For whom are you voting for Governor?
Republican Christine Drazan
Democrat Tina Kotek
Non-Affiliated Betsy Johnson
Some other candiate
Northwest Observer
Subscribe for Free Email Updates
Name:
Email:
Search Articles
       


Post an Event


St. Paul Rodeo
Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 9:00 am
Hundreds of community volunteers work shoulder to shoulder for months each year to put this traditional show together, and we welcome the world to St. Paul for five days filled with color, action, excitement, and something for everyone. So, head on out to St. Paul for a fun-filled experience during our 86th annual 4th of July rodeo celebration of the American cowboy and our western lifestyle!

www.stpaulrodeo.com

Mark your calendars now and join the fun at the 86 th Annual St. Paul Rodeo June 30, July 1,2,3, & 4, 2022.
St. Paul, OR



2022 Lincoln County Fair
Friday, July 1, 2022 at 10:00 am
FREE ADMISSION * July 1-3 * Newport, Oregon

Join Us for an Old-Fashioned 4th of July Celebration!
Details & event calendar: www.thelincolncountyfair.com
1211 SE Bay Blvd Newport, OR 97365



Marion County Fair
Friday, July 8, 2022 at 10:00 am
2022 Marion County Fair July 8-10, 2022 Friday: 10am – 11pm Saturday: 10am – 11pm Sunday: 10am – 6pm
Oregon State Fairgrounds 2330 17th ST NE Salem, OR 97301



Linn County Fair
Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 10:00 am
Linn County Fair July 14 - 16 2022
Linn County Expo Center 3700 Knox Butte RD E Albany, OR 97322



World Athletics Championships
Friday, July 15, 2022 at 8:00 am
The World Athletics Championships are coming to Eugene this summer (July 15-24 2022), the first time in history that the championships will be held in the United States. This mega-sporting event will showcase the best track and field athletes in the world. The event will bring 2,000 athletes from more than 200 nations, all competing for 49 gold medals. About 20,000 to 25,000 attendees are expected per session, with most days hosting two sessions (both morning and afternoon).
Eugene



Lane County Fair
Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 11:00 am
Lane County Fair JULY 20 - 24, 2022 11:00am - 11:00pm
Lane Events Center 796 W 13th Ave, Eugene, OR 97402



Coos County Fair& Rodeo
Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 8:00 am
Coos County Fair and Rodeo July 26 - 30, 2022
Coos County Fairgrounds 770 4th St, Myrtle Point, OR 97458



Malheur County Fair
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:00 am
Malheur County Fair August 2-6th
Desert Sage Events Center 795 N.W. Ninth St. Ontario, OR 97914



Union County Fair
Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 10:00 am
Union County Fair August 3-6th 2022
3604 N 2nd St, La Grande, OR 97850



Yamhill County Fair & Rodeo
Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 7:11 pm
Fair and Rodeo August 3-6, 7 am - 11 pm. Wed. Nitty Gritty Dirt Band; Thur. Jo Dee Messina; Fri. Shenandoah; Sat. Night Ranger Kids rides Adults $12 Kids $6 Exhibits; Demolition Derby Saturday 168th Annual; Oregon's oldest Fair
Yamhill County Fairgrounds



Baker County Fair
Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 10:00 am
Baker County Fair August 7 - August 13
Baker County Fairgrounds 2600 East Street Baker City, OR 97814



Umatilla County Fair
Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:00 am
Umatilla County Fair Aug. 10th-13th, 2022
1705 E. Airport Rd. PO Box 94 Hermiston, OR 97838



CLACKAMAS COUNTY FAIR & RODEO
Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:00 am
CLACKAMAS COUNTY FAIR & RODEO August 16-20, 2022 10am - 10pm
Clackamas County Events Center 694 NE 4th Ave. Canby, OR 97013



Oregon State Fair
Friday, August 26, 2022 at 10:00 am
Which part of the Oregon State Fair are you most excited for? We'll keep adding to the fun all summer long!
Salem, Or



Oregon General Election
Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:00 pm
Statewide


View All Calendar Events


Restaurants Denied Relief Against Governor Brown
Not a “taking” in a legal sense, but a “significant hardship”

United States District Judge Karin J. Immergut rejected a request made by the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association and the Restaurant Law Association for a temporary restraining order against Kate Brown and her executive order 20-65. In an opinion, Judge Immergut said "On November 24, 2020, this Court held oral argument. After considering the pleadings, declarations, exhibits, and arguments of counsel, this Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to show sufficient facts and adequate legal support to warrant an order enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order 20-65."

Judge Immergut discusses various technical objections raised by the Restaurant Association, then addresses the issue of an unlawful taking of private property by the state.

"Plaintiffs further claim that Executive Order 20-65 constitutes a statutory taking under Oregon law and a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment.

As for the Fifth Amendment takings claim, Plaintiffs cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits. First, even if Plaintiffs were able to establish that Executive Order 20-65 resulted in a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment, the appropriate remedy would be “just compensation” in the form of damages, not the injunctive relief sought here. See Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (“As long as an adequate provision for obtaining just compensation exists, there is no basis to enjoin the government’s action effecting a taking.”).

Second, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Executive Order 20-65 is a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Regulatory takings are analyzed under the three-pronged Penn Central test. “Penn Central instructs [courts] to consider [1] the regulation’s economic impact on the claimant, [2] the extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations, and [3] the character of the government action.” Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson. These three “factual inquiries” are used “to determine whether regulatory actions are functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates property.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

In assessing a regulation’s economic impact on a claimant, courts compare “the total value of the affected property before and after the government action.” While a decrease in income produced by a property is a relevant consideration, “the severity of the loss can be determined only by comparing the post-deprivation value to pre-deprivation value” of the property. Ninth Circuit cases have held that “diminution in property value[s] because of governmental regulation ranging from 75% to 92.5% do[] not constitute...taking[s].” Under this high standard, Plaintiffs have not shown that the profits they will lose as a result of the two-week ban on on-site dining will be severe enough to constitute a taking.

The second Penn Central factor, disruption of distinct investment-backed expectations, also weighs against finding a taking. “To form the basis for a taking claim, a purported distinct investment-backed expectation must be objectively reasonable.” Colony Cove Props, LLC. Executive Order 20-65 was issued in an effort to protect the public against a deadly, contagious disease that has already killed hundreds of Oregon citizens in a matter of months. There is no reasonable, investment-backed expectation that the state would not act in the face of a historic public health crisis. The Governor’s emergency authorities to protect the public are long-standing and have been used based on the current understanding of COVID-19 and its prevalence in Oregon.

The third factor, the character of the government action, also militates against finding a taking. “A ‘taking’ may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.” Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York. Here, Executive Order 20-65 is not a physical invasion of property by the government but an emergency regulation promulgated to combat a worsening pandemic. Recognizing such government action as “functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates property” would exceed the scope of the Takings Clause and interfere with the state’s ability to protect the public health."

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Despite a lengthy, three-pronged argument that the restaurants have not suffered a "taking" in the legal sense, Judge Immeregut does acknowledge that the restaurants have suffered a loss at the hands of the government.

"Plaintiffs argue that, given the substantial harm already suffered by Oregon restaurants due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a two-week ban on on-site dining will create irreparable harm to many of these businesses. This Court acknowledges the significant hardship that businesses like those represented by Plaintiffs have endured in the wake of COVID-19. This Court further recognizes that these restrictions cause significant hardships for employees who work for Plaintiffs’ restaurants. Restaurants and other businesses that rely on in-person customers have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, and this Court does not seek to diminish the challenges they continue to face. "

Said one attorney who was not involved in the case, but following it, "It was especially dishonest to claim that 'there is no reasonable, investment-backed expectation that the state would not act in the face of a historic public health crisis'. They had a whole plan to act, by quarantining the sick. It was reasonable to expect that the State would do that instead of going berserk and quarantining the healthy, so to speak."

Photo by Marco Bianchetti on Unsplash.com


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-11-24 18:46:16Last Update: 2020-11-24 20:02:07



Read More Articles