a fiscal impact upon any city or county each time that the city or county chooses to regulate real property in a manner that gives rise to a Measure 7 claim. That impactofficially estimated as a cost of 3.8 billion dollars to local governments generallyis not abstract. Thus, despite its few specific allegations, League plaintiffs' complaint demonstrates that Measure 7 will have a fiscal impact upon the local government plaintiffs. That impact is sufficient to show that Measure 7 will affect[ ] those plaintiffs' legal relations within the meaning of ORS 28.020. Accordingly, the local government plaintiffs have standing to challenge Measure 7 under the UDJA. [17]