Beal v. City of Gresham
Decision Date | 12 April 2000 |
Citation | 166 Or. App. 528,998 P.2d 237 |
Parties | Steve BEAL, Respondent, v. CITY OF GRESHAM, a municipal corporation, Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
R. Daniel Lindahl, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Susan G. Bischoff and Bullivant Houser Bailey.
Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and KISTLER, Judges.
The trial court ruled, on cross-motions for summary judgment, that defendant City of Gresham had passed a resolution in violation of its city charter. It also awarded plaintiff attorney fees under Deras v. Myers, 272 Or. 47, 535 P.2d 541 (1975). We affirm the trial court's ruling on the merits but reverse its award of attorney fees.
In 1988, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) began planning for the construction of the Mt. Hood Parkway, a limited access highway that would connect Interstate 84 and U.S. Highway 26. At least one of the proposed routes for the parkway went through the City of Gresham. Pursuant to federal law, ODOT and the city began a detailed planning process for the parkway. In 1988, the city began studying routes that the parkway might take through the city. In 1993, the city council passed a resolution endorsing Hogan Road as a route for the parkway. In 1994, the city submitted the proposed route to an advisory vote of its citizens. The measure asked: "Should Gresham support the Hogan Road route for the Mt. Hood Parkway only if it includes lids?"1 A majority of the citizens voted in favor of the measure, and in 1995 the city council endorsed "Hogan Road with lids" as the route for the parkway.
In May 1996, the citizens of Gresham amended their city charter by initiative. The amendment, which became Section 36B of the charter, provides:
In August 1996, ODOT recommended the "Hogan Corridor with Lids" as the preferred route for the Mt. Hood Parkway. In May 1997, the Gresham City Council passed Resolution 2106 without getting the voters' prior approval. That resolution recites the steps that the city and other governmental bodies had taken in planning the Mt. Hood Parkway. It also recites that the city had previously endorsed Hogan Road as the preferred route for the parkway. It then sets out the following resolution:
After the city council passed Resolution 2106, plaintiff filed this action seeking a declaration that the resolution violated Section 36B of the city charter. Plaintiff also sought his attorney fees under Deras. In its answer, the city denied that the resolution either promoted or acquiesced in the construction of the Mt. Hood Parkway. Alternatively, it alleged, as an affirmative defense, that the Section 36B was "unconstitutional and therefore a nullity." The city later explained that, in its view, Section 36B was not "municipal legislation" within the meaning of Article IV, section 1(5), of the Oregon Constitution.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the city's resolution was inconsistent with Section 36B. The court also ruled that the city was barred from bringing a post-enactment challenge to Section 36B on the ground that it did not constitute municipal legislation. Alternatively, the court held that Section 36B was municipal legislation within the meaning of Article IV, section 1(5). Finally, the court awarded plaintiff his attorney fees under Deras.
On appeal, the parties raise the same issues they pursued below. We begin with the question whether Resolution 2106 violates Section 36B. See State v. Rodriguez, 317 Or. 27, 31, 854 P.2d 399 (1993)
(. ) The city argues that its resolution did not promote or acquiesce in the construction of the Mt. Hood Parkway; it merely recognized that the route ODOT recommended was consistent with previous council recommendations. In the city's view, its resolution was nothing more than a statement of fact. We read the resolution differently. At most, the resolution impliedly reaffirms that the city prefers Hogan Road as the route for the parkway. At the least, it acquiesces in ODOT's choice of that route. Read either way, the resolution "promote[s] or * * * acquiesce[s] in" the construction of the Mt. Hood Parkway though Gresham in violation of Section 36B.2
rev. dismissed 320 Or. 570, 889 P.2d 916 (1995). Before then, any decision would be purely advisory. Id. Plaintiff argues, however, that the second class of claims—claims that the measure is not legally sufficient to be put on the ballot—not only may but must be brought before the measure is enacted.
Plaintiff never identifies the legal principle that requires that the second class of claims be brought before the people vote on a measure. Rather, he extracts the principle he advances from a perceived pattern in the Supreme Court's decisions. Before explaining why those cases do not go as far as plaintiff perceives, it is perhaps helpful to put his argument in perspective. Before 1986, the general rule was that "courts could not consider constitutional challenges to initiative or referendum petitions before the voters adopted the measures." OEA v. Roberts, 301 Or. 228, 231, 721 P.2d 833 (1986). That rule applied not only to constitutional challenges to the substance of initiated measures but also to constitutional claims that the measure was not in the proper form to be submitted to the voters—claims, for example, that the measure included more than one subject. Id.; Johnson v. City of Astoria, 227 Or. 585, 591-93, 363 P.2d 571 (1961); State ex rel. v. Newbry, 189 Or. 691, 693, 222 P.2d 737 (1950).
The general rule was not without exceptions.3 If, for example, an initiative petition had not received sufficient signatures, the courts would consider pre-enactment challenges to prevent it from being placed on the ballot. See Foster, 309 Or. at 469,
790 P.2d 1 (summarizing cases). As the court explained in Foster, the Oregon courts "will prevent a measure from being placed on the ballot if the measure is legally insufficient to qualify for that ballot." Id. Although the cases had not always agreed on what constitutes "legal insufficiency," the Foster court determined that the principle included more than an insufficient number of signatures. It held:
Id. at 471 (emphasis...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harisay v. Atkins
...policy to particular actions, or is otherwise compelled in substance or process by predicate policy * * *."); Beal v. City of Gresham , 166 Or.App. 528, 537, 998 P.2d 237 (2000) (part of proposed initiative that "establish[ed] the procedure by which * * * decisions will be made" was appropr......
-
Meyer v. Bradbury
...it was based on language in the constitution that qualifies or limits the initiative power. Our discussion in Beal v. City of Gresham, 166 Or.App. 528, 998 P.2d 237 (2000), reinforces the conclusion that Newbry is no longer controlling. In Beal, we noted that, before the Supreme Court's dec......
- State v. Ricks
-
SIEVERS v. HOOD RIVER COUNTY, LUBA No. 2003-200 (Or. LUBA 3/29/2004)
...be authorized by Article IV, section 1(5), but rather would be authorized by Ordinance 14-15. Intervenors cite to Beal v. City of Gresham, 166 Or App 528, 998 P2d 237 (2000) and State ex rel Dahlen v. Ervin, 158 Or App 253, 974 P2d 264, rev den 329 Or 357 (1999), for the proposition that th......