Oregon voters in November approved a constitutional amendment that requires compensation for property owners whose property has been reduced in value because of any law passed by state or local government.

Supporters say it will be a friendly watchdog, keeping rampant government in check. Larry George, executive director of Oregonians in Action, a property rights group that led the campaign for Measure 7, says the amendment rights a fundamental wrong: government control over private property.

Opponents disagree, saying that it will make zoning very expensive and it may actually reduce property values because property owners will have no guarantee that neighboring land uses will remain the same.

Portland City Attorney Jeff Rogers says it puts property owners in the position of being able to say: "‘I’ve got my land and can do whatever the hell I want, regardless of what you say as a neighbor or as a mayor, unless you pay me not to."’

The measure is so vaguely written that even Oregonians In Action wants the Oregon Legislature to help define it, and it’s being challenged in the Oregon court system. The Oregon state government has no idea of how to fund restitution, and some cities and counties are passing measures that would waive enforcement of any law that might provoke a claim.

The issue goes back to 1973, when Oregon adopted the nation’s most comprehensive land use laws to protect farms and forests from development and to control urban sprawl. Oregon has also been a leader in controlling logging, keeping beaches free of development, and restoring salmon habitat — all on private land. Private property owners have long warned that they had reached their limits. But even property-rights activists were surprised when Measure 7 passed after a low-key campaign that featured a hard-fought presidential race and 26 ballot measures.

Interestingly enough, this is not an amendment that would guarantee property owners the right to use their land; it only guarantees them compensation when they’re prohibited from doing so. That may be a tacit acknowledgment that the government does have a legitimate role in controlling land use, but the measure was also a clear statement that such a role must be balanced by a responsibility in safeguarding the income-producing abilities of private property.

This is an issue that is likely to crop up in Colorado soon enough. Environmentalist and anti-growth groups faced off against developers and property-rights groups over John Fielder’s "growth amendment" in the most recent election, and similar proposals will crop up again and again. The fact that so many people feel development-control measures are needed in Colorado may suggest that they believe considerable power still rests with growth proponents, who indeed have considerable resources to devote to a defense of property rights.

But this cannot be an either-or proposition. The greening of Oregon has increased property values there, although that benefits the wealthy more than it does small-property owners. Colorado’s scenery is what makes it so valuable for trophy-home development; carve up too much of that scenic beauty and property values plummet. At the same time, resources such as gravel and timber are required to support growth.