I've expressed my opinions about Measure 37 on this site extensively before, but I will just say one thing about it in response to these comments, and it is related to my comments on The New Gilded Age thread. Measure 37 was the response of the masses to years of being caught in the middle of a power struggle between big corporate interests that don't give a damn about the planet and extremist environmentalists that don't give a damn about business. Cronyism, the lust for power, and greed worked together to create a situation in which the rights of the common property owner to use his or her land responsibly were getting crushed. We need greater oversight of government to end the cronyism and desire to dominate others, and we need to more firmly punish corporate polluters. The average Oregon family is not the problem here, but they are the ones who are paying the price.

If you would read things before you criticize them, it might be helpful. One of the exceptions of M37 is 3E). To paraphrase, M37 does not apply to regulations enacted prior to acquisition of a property by the owner.

I see M37 as a zoning change moratorium. So no, Mr Big Developer cannot buy a property zoned R-5 and then sue because he wants to put a BestBuy on it. He still needs to go thru the zoning change requests as normal.

Sorry, but the group think on this thing is stultifying. Someone in government does not like having limits put on them with land use changes and now we are blaming the coming collapse of society on this?

Here in Douglas County at the recent meeting to figure out how we were going to enact M37, one of the developers suggested that if a property owner filed for suspension of land use regulations for their property that the suspensions go with the property when it sells!

So as Steve mentioned, Mr Big Developer could build that BestBuy sans restictions.

Mark - If you read M37, the zoning in place at time of acquisition is what stands. If the county changed zoning during ownership and wanted to pay for it (or more likely use SDCs to make the developer pay), then M37 would apply. Filing for suspension of restrictions really wouldn't affect it unless they are granted. So, I guess I don;t understand your example. If he wants to build a BestBuy on R-zoned property, he still has to go thru the zoning change.

One of the new issues seems to be that if a developer buys the land he can't develop it because he's buying the land with the current zoning. The developer will probably just work out some kind of agreement with the landowner, like I'm sure that guy up in Hood River will do... you know the one that wants to turn his pear orchard into 842 housing lots.

My mom is an apple farmer in Clark County Washington and her farm is now surrounded by huge 3 car garage McMansions on one acre lots. The farmer who owned the land sold it to developers right before Washington imposed stricter land use laws in 1993. His land would have been zoned agricultural. It's pretty sad. The land is just gone, filled up with massive asphalt driveways. They hate it when my mom starts her burn piles. And they also hate the roosters crowing at 4:30 in the morning.

The crazy thing is, this development is technically outside of Vancouver, WA's urban growth boundry with the new laws. So it's a rural area, but in the middle of it is 30 McMansions.

I just think the oppenents did a poor job of appealing to Oregonians' core values. I've written about this on my blog. We have a state right next door to us that suffered severely with poor land use laws. Now they've got stricter laws modeled after Oregon's laws. Opponents just needed to take a video camera up to Clark County to make an ad to scare Oregonians into voting no on 37. It's a mess up there and it cost the state valuable farmland and loads of taxpayer money.

Doretta,

No, you have not a single right for the claim. It is retroactive up too 75 years, or 3 generations; of continual ownership of direct family membership; including stepfamily members one-step off it: i.e. stepbrother, stepfather; not step-aunt or step-grandparent.
Since your family or you did not buy, inherited or had power of attorney over the title once the measure was put on the books. You would only have entitlement of a claim, if you or a member of family had a claim to the deed in ways of partnerships and other business activities.

I work on trying to defeat the M37 for 3 months and with the original title of M5: “Government must pay, or forgo enforcements; when certain land-use restrictions reduce property value.” Most individuals bought in the title and commercial of the sweet old woman that bought acreage for a long-term investment and now can not sub-divide her property.

It was reference of an approximated timeframe of 25 years in-between each generation; hence, 75 years would be the difference in-between the age of the grandchild and the grandparent. Yes, a person of 75 years could be a great-grandparent; but the text of the measure did not list the great-grandparent generation by name.

Steve, I'm not sure of the details, just that a local developer said that if a suspension is granted (our county already said they will not be paying anybody) then that property should be sold with those suspensions intact. I'm sure lawyers are working out ways to allow the inclusion of these 'rights' when the property is sold.

Leslie, Interesting point. I think alot of reasonable people believe the market place will take care of the alternative energy source needs of our world. THey imagine, as oil disappears, we will develope technoligies that will have us flying around in Jetson-like cars in no time. So why worry now? Maybe 'the market place' and technological developement' are the new gods we rely on.

"I do not think those who think the market will take care of alternative energy are reasonable." Side point to M37 - In general if it takes $10 worth of alt energy to do the same work as $1 of oil, people will use oil. The way to stop people using oil is to either: a) Let the market raise the price of oil (less desirable) b) Lower the price of alternative energy (more desirable, but harder.) This seems simple enough and no matter how much hubris politicians invest in their power, they cannot contravene the market.

Who needs M37 when you have City Hall in your pocket.

Contrast the circumstances between Dorothy English who gets no relief for her property (till M37) and those powerful forces in South Waterfront and Cascade Station who get everything they want.

No need for M37 for the powerful. In South Waterfront the accommodating help from City Hall continues.
Building floor plates are being enlarged, distances between buildings reduced and the already granted building heights of 325feet and public subsidies assures the best outcome possible for the powerful and worst possible outcome for the public. Years ago Portland had planning guidelines to mandate declining building heights as development moves towards the river. Other guidelines allowed for genuine buffering greenspaces along the river. Schnitzer and Zeidell both had plans to develop the south waterfront area with full compliance and NO public funds and the City prohibited them from doing so.

Flash forward and the worst possible outcome is upon us. Towering buildings packed densely together blocking views and true PARK-like riverbank enhancement. Massive public subsidies are being diverted towards the development and the public has no genuine detectable representation.

Contrast this with Dorothy English being prohibited for doing anything at all with her property.

Look at Cascade Station (link Below) for more City Hall concessions for the powerful. Need a zone change? No problem. Need tax exemption? No problem. Need a no bid contract to build Light rail? No problem. Need the public to provide streets and other infrastructure for your development? No problem.
We'll never know how much Bechtel profited with the Airport Max no-bid contract. We'll never know what their true cost of the 99 year lease of our Port property was.
The 120 acres of once prime farmland near the airport now has a light rail station, upcoming big box retail and near total flexibility is emerging to help Bechtel developers.

The Port of Portland still owns the property as it is leased to the developers. The best I can figure is that property taxes are still exempt.

As with South Waterfront I can't imagine anything but the worst outcome for the public dead ahead.

The highest benefit for the powerful with the highest cost and least benfit for the public.

But, by golly City Hall better find a way to stop poor Dorothy English. God forbid if she can build a few houses on her own property.

Steve Schopp ://www.midcountymemo.com/jan05_bigbox.html

Commission approves CascadeStation for big box retail stores

120-acre retail development near the airport seeks changes to accommodate big box retail tenants

LEE PERLMAN THE MID-COUNTY MEMO

In December, the Portland Planning Commission approved amendments to the CascadeStation plan district that would allow big box retail in the proposed 120-acre development.Use link for whole story.

Nearly two thousand properties have property tax exemptions in the City of Portland. Urban renewal distrits cover wide swaths of the City siphoning off
many more millions from basic public services. www.saveportland.com

More perspective

Stein fears MAX project siphons off county money

The urban renewal plan to fund the Interstate line risks services, the

Multnomah board chairwoman says

Friday, June 23, 2000

By Fred Leeson of The Oregonian staff

Interstate Avenue light-rail plans hit an unexpected curve this week

when Multnomah County's top official complained that a local financing scheme would drain $90 million to $100 million from county human service programs.

Beverly Stein, chairwoman of the county Board of Commissioners, said an

urban renewal plan being considered by the city of Portland could hurt county spending for libraries, health services, public safety and programs for families, youths and senior citizens throughout the county.

I await the decisions in the first lawsuits under Measure 37. I suspect that the courts will temper the extremist interpretations being bandied about now. The other 'solution' to Measure 37 is rather obvious -- repeal it. Which brings us to the more interesting question: How did it come to be passed anyway? People in the Pacific Northwest tend to be very self-congratulatory. This outcome proves there's often more congratulation than thinking going on. Frankly, this is the kind of law one expects to pass in Mississippi.

Mr Ryan - I don't know the exact cost of one gal of biomass vs. one gal of gasoline. My point was, if pure corn-bred ethanol cost 0.50/gallon (who knows it may cost $5.00/gal) and cars could run on it, how many people would be buying oil for $2.00/gallon? I'd buy it at 0.50/gal, so I am not in love with oil as energy.

The original Sheketoff response was the market would not take care of energy sources. I was only countering that the market is the pre-dominant driver of where we get energy from.

Diva,

How did M37 pass? That is a damn good question. In my personal opinion, I think that GOP leadership had strong focus on the various measures, weak on statewide candidates; and strong on core state senate and house races; and the Dem's leadership focused on strictly on all candidate races and very little on various measures. I mean by getting donations from all parts of each of bases to support or defeat these measures. I feel that we Democrats, in Oregon; were hell-bent to defeat Bush and let M34, M36, M37 fail against our core party ideology.

Aaron, I did not think that measure would go anywhere. Maybe it was because I have a lawyer's perspective on 'takings,' but the weaknesses in Measure 37 seemed clear from a layman's perspective, too. Another puzzling aspect is that relatively few of the people who voted for the measure have anything worth 'taking.' On the other hand, they will be the ones losing services if the state has to compensate property owners for nebulous 'harms.' That message did not get across perhaps because, as you said, the Democrats' focus was on the national election.

Chuck- First, let me make clear that I not only opposed Meas 37, I opposed its predecessor, Meas 7.

Since being on the city council, I have taken more heat for my support of the urban growth boundary and the corollary increase in density that is required than any other issue I have dealt with.

While in the legislature, I fought repeated attacks by republicans and their allies on Oregon's land use system.

However, since having the responsibility of heading Portland's enforcement of regulations with respect to land use in general and environmental zone regulations in particular, I have been concerned that unreasonable enforcement penalties for infractions could and would lead to a public backlash.

For an example, a property owner in Portland cleaned up a portion of her property that was partially within an environmental zone. There were discarded tires, batteries and general trash in an area that had become overgrown with blackberries as well. When a complaint was made by a third party, this property owner was fined $15,000 for removing some native vegetation that had become entwined with the junk she was cleaning up.

When we tried to address this issue by modifying the rule to be a little more balanced in its application, we hit a wall with some in the community that wanted no changes in our rules for any reason.

My point in posting this is that I want to reclaim the ground that we lost with the passage of Meas 37. In fact, I am committed to helping lead that fight. However, there are lessons in its passage that we who defend Oregon's land use system must learn. We have got to apply our regulations with reason and an understanding that each rule or regulation may not fit each particular circumstance exactly the same. Therefore, we need to apply our land use laws with reasonable flexibility.

Too often we are losing the vast "middle" of our population by overly strident and polarized positions in this state. If we understand that, I believe, we can reclaim Oregon's place as a leader in the United States in good planning.

Thank you for this thought provoking post.

Great quote.

Mr Sheketoff - This is getting off point, but conservation has always been happening, even at 0.25/gal. Furthermore, the amount of conservation at 0.25/gal vs. 2.00/gal is probably even greater.

Your concept of public good is tilted towards your perception of it, however, the public seems to think driving is more good than conservation. Paying more for gas is worse than conservation.

Ultimately markets are free regardless of the amount of government restrictions placed on them. I would only ask you consider the public wants when you state what the public good is. Even if this means it flies in the face of some of your theories.

Don't forget that the 'free' market is also greatly influenced by advertising. Big cars and wasting gas is macho, conservation is boring (according to pop culture). Supply and demand are only part of it.

Chuck you know better than this.

The Federal Government has worked very hard to insulate US consumers from a true market in gas. Foreign policy is directed at keeping the supply intact and the price low (and not without other costs).

Had the price of gas in the US moved up and down in a more volatile world market, conservationist choices would have made more sense for consumers. If gas prices had hit $2.50 per gallon back in 1995, few would be driving SUV's right now.

The fuel market has been manipulated for decades (by your fellow Keynesians). Of course, your proposal to cure the results of this manipulation will undoubtedly require more market manipulation (tax credits for hybrids, adjusting CAFE standards, fuel taxes, etc.)

Funny how that works. Special interests want guaranteed results and manipulate the free market to gain them. This results in other special interests blaming the free market for the odd results in order to rachet up market manipulation.

Mark,

HUH???

Advertising creates demand. The clear implication of your post is that advertising somehow perverts what a "free market" would otherwise do. Advertising also responds to pop culture: conservation was "cool" in the 70s and it isn't any more.

Advertising is inseparable from the supply and demand process.

I don't have any problem with farms or other open space. We need to realize however that farms have become increasingly uneconomic since the 1800's. The South Carolina Dept. of Agriculture reports that at $4000/acre only the most astute farmers can make a profit. At $7000/acre they would be better off to sell the land and put the money in a money market. It costs over $108/year just to keep an acre of pasture.

Since my farm is restricted only to agriculture, I am required to work at a job which loses around $7500 per year. Every time I spend more of my off farm income to support this loss the money comes straight out of my retirement funds. Even though I have other skills and other uses for the land - which would not destroy the farm- they are prohibied by my agricultural zoning. I'm a serf on my own land, in order that my neighbors can enjoy the scenery, improved property values, and other non-marketable benefits of the farm.

In England, Canada, and New Zealand, they have developed a concept called ALUS, Alternative Land Use Supplement. ALUS recognizes the additional value of the farm over and above it's use providing un-needed and barely marketable commodities, and compensates the owner for providing scenery, etc.

If my neighbors wish to force me to be in the business of providing scenery for their benefit, then they need to decide whether they will be customers, or thieves. Governments and land conservation agencies avoid buying land for conservation because they can't afford the acquisiton and upkeep. If society can't afford this, what in God's name makes them think the tiny subset (2%) of population called farmers, who are already poorly paid, can afford to do it for them?

Measure 37 really places a market value on things the people claim to cherish, but don't want to pay for. Lots of things used to be free but are no longer. Like air at the gas station or bags at the grocery, they were never free but provided through the largesse of the owners.

It is easy and cheap to lampoon growth. However, the fact is that we are currently producing housing at the lowest rate since the 1970's, if you compare housing growth to population growth. It's hard to imagine when you look at the kind of horrible subdivisions you depict on your site. If I built one equestrian oriented guest house on the farm, the income would more than cover my farm losses. I am prohibited from doing that. Eventually, when I can't stand the pain any longer, I'll sell out to a big developer. the rules are written so only the big developers can win the game. They are laughing all the way to the bank on account of inflexible conservation rules.

Proposition 37 simply says, put your money where your mouth is. I would love to save the farm, but I cannot continue as I am, and I am unwilling to give away everything my family has worked for for generations. When I sell out, after spending my life here, I won't consider it getting rich quick.

Ray Hyde Ashby Glen Farm Delaplane, VA

I don't have any problem with farms or other open space. We need to realize however that farms have become increasingly uneconomic since the 1800's. The South Carolina Dept. of Agriculture reports that at $4000/acre only the most astute farmers can make a profit. At $7000/acre they would be better off to sell the land and put the money in a money market. It costs over $108/year just to keep an acre of pasture.

Since my farm is restricted only to agriculture, I am required to work at a job which loses around $7500 per year. Every time I spend more of my off farm income to support this loss the money comes straight out of my retirement funds. Even though I have other skills and other uses for the land - which would not destroy the farm- they are prohibied by my agricultural zoning. I'm a serf on my own land, in order that my neighbors can enjoy the scenery, improved property values, and other non-marketable benefits of the farm.

In England, Canada, and New Zealand, they have developed a concept called ALUS, Alternative Land Use Supplement. ALUS recognizes the additional value of the farm over and above it's use providing un-needed and barely marketable commodities, and compensates the owner for providing scenery, etc.

If my neighbors wish to force me to be in the business of providing scenery for their benefit, then they need to decide whether they will be customers, or thieves. Governments and land conservation agencies avoid buying land for conservation because they can't afford the acquisiton and upkeep. If society can't afford this, what in God's name makes them think the tiny subset (2%) of population called farmers, who are already poorly paid, can afford to do it for them?

Measure 37 really places a market value on things the people claim to cherish, but don't want to pay for. Lots of things used to be free but are no longer. Like air at the gas station or bags at the grocery, they were never free but provided through the largesse of the owners.

It is easy and cheap to lampoon growth. However, the fact is that we are currently producing housing at the lowest rate since the 1970's, if you compare housing growth to population growth. It's hard to imagine when you look at the kind of horrible subdivisions you depict on your site. If I built one equestrian oriented guest house on the farm, the income would more than cover my farm losses. I am prohibited from doing that. Eventually, when I can't stand the pain any longer, I'll sell out to a big developer. the rules are written so only the big developers can win the game. They are laughing all the way to the bank on account of inflexible conservation rules.

Proposition 37 simply says, put your money where your mouth is. I would love to save the farm, but I cannot continue as I am, and I am unwilling to give away everything my family has worked for for generations. When I sell out, after spending my life here, I won't consider it getting rich quick.

Ray Hyde Ashby Glen Farm Delaplane, VA