The comparison of Colorado’s Amendment 74 to Oregon’s Measure 37 is illegitimate due to extremely opposite conditions of each state’s land-use regulations and takings claim process prior to the change proposed.
Oregon’s land-use planning is a highly regulated, top-down state process lacking a path to adjudication of takings claims. In addition to its anti-property rights history, Oregon had the added hurdle of needing to establish a whole new category of regulation to affect Measure 37, and failed to meet this challenge. Measure 37 was highly prescriptive, poorly drafted and heavily opposed by the government, which was responsible for implementing the prescribed change.
By contrast, Colorado places land-use regulation authority at the local government level. In Colorado, all takings claims are judicial determinations based on long-standing court precedent. In Colorado, decisions on takings are not a legislatively-defined process and Amendment 74 is not a proposition to add or amend statute – it is a constitutional amendment.
In Colorado, the constitution calls for compensation in regulatory takings and takings claims have been adjudicated, but due to judicial interpretations, the courts have failed to award compensation for even a 90 percent loss, which is the problem Amendment 74 will correct.
Naomi Dobbs
Hesperus
