The New York Times > National > Property Rights Law May Alter Oregon Landscape
Thanks to an alert reader (unfortunately I don't have the name to extend personal thanks) who sent this along.
Over the past three decades, Oregon has earned a reputation for having the most restrictive land-use rules in the nation. Housing was grouped in and near the cities, while vast parcels of farmland and forests were untouched by so much as a suburban cul-de-sac.Environmentalists and advocates for "smart growth" cheered the ever-growing list of rules as visionary, while some landowners, timber companies and political allies cried foul. But in a matter of days, the landowners will get a chance to turn the tables. Under a ballot measure approved on Nov. 2, property owners who can prove that environmental or zoning rules have hurt their investments can force the government to compensate them for the losses - or get an exemption from the rules. Supporters of the measure, which passed 60 percent to 40 percent, call it a landmark in a 30-year battle over property rights.
[more]


---------------------
I've been telling my constitutional law class that the real frontier of liberties these days is property rights. The USSC (and here the voters of Oregon) are rewriting the book on the relationship between state police power over regulatory takings, abuses of the eminent domain power, and conditions placed on construction permits that amount to takings. The USSC is hearing Kelo v. City of New London, a real sleeper of a case that I will have more to say about later. But in this NYT article, we see the voters taking matters into their own hands.