To require the Columbia River Gorge Commission to compensate property owners for certain zoning changes. The assessor of the county to which the property in question belongs shall determine the compensatory amount.   Official Text and Analysis.

By Senator Benton; Representative Boldt; Merton Cooper; Willard Gaul, Columbia Gorge United; and Hertha Lund, WA Farm Bureau; and Oren Johnson. They testified that if the use of property is prohibited, then the property is taken, subject to compensation. Small and long-time property owners in the Gorge are injured by restrictions and downzoning. The Gorge Commission is stacked with environmental interests that want to block development of property. The commission overturns valid local land use decisions.

By Martha Bennett, Columbia River Gorge Commission; Willard Gaul, Columbia Gorge United; and Nathan Baker, Friends of the Gorge. They testified that some use of property is always permitted, even if not for building. Review procedures for commission decisions are available. Bill terms, including "development," are unclear, leading to litigation. Federal law requires protection of the Gorge. Building permit and compensation mandates could require modification of federal law and the interstate compact with Oregon. The bill has potential for substantial cost for the commission.

To include all commission land-use decisions that prohibit reasonable development of a parcel, which are not restricted as in the original bill to parcels located within an incorporated city or purchased before January 1, 1987. The substitute bill provides only for the commission to compensate the owner for loss of value due to the decision, and does not provide for the alternative of issuing a building permit. Commission authority to hear appeals was not addressed in the original bill. The substitute bill does not address enforcement of the bill requirements by withholding the commission biennial appropriation.

To require the Columbia River Gorge Commission to compensate property owners for certain zoning changes.

The bill did not pass both chambers during the 2003 regular session, so the bill automatically returned to the Senate Rules Committee when the regular 105-day session adjourned on April 27, 2003.