Urban renewal agency, which operated under urban renewal plan approved by city, brought action against city and an individual proponent of amendment to city’s charter that restricted urban renewal activities within the city, seeking declaratory judgment that amendment was unconstitutional under Oregon Constitution and that amendment was preempted by state law.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Circuit Court granted proponent’s motion on agency’s claim that amendment was unconstitutional, and granted agency’s motion on its claim that amendment was preempted. Proponent appealed, and agency and city, which aligned with agency, cross-appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Agency was independent from city, and, thus, was not subject to direct regulation by city;
- Amendment to city’s charter was preempted by chapter of state statutes governing urban renewal;
- Section governing prospective urban renewal plans in amendment was not severable from amendment;
- City’s home rule authority did not prevent preemption of amendment; and
- Chapter of state statutes governing urban renewal was a general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic, and regulatory objectives of the state, and, thus, city’s home rule authority did not prevent preemption of amendment.
Urban renewal agency was independent from city, and, thus, was not subject to direct regulation by city, except through powers reserved to city under state’s urban renewal statutes; relevant statutes emphasized separateness of agency from city, agency had power to sue and be sued, to contract, to make rules and regulations, to acquire and dispose of real property, and to acquire funds and incur indebtedness, agency was created for city, not by city, actions of agency were independent of city, agency could amend its plans without approval from city, and agency had power to operate outside of territorial boundaries of city.
Amendment to city’s charter restricting urban renewal within city was preempted by chapter of state statutes governing urban renewal; amendment purported to direct actions of urban renewal agency created for city, agency was separate entity from city under statutes, agency was statutorily required to carry out approved urban renewal plan and was authorized by statute to acquire funds to carry out urban renewal plans, amendment was passed long after city declared need for urban renewal agency and approved urban renewal plan for agency to carry out, and amendment placed direct prohibitions on city and agency regarding financing and property acquisition for that renewal plan, such that amendment and statutes could not operate concurrently.
Section governing prospective urban renewal plans, in amendment to city’s charter restricting urban renewal plans, was not severable from section of amendment that was expressly preempted by chapter of state statutes governing urban renewal; nothing in amendment suggested that it was an effort to shape future approval of urban renewal plans not yet in effect, and section at issue explicitly sought to direct current actions of city and urban renewal agency.
City’s home rule authority did not prevent preemption of amendment to city’s charter restricting urban renewal in city by state statutes governing urban renewal; urban renewal agency, which was created for city, was not an agency of the city, but, rather, was a public corporation created by statute that was independent of the city.
Chapter of state statutes governing urban renewal was a general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic, and regulatory objectives of the state, and, thus, city’s home rule authority did not prevent preemption of amendment to city’s charter restricting urban renewal in city by those statutes; statutes were primarily concerned with combatting perceived detrimental social and economic effects of allowing blighted urban areas to persist, statutes were directed at statewide concerns, accomplished through creation of independent urban renewal agencies without changes to political form of local government, and statutes were not irreconcilable with local community’s freedom to choose its own political form