Legal Opinion
Cope v. City of Cannon Beach
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided August 26, 1992No. LUBA 92-019 and 92-020; CA A75091PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.
Petitioners seek review of LUBA’s order upholding the city of Cannon Beach’s Ordinance 92-1. The ordinance amended the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and imposed a prohibition on the rental for money of dwellings for less than 14 days in some residential zones. The ordinance has an “amortization” scheme for phasing out uses that were established between the time of its enactment and the earlier repeal of legislation that contained similar restrictions.
Petitioners argued to LUBA and in their first assignment to us that the restriction constitutes a taking without just…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
- Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Clark v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Anderson v. PedenOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Cope v. City of Cannon BeachOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of PhilomathCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Weeks v. City of TillamookCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- West v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.