QuickTake:

At issue in the lawsuit is a state law allowing facilities like the Lane County stabilization center to move forward on a fast track, so the state can respond more swiftly to mental health and addiction crises. 

Landowners and property managers that operate next to the planned site of Lane County’s stabilization center have filed a lawsuit challenging a new state law that county officials are relying upon to move the project forward in the Springfield area. 

Lane County officials are making plans for such the center on two parcels totaling 18 acres that will feature a behavioral health campus with a psychiatric hospital that PeaceHealth is planning. The county’s 24-hour center will help people who arrive without an appointment and accept referrals from police. The site is near PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend in Springfield. 

The lawsuit, filed by four companies including Richardson Sports, challenges the constitutionality of House Bill 2005, which the Legislature passed in June in part to help local government agencies fast-track stabilization centers that aid people in mental health and addiction crises.  

Specifically, the bill allows local government agencies to approve the facilities within 30 days of receiving an application that requests a development permit, provided the infrastructure is in place  to support it. County officials approved a $7.8 million purchase agreement for the land in July, shortly after the law passed. The county plans to seek the land’s annexation into Springfield. 

But the plaintiffs, in a lawsuit filed last week in Marion County Circuit Court, argue House Bill 2005 is unconstitutional because it fails to recognize their due process rights as adjoining property owners and contradicts the city’s comprehensive plan and land development code. 

The lawsuit, filed against PeaceHealth, the city of Springfield and Lane County, also argues that the new state law’s requirement for approval within 30 days of an application contradicts other land development laws already on the books that require more extensive public notices. 

“There is justifiable controversy in that the city intends to proceed to process and issue a land development permit pursuant to HB 2005 without providing the procedural requirements” of Oregon law and the city’s development code, the lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs are G Group, LLC; 200 International Way, LL; McKenzie-Gateway Business Park, LLC, Northbank Property, LLC; and Richardson Sports, Inc.

Spokespeople for Lane County and Springfield declined to comment on the lawsuit. 

“Expanded behavioral health care is greatly needed in Oregon, and in particular in Lane County,” said Jim Murez, a spokesperson for PeaceHealth. “Timber Springs Behavioral Health Hospital (PeaceHealth’s planned psychiatric hospital) is an important part of meeting that growing need.”

The lawsuit seeks an injunction declaring House Bill 2005 unconstitutional and a finding that the city of Springfield must still comply with the routine due process requirements for a development permit already enshrined in the law. 

The lawsuit also seeks a declaration that the city needs to amend its comprehensive plan and land-use regulations before it issues a development permit for the proposed center. Finally, it seeks an injunction that restrains the city from issuing a development permit for the proposed center until a court decision on the matter. 

Something on your mind?

Send us a Letter to the Editor. Read our guidelines for Letters to the Editor here.

The lawsuit is filed in Marion County, not Lane County, because the Legislature meets in Salem, where it passed that law. The lawsuit criticizes the rushed passage of House Bill 2005, which had a public hearing on June 16, less than two hours after 78 pages of amendments, including the provisions regarding siting, were introduced. 

At that point, it passed both chambers within 11 days. The law passed the Legislature with “limited floor debate,” in the Senate and House, the lawsuit said. 

In that regard, the lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the underlying bill that led to the law violates the “single-subject” requirement of the Oregon Constitution because the bill covered a variety of topics, including civil commitment and criminal justice proceedings. 

Ben Botkin covers politics and policy in Lane County. He has worked as a journalist since 2003, most recently at the Oregon Capital Chronicle, where he covered justice, health and human services and documented regional efforts to fentanyl addiction. Botkin has worked in statehouses in Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma and, of course, Oregon. When he's not working, you'll find him road tripping across the West, hiking or surfing along the Oregon Coast.