{"title":"聪明得难以言表:俄勒冈州7号法案的废止","authors":"E. Sullivan","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On October 4 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld invalidation of a voter-approved measure that would have required government payment for most regulations that had the effect of devaluing property. The court held that the measure, is presented, violated those provisions for amending the Oregon Constitution requiring separate votes on each state constitutional provision amended unless the amendments were “closely related.” By excepting certain disfavored uses—such as bars, casinos, and strip clubs—from the payment scheme, the court ruled that the drafters of the measure impermissibly implicated other rights protected by the state constitution. Thus ended a journey that had begun with an effort to gain government payments for regulation and ended with a determination that negating that payment for uses that involved expressive conduct undermined the measure.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"2493 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Clever for Words: The Demise of Oregon's Measure 7\",\"authors\":\"E. Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract On October 4 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld invalidation of a voter-approved measure that would have required government payment for most regulations that had the effect of devaluing property. The court held that the measure, is presented, violated those provisions for amending the Oregon Constitution requiring separate votes on each state constitutional provision amended unless the amendments were “closely related.” By excepting certain disfavored uses—such as bars, casinos, and strip clubs—from the payment scheme, the court ruled that the drafters of the measure impermissibly implicated other rights protected by the state constitution. Thus ended a journey that had begun with an effort to gain government payments for regulation and ended with a determination that negating that payment for uses that involved expressive conduct undermined the measure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":154411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest\",\"volume\":\"2493 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394788\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Too Clever for Words: The Demise of Oregon's Measure 7
Abstract On October 4 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld invalidation of a voter-approved measure that would have required government payment for most regulations that had the effect of devaluing property. The court held that the measure, is presented, violated those provisions for amending the Oregon Constitution requiring separate votes on each state constitutional provision amended unless the amendments were “closely related.” By excepting certain disfavored uses—such as bars, casinos, and strip clubs—from the payment scheme, the court ruled that the drafters of the measure impermissibly implicated other rights protected by the state constitution. Thus ended a journey that had begun with an effort to gain government payments for regulation and ended with a determination that negating that payment for uses that involved expressive conduct undermined the measure.