Daily Score Blog

Note: This is part of a series.

The defining environmental controversy of the early 21st century in the Northwest states may well turn out to be the debate over property rights. 

What should property owners be allowed to do on their land? When is regulation appropriate? And how much is too much? Should property owners be compensated when regulations affect them? And what about compensation for neighbors and community when regulations fail to protect them? Indeed, should there be any restriction at all on the rights of property owners?

So far almost the only thing that partisans agree on is that Oregon started it. Oregon voters passed Measure 37 in 2004, which is likely a TKO for the state's growth management laws. Later this year, Washington voters will face a similar ballot measure, Initiative 933 (pro; con). In Montana, supporters are gathering signatures to put another copycat initiative, 154, before the voters. And in Alaska, the state legislature just passed restrictions on eminent domain, a separate issue of property rights that is often confused with the policies being debated in Washington, Oregon, and Montana.

If passed, the consequences of 933 and 154 are likely to be as far-reaching and profound as 37 is in Oregon. They will affect land use, urban growth, and property values. That's the obvious stuff. But land use laws also have powerful consequences for traffic congestion, energy consumption, affordable housing, water quality, wildlife, and much more.

In the coming weeks and months, I'll be taking a hard look at the debate over property rights and property regulation, especially I-933 in Washington. I'll also share some lessons from Oregon, where property owners are just now coming to grips with life under Measure 37.

For today, however, I'll just mention one technical--but potentially colossal--difference between Oregon's law and the law being proposed in Washington.

Tidepool's top story today, by Victoria-based writer Ben Parfitt, examines in-depth the future of our energy resources. Parfitt speaks to Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard, who believes that coal will become the primary source of our energy needs. Anything else is fantasy. The essential question is: Can King Coal also be clean coal?

In economic news, the AP reports from the second Forest Leadership Forum underway in Portland this week. The event, which holds great weight among forest conservationists and companies, is a soiree of corporate executives, government officials, and sustainability leaders debating green business practices. This year's roster of speakers is full of heavy corporate hitters: Bank of America, Starbucks, Staples, etc.

The first forum was held with great success in Atlanta in 2002.