Wasson v. Dept. of Land Conservation

328 Or. App. 534

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: October 4, 2023
• Docket: A179894
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted September 1, OAR chapter 660, division 46, held valid October 4, 2023

Greg WASSON, an Elector of the City of Salem, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. Department of Land Conservation and Development A179894

Greg Wasson filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. OAR chapter 660, division 46, held valid. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 328 Or App 534 (2023) 535

TOOKEY, P. J. In this rule challenge under ORS 183.400, peti- tioner challenges the validity of the entirety of OAR chapter 660, division 46, which consists of rules adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Department relating to cit- ies’ development of middle housing. See ORS 183.400 (“The validity of any rule may be determined upon a petition by any person to the Court of Appeals * * *. The court shall have jurisdiction to review the validity of the rule[.]”). Petitioner asserts that those rules violate the “home rule” provisions of Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution. Petitioner’s argument is premised on his assertion that the Supreme Court erroneously interpreted that constitutional provision in La Grande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137, 572 P2d 1204, adh’d to on reh’g, 284 Or 173, 586 P2d 765 (1978). That is an argument that should be directed to the Supreme Court, as we are bound by that court’s decisions. OAR chapter 660, division 46, held valid.