This is outstanding news. Hurrah!

You can read the opinion here.

:-)

Not one good thing will come of this.

It's horrific news and the aftermath will bring a surge in opposition to all things Oregon-progressive.

Wise up.

This is terrific news. It will play out in the courts of course, but it will also play out in public opinion. Pro-conservationists get another chance to make the case that this is horrible policy and not in the tradition or in the interest of Oregon.

"Public opinion"?

What do you think of the opinion of 61% of the voters who passed M37?

You "progressives" should understand that M37 was a compromise. It should have been left alone. I beleive there will ultimately be constitutional amendments (note the plural) that you will not like.

This means more high density apartments lining every main street of Portland and more traffic congestion and more pollution.

I am relly tired of being Eastern Enviro's experiment in high density, new urbanism.

Thanks JK

All those of you who have ever used phrases like "the rule of law" should understand that is the way our system works.

".....that Measure 37 violates several state constitutional provisions, including one that bars laws favoring one group of citizens over another....." is the way one news article put it.

If someone does not like the several state constitutional provisions, they can try to change them.

But from what I have seen, it was a badly worded measure. For instance, if transferability was such a big deal, why not put it in the measure instead of trying to pass it in the legislature? And were experts such as real estate appraisers consulted to see if the language would do what the sponsors expected it to do?

Time to quit the scapegoating. I once worked on a ballot measure eventually thrown out by the courts, but my friends and I just groaned when that happened. We didn't say things like "wise up" or that horrible things would happen.

And with regard to "This means more high density apartments lining every main street of Portland and more traffic congestion and more pollution. I am relly tired of being Eastern Enviro's experiment in high density, new urbanism. please remember who brought this case. It was more than just 1000 Friends vs. OIA.

From a news article, " ...the seven farmers and four county farm bureaus that filed suit against the measure in January".

Is it "lefty" to support farm bureaus over OIA? I know someone who works for a farm bureau.

Oregon, My Oregon

Words by J.A. Buchanan - - Music by Henry B. Murtagh

Land of the Empire Builders, Land of the Golden West; Conquered and held by free men, Fairest and the best. On-ward and upward ever, Forward and on, and on; Hail to thee, Land of the Heroes, My Oregon.

Land of the rose and sunshine, Land of the summer's breeze; Laden with health and vigor, Fresh from the western seas. Blest by the blood of martyrs, Land of the setting sun; Hail to thee, Land of Promise, My Oregon.

From KGW.com Daily News Poll Results

Do you agree with a judge's decision to overturn Measure 37? Yes 20%

No 79%

Unsure 1%

1430 Total Votes

Congrats to the farmers, landowners and other folks who stood up for their Constitutional rights by fighting M37.

To all you who complain about "undemocratic" court processes, remember: the are three equal branches to our democractic system - executive, legislative, and judicial. Each exists to check and balance the other. That's what democracy looks like. It's not just simple "majority rule" even though that can be nice if you're in the majority.

good news for now for me, but M37 is still a great idea and the will of the people once again has been stifled by intrusive frustrated activist judges -- Bill of Rights : right to petition government: has been thrown out the window again with phony baloney reasons that they themselves don't even know what they mean. The people need to take their country back from JUDGES THAT LEGISLATE AND TYRANNIZE THIS REPUBLIC from the bench. AMEN.

Portland Business Journal poll (Should M37 be overturned?): Yes 62% No 37%

In otherwords, a lot of people found out what M37 really was and now want to rescind it. Oregonians want a balance between private property rights and urban sprawl.

M37 would have turned Oregon into a mess. Obviously planners need to address some serious issues and come up with fair solutions that don't compromise the state's natural resources, the right for neigboring farmers to farm, limits to development (e.g. we don't need hotel/casino resorts in wine country or ATV/paint-ball gun theme parks that ruin the peace and quiet for neighbors.) M37 was not the answer and it never should be.

Take the poll at KGW.com.

Looks like Oregonians in Action have already hit the poll hard.

Thank you 1000 Friends of Oregon!

So when Oregonians in Action puts this on the ballot for a third time can we please get the message out to the voters that the issue is NOT government taking property away from innocent homeowners but rather greedy developers trying to make a quick buck at the expense of their neighbors.

Hoping for a similar result for M36...

I figured M37 wouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny. The righties are so anti-government that they don't know how to write laws.

The important thing is that people supporting sensible land use regulation stay on the attack and propose new ballot measures, such as what 1000 Friends has done, to remedy flaws in the system and also strengthen our environmental safeguards. Let's get going on system development charges.

I'd be interested in polling to find out how solid the "yes" vote on M37 was. Of the 61% who voted for it, how many really know that much about what it would do? How many just thought it was unfair to prevent people like Dorothy English from building another house or two on her property for her children?

After all, M37 passed substantially in Multnomah County and huge numbers of voters there are renters, who really have no dog in the fight.

Gil Johnson | Oct 14, 2005 11:39:17 PM After all, M37 passed substantially in Multnomah County and huge numbers of voters there are renters, who really have no dog in the fight. JK: Of course renters have a dog in the fight - many rent because they can't afford to own because of the inflated housing prices caused, in part, by Oregon's artificial shortage of land. They understand basic economics.

Here is what the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published: FRBNY Economic Policy Review / June 2003 The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf

Here is another, from the Harvard Institute of Economic Research: The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability http://econweb.fas.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/HIER1948.pdf

Thanks
JK

Certainly there are going to be those who supported Measure 37 (of which I did not for the record) and are going to claim sour grapes and claim judges in Oregon are nothing more then liberal activists. The same goes for those saying people are "using" the court to overturn laws.

Of course the sad fact is, when it comes to things like the Death With Dignity Act Law the rules change. It just goes to that people who look at it this way are nothing but hypocrites. Why is the Death With Dignity Act before the Supreme Court right now? The answer is because those who disagreed with it and lost in the lower courts kept appealing the case combined with Bush's crusade to see the law overturned.

The fact is, the issue is far from over. We all know this has at least three more appeals before all options are exhausted. Those who are in opposition to the law shouldn't get too excited yet.

This is a tremendous opportunity for the Governor to show bold leadership. He should recall the legislature for a special session to fix Oregon's land use laws.

The old land use system had some serious problems -- serious enough that M37 passed by a substantial margin. M37 took a flawed system and replaced it with no system. People voted for it to protest the old laws not to eliminate land use planning altogether. M37 made things worse, but it gives the legislature a sense of how people feel.

Now we have an opportunity to develop a great system. I know our legislators are exhausted after a marathon session, but this is their opportunity to do some great work.

Come on, Governor, call a special session. Tell the people of Oregon this is not an issue you want decided by the courts. Tell us you want our elected representatives to create the best land use system in the world. Show us how strong and effective you can be.

This is a tremendous opportunity for the Governor to show bold leadership. He should recall the legislature for a special session to fix Oregon's land use laws.

The old land use system had some serious problems -- serious enough that M37 passed by a substantial margin. M37 took a flawed system and replaced it with no system. People voted for it to protest the old laws not to eliminate land use planning altogether. M37 made things worse, but it gives the legislature a sense of how people feel.

Now we have an opportunity to develop a great system. I know our legislators are exhausted after a marathon session, but this is their opportunity to do some great work.

Come on, Governor, call a special session. Tell the people of Oregon this is not an issue you want decided by the courts. Tell us you want our elected representatives to create the best land use system in the world. Show us how strong and effective you can be.

The KGW Poll is, well, stupid.

"Do you think a judge should over turn a voter approved law?"

How about?

Should Judges up hold the constitution, or just turn a blind eye to anything the voters pass?

This is not about judges. KGW should be ashamed for failing civics. Measure 37 was not written with any legal integrity. Thank god we have a system of law.

The reason the law had no integrity is that it asked only half a question, and, no surprise, we got half an answer. By this I mean, they asked if the government should pay every time the government regulates land use. They didn't ask what happens to the all the other land owners who neighbor Measure 37 claimants. They didn't ask should the government be able to regulate. They didn't ask the voters where the government should get the money to compensate people, nor did they ask the voters which government services they would like to forego. Sorry, it wasn't a fair question. That's why the courts threw it out.

The Governor can call a special session but Speaker of House can "gut and stuff" everything and a waste of taxpayer $$--so it would not be a good idea for a special session.

"Judge Mary Mertens James decided that Measure 37 violates some state constitutional provisions, including one that bars laws favoring one group of citizens over another"

"favoring one group of citizens over another"???

Isn't that what the Urban Growth Boundary does?

Those on one side of the boundary are rewarded with high land values and development rights.

Those across the line are denied both.

How about the government having to pay for enforcing land use laws?

Isn't that what Urban Renewal and Transit Oriented Development has become? Having to pay for high density zoning laws?

In real world implementation M37 was moving towards tremendous success. Despite the hair on fire pandemonium and wild imaginations (Dishonesty) of it's opponents.

IMO Steve Schopp

You are right Rob.

"Nonconforming uses" in existing properties are generally grandfathered into changes in land use law. This ruling implies that property owners with nonconforming uses on their property (grandfathered uses before regulatory changes) are being treated differently than property owners without them.

Guess we'll have to tear down a bunch of old buildings now.

This decision is the most poorly reasoned one that I've come across in a long while.

Then again, the M37 and term limits decisions were almost as bad.

What is clear is that the courts in Oregon are emerging as political players that are every bit as powerful and cunning as members of the other branches.

"Nonconforming uses" in existing properties are generally grandfathered into changes in land use law. This ruling implies that property owners with nonconforming uses on their property (grandfathered uses before regulatory changes) are being treated differently than property owners without them.

Did I understand one critique of Measure 37 that if someone built a building using a M 37 claim and if the building burned down they couldn't build another one?

As the granddaughter of a State Supreme Court justice (in another state a long time ago) I resent anyone saying judges shouldn't follow the law. That is what judges do! And if this is a State Supreme Court case and the justices decide "we rule that this conflicts with the following constitutional provisions..." that is their right, and under our system of government anyone who doesn't like that result can mount a constitutional ammendment campaign. But one petition for each provision.

Awhile back the Supreme Court decided to get really serious about the "single subject " rule and said a Mannix measure had too many subjects in one measure. Mannix was in the legislature then, so he sponsored a bill to put them on the ballot individually. Some passed, some didn't--showing the Court was wise in saying they should be individual measures.

Some people may not like that. But that is the system we live under.

I just skimmed the opinion. I can't believe the argument used by 1000 friends of Oregon to get into this litigation. I also can't believe the judge accepted it.

Turns out, the upholding of Measure 37 would damage their ability to raise money and membership. This is their damage that justifies participation. I also smell a bias in the way the judge is approaching this analysis.

I'm sorry but this is crap. If you all really believed in the 'rule of law' you have been talking about this is the wrong path. The more you polarize land-use the closer we get to smart growth being smacked down hard.

These are the "key points" listed in a box next to the article on the StatesmanJournal.com site. Jeff is right. There is a difference between legal argument and political argument. I don't see here what someone said they saw by skimming the opinion. And I don't buy what some are saying in news articles that this negates the whole initiative system. If someone rejects the language in this opinion, then tell us what language you disagree with. Newspapers in Seattle and Boise are writing about this, as befits a major court decision.

Key points

Judge Mary James, in striking down Measure 37, wrote:

"Measure 37 requires the government to pay if it wants to enforce valid, previously enacted, land-use regulations; that is, it must pay to govern. This the legislative body cannot do, and the possibility that a later legislature could decide to repeal that condition on enforcement does not make it permissible."

"Permitting pre-(1973) owners to recover based on what their properties are worth today, instead of at the time the land-use regulations were enacted and the injury to the owners was thus incurred, has no rational relation to the aim of Measure 37 of compensating property owners for the reduced fair-market value of their property interest. The distinction between pre- and post-(1973) owners is not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and, therefore, is unconstitutional."

"While land-use regulations remain effective under Measure 37, and new ones may be implemented, Measure 37 authorizes the suspension of those laws for certain specified property owners -- those who obtained their property before the land-use regulations became effective. The suspension at first glance appears similar to the granting of a variance, but it is materially different."

Hey Jeff, I'm no ditto head. I will read the opinion more in depth later.

I do think that 1000 friends of Oregon's reasons to be included in thr proceedings is ridiculous though. The fact that they're fundraising ability will be impacted if there isn't a conflict over this issue is a ridiculous reason to allow them to contribute.

As for the voters being cheated. They are being cheated, and Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with it.

If allowed on the ballot, and I'm sure it will come back if the Sprm Court doesn't overturn this decision, I'm confident it will pass again. Your out of touch with the mainstream with this issue.

"Your out of touch with the mainstream with this issue. "

Are farmers in the mainstream? Some of the coverage has "farmers in conflict with landowners". How many farmers don't own their land? Or is that code for developers vs. farmers?

This was not just OIA vs 1000 Friends, but some seem unwilling to discuss the farmers involved.

I would call Measure 7 and Measuer 37 proof that your out of touch. This isn't about farmers its about voters.

And about the issue of the left claiming "farmers" as an industry aligned against Measure 37, your out to lunch. So you found a few democrats and greenies who wants to keep their neighbor from developing - big deal. This is harldly a groundswell of change from the last election.

The fundamental issue here is not what the mainstream may believe based on inadequate information, but instead what is the right thing to do to have responsible property rights and environmental protection in this state, and further to have a governance process that is aligned with the requirements of the Oregon Constitution.

It's a good idea to read the actual opinion in this case before deciding what you think about it. It's not all that long and the court's reasoning is very clear.

Let's talk about a family that has been involved in Oregon politics for 3 generations. Just because the current officeholder is a Democratic state rep. doesn't mean the family doesn't have GOP roots. So before anyone says the only people opposed to Measure 37 and happy about the court decision are "Democrats and greenies", get the history straight.

I have met Hector and his son Greg, and I admired Tom McCall and campaigned for his re-election. I realize that point of view is not popular in some circles, but people like me do exist and calling us names like "out of the mainstream" will not gain our votes.

With a very short Google search I found some information on the Macpherson family. Hector's Dad was a GOP legislator as was Hector.

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=3278

Hector Macpherson, a Corvallis dairy farmer who has legendary status among advocates of Oregon strict land-use laws. It was Hector Macpherson who, as a GOP state senator, helped Gov. Tom McCall craft Oregon's history-making land-use laws and get them passed by a skeptical Legislature.

Who's on what side? Depends on who's in the barrel, social preassures have a lot to do with these decisions and the courts read public opinion. What happens if the farm subsidies disappear or are seriously cut and they are under attack now?
Who's side are the farmers going to be on then? You can read more about farm subsidies here http://www.ewg.org/farm/. We also have an issue as to what happens if this avian flu goes to a pandemic. People need to look at history and realize that one of the factors effecting zoning laws in the early 1900's was public health and we went thru a influenza epidemic in 1918. People may not wish to live in high density areas, or take mass transit. Just another opinion from another person who has one. Michael "the Lib"

Why is it people assume the "will of the voters" is sacrosanct? Voters (and legislators) have been known (gasp!)to pass measures or laws which are unconstitutional, and apparently now M37 is one more example. Just because the "majority" (ie any number greater than 50% of the voters) support a particular measure, that doesnt necessarily mean it's legal-why is this so hard for people to understand? Thank God we have a constitution!!

First off - LT, I'm not trying to gain your vote. You are out of the mainstream (the American and Oregonian) on this issue. This is the second measure to sail through to victory.

"Supporters of the Oregon planning system had less excuse for the passage of M37 than M7. The ballot was less crowded, opponents of the measure outspent proponents by approximately 2:1, and there was more publicity about the Measure and its effect. Newspapers around the state urged voters to reject the Measure. Most state and local government officials provided dire warnings of its effects. Why did the Measure pass?"
Ed Sullivan, a prominent landuse attorney in a report on M37 showcased on 1000 friends website.

Why did it pass? Because the situation isn't as dire as government officials made it out, people value property rights higher than smart-growth, and people don't trust government managment even when they have progressive ideals.

As for the "Constituitionality" - I've read the opinion and I doubt its going to hold even with our liberal anti-initiative Sprm Court. Her decision is out of left field. And just to focus why, if M37 is unconsituitional on the "seperate class" theory wouldn't the property tax cap which limits property tax values based on the year you purchsed be equally unconstituitional? Yeah, increasing property taxes, always a winner in Oregon even for a Judge who stands for re-election.

And to engineer - yes the will of the voters is sacrosanct. Philospher kings get us into trouble (isn't that the logic of why you hate George W's unwillingness to engage anyone outside of his own circle).

And I'll take my answer off the air - Ditto!!!

The Will of the Voters is not sacrosanct. They do pass unconstitutional measures, and it's for the Courts to interpret the law.

Especially important here, because M37 was misleadingly worded. Maybe for their next campaign, OIA should use the real beneficiaries of M37 for endorsements, instead of little old ladies. Timber companies, greedy developers, and land owners who dismiss responsible stewardship when it gets in the way of bottom lines.

"Timber companies, greedy developers, and land owners who dismiss responsible stewardship when it gets in the way of bottom lines."

Is it ignorance, dishonesty or both which spawns this viewpoint?

The opposition to M37 chants out one misleading line after another.

From "Dorothy English didn't even qualify for a M37 claim" on the AA radio Tom Hartman show, to "all of our wine country would be paved over if it were not for our strict land use laws M37 threatens" to "M37 beneficiaries are greedy developers and irresponsible land owners"

Opposing the measure is one thing. Outright lying and fabrication didn't work during the campaign and doesn't work now.

Honestly, you M37 opponents act as if most Oregonians (of every political strain) around the state don't have first hand knowledge of someone (or more) regular people who have been denied the use of their property over the years for no adequate reason or public benefit at all.

There are countless examples of marginal land parcels of very low farming, forest or habitat value tied up in excessive and punitive regulatory restrictions simply because of the rush to label land years ago and the fanatic desire by extremist groups some to halt all growth.

That is why M37 passed and why it will survive one way or another.

It is pure immature fantasy and deliberate deception feeding the perpetual campaign that our land use laws are only about protecting that which needs protecting and that M37 is a greedy attack on the environment.

There are countless examples of marginal land parcels of very low farming, forest or habitat value tied up in excessive and punitive regulatory restrictions simply because of the rush to label land years ago and the fanatic desire by extremist groups some to halt all growth.

The fact that Oregon's land-use laws may be overreaching in no way invalidates the fact that they have protected the state from rampant development that is characteristic of other, similar, states that have not adopted similar policies.

Have a look at the front range of Colorado 30 years ago compared to today and contrast it with Oregon for a good assessment of how these laws affect growth.

Oregon is the only state in America where family farms are increasing in number. Our land use laws have played a major role in that.

sjp wrote "The fact that Oregon's land-use laws may be overreaching in no way invalidates the fact that they have protected the state from rampant development that is characteristic of other, similar, states that have not adopted similar policies."

Oregon laws have been overreaching and could easily have provided the needed, wanted and publicly supported protections without that overreaching. That overreaching has harmed Oregon and continues to do so.

Rampant development HAS indeed occurred in Oregon as generic sprawl has been curbed but replaced by a far worse sprawl. Metro style high density expansion, and infilling without regard for it's detriments has spawned chaos in many areas of our cities. Few people would argue a drive through the Beaverton area is a lesson in good planning.

Opposition to M37 and support for our over reaching land use laws seem to be primarily emanating from the fatally flawed thinking that it's all or nothing.

Oregon has much room to give and still retain zoning, planning, and model protections.

Pointing to other states who may have not provided higher levels of restrictions in no way invalidates the fact that Oregon has indeed over reached and over restricted. All the while treating some property owners one way and others the opposite.

It would be of great benefit if this discussion were focussed on the overreaching and not broadened as if all zoning and planning were at stake.

As we have seen with the M37 claims to date the bulk of Oregon's land use protections are fully intact, in effect and continuing to protect that which needs the most protecting.

I think much of the M37 opposition comes from the "stop all expansion" thinking which inappropriately has all land in need of government preservation. No matter the price of this blind belief.

The legislature has failed to address what is an obvious concern to a majority of Oregon citizens. OIA has at least made an attempt and scored a massive win each time. What is the score with the legislature and the zoning extremists?

There is nothing extremist about zoning laws in Oregon. For decades, Pro-37 groups have used their legislative allies to block meaningful land-use reforms that Don't Give Away the Farm.

We could eliminate or greatly reduce the $40,000 and $80,000 development requirements in the next legislative session if OIA and their allies in the developer community would get on board with these legal, moderate reforms.

You almost have to wonder why they are putting forward extremist initiatives instead of working toward moderate reform.

There is nothing extremeist abou the zoning laws themselves. Its the application and hijacking by extremists that make the results out of wack with the intent of Tom McCall's initial vision. Read McCall's biography, he was liberal by today's standards but he was definitely a Republican and I would trust him above Saxton any day.

His original goal was to protect ag and forest land from overbearing market pressures and anit-farm sprawl dwellers. Instead our farms aren't protected but rather held hostage.

<h1></h1>

This is the first time I can recall that the rightwing nonsense screamers got shut up by rational debate. Winning point one: Voters can NOT make injustice just, or the illegal legal, by majority. It we made murder legal by a 90 to 10 vote, the Judicial branch would just invalidate the initiative-passed law as unconstitutional. That's their job. Winning point two: Judges are NOT 'elected representatives.' They are justice seekers. They uphold the law, meaning hold law up in the scales of Justice. That would be Libra, the Scales, (Sept.23 - Oct. 22). [ Maybe that's why it worked out that the Supreme Court session starts the first Monday in October. Although, the olden books say laws and lawyers come out of Libra, but judges come out of Sagittarius, (Nov.22 - Dec.21). By personal observation across 1000's of charts, Libra's are equanimical to a fault: They so well see both sides that they can never decide on one. Also, (non-law), Libra's are musicians, often vocalists. Another Libra symbol is the musical lyre. Maybe "the Scales" means musical scales.] Anyway, a great month for Justice.

The political tides are turning so forcefully it may foreshadow a tsunami of ballots next year. If Dem's flood into the House and Senate and Governorship next year, (over drowned Republican bodies sucked into Bush's undertow -- even congress-zilch Greg Walden is running scared from his DeLay-delegation donors), it seems to me there is going to be NO traction for any M.37-style land-class warfare, in the legislature or in petition signatures, for many years to come. Ex-Californians and absentee landlords who were banking on leveraging a buy-out of Oregon land and then selling off the assets piecemeal, might better think about quietly leaving early. Before they're tagged and taken. I hear there's a goldrush bandwagon leaving for Alaska next week. Be under it -- you know who you are.

There was an earlier mention of McCall's biography. What's the name of that book? To the commenter who cited it: Have you read it?

I've only read McCall's mother's autobiography, Ranch Under the Rimrocks. Mr.& Mrs. McCall grew up on Cape Cod, were wed one December (1910?) and moved to Portland. By March, he was so depressed by the overcast, and phlegmatic, the doctor prescribed a retreat up the Gorge to dryness. They rented a cabin in the apple orchards, unsuspecting, right at blossom time, and never came back to the Valley. Instead, exploring by train up the Deschutes and Crooked River canyons, arrriving in Redmond, walking to Prineville, and then "a little ways out of town," so was founded their ranch under the rimrocks. Where Tom and his brothers (4?) grew up.

This time to review Oregon farming back then, (before oil), could help prepare us for farming's future, (after oil). I forget the exact dates, but between 1915 and 1920, they started making telephone calls from the ranch to Boston, and they had a section (640 A.) under sprinkler irrigation -- two examples of what electricity can do that petroleum doesn't necessarily. Another 1900-Oregon lifestyle book is A.C. Gilbert's autobiography, The Man Who Lived in Paradise. Born in Salem (Feb. 13, 1884) the day before Oregon's 25th birthday, his grandfather owned the first bank in Salem and his granduncle surveyed and platted Salem's streets and the roads of Marion County. Gilbert's storytelling runs a bit spare on farming techniques -- a boy's daily chores in subsistence agriculture is sooo mundane -- but he describes familiar terrain in original condition, Salem to Monmouth to Forest Grove, (his prep school, before it was Pacific University), and some of Portland, up the Gorge, across the Palouse, and into Idaho.

Two points I'm reaching for: The Urban Growth Boundary 20-year supply of buildable land yadda yadda yadda, and any other 10- 20- or 40-year-based plans and statutes and such, all becomes moot when oil (in effect) 'runs out' which some (such as I) count in years on one hand. (Definition of 'moot': Much wooly and protracted ado went into enacting Oregon's usury law which capped any loan's interest rate at 7 percent, (or was it 8?), just like the Bible tells us to ... (or told them to) ... and when petroleum pricing quadrupled in the late-Nixonian 1973, starting interest rate inflation -- say, 75=10%, 76=12%, 78=14%, 80=16%, 82=18% -- usury laws in the states not only became moot, the legislature was required, forced of duress, to repeal it, Oregon in '77, I think.) When oil is all said and done, urban survival, (you know, food, starvation, life or death, that stuff), might depend on being able to pedal a bike to a farm and back for one's daily bread. For most cities that means no survival, but Portland just may stand a chance. Keep 'your' farmers close, you may need them. Soon.

Second point: Not really a 'point,' more like a high-strung imagination with news of bird flu landing on it. Epidemics sweep most across close-density populations. Oregon could set up a foster farm registry, a list of farm families across the state which could accommodate one, (two, more?), refugee city person, (family), who could lay low, way out, until the epidemic passed over. The traffic jam out of Houston(?) ahead of Rita, was compoundedly worse because no one had a place to go or knew where they were going. Here, to prepare, we could match-up one-to-one an urban-evacuee to their rural-retreat, sort of like pen pals, a pandemic buddy-system, working out assignments ahead of time -- NOW ! -- to save lives. Land use planning among ourselves is a cakewalk compared with life use planning. Cityzens: when you get to your foster farm family you have to manual labor, bring your work clothes. Suddenly, it may matter anew that we Oregonians are 2 million urban and 1 million rural. Keep 'your' farmers close. Where you can get to on your last tank of gas.

And we can help each other watch the internet and pass along items we catch. Segue to:

The Organic Crops of Farmer John, by Stephen Leahy

TORONTO - The eccentric life of farmer John Peterson, from the central U.S. state of Illinois, is the centerpiece of an award-winning documentary film that tracks the decline of family farms in the United States, and -- in a surprise twist -- a new resurrection.

"The Real Dirt on Farmer John" is a personal story of Peterson's tumultuous life as a farmer ...

Published October 8, 2005 by Inter Press Service:

His "Angelic Farms" is now one of the most successful CSAs in the United States. Under this system, urban consumers pay Peterson in advance for a weekly delivery of fresh, seasonal organic vegetables.

Peterson spoke with Tierramérica at the presentation of the documentary about his life during the International Environmental Film and Video Festival in Toronto earlier this month.

TIERRAMERICA - How did your time in Mexico influence your decision to become an organic farmer?

PETERSON - Mexican culture is more vibrant and it feels much closer to the earth. You can see it in the architecture; the way people dress and live. The United States had much of that once but it's long gone. U.S. agriculture is lonely and desolate. Our farmers no longer have a close connection to the land. Mexican farmers helped me reconnect with the soil and ignited a new passion and determination to grow authentic, organic crops.

TIERRAMERICA - What do you think are the problems with the current U.S. farm policy?

PETERSON - The U.S. federal government ...

<h1></h1>

Regarding Grandfather Clauses...

M37 did not "grandfather" in land use regulation. It required payment to abide by land use regulation. If all it said was owners prior to the enactment of land use regulation could use previous rules, it would have been considered grandfathering. Because it required payment to enforce existing law, the notion of grandfathering does not apply.

Grandfathering would imply there was some previous period of time when the State had to pay people to abide by similar regulation. When was that?

Brent Walth wrote an excellent book about McCall and the times he lived in titled FIRE AT EDEN'S GATE and it has a subtitle which I don't recall.

I have not read the whole thing (thick book) but the excerpts I read captured the time I remember (Walth is too young to remember but got access to archives as I recall) and had some information I did not know at the time.

And it is very well written (more readable than some non-fiction). Anyone who was not here or doesn't remember those times should read it.

I am not an expert on M37, but I do know that the urban growth boundry has some significant benefits.

I grew up in Southern Califorinia where urban sprawl spreads out for several hours drive in every direction. The only nature preserves were those "artificially" created.

If you like this idea, then having people subdivide their property is a wonderful idea! Let's have concrete as far as the eye can see! If you are in favor of limiting or elminating the urban growth boundry then head down to Southern California and take a wiff of that. See how it is working out for them. Or for a small sample, head over to Beaverton!

It is a sad state of affairs when Oregonians are so selfish that a majority vote for a measure that not only benefits a few, but also destroys the things that make Oregon a uniquely beautiful place to live.

sjp posted earlier:

For decades, Pro-37 groups have used their legislative allies to block meaningful land-use reforms that Don't Give Away the Farm.

We could eliminate or greatly reduce the $40,000 and $80,000 development requirements in the next legislative session if OIA and their allies in the developer community would get on board with these legal, moderate reforms.

You almost have to wonder why they are putting forward extremist initiatives instead of working toward moderate reform.

Generally, I don't post to discussion groups, but I'm making an exception here because I'm so puzzled: what state were these here now meaningful land use reforms proposed in? It surely wasn't Oregon.

I've been lobbying land use issues for developers and builders here for quite a while, and I can't remember too many pieces of legislation brought by the ANTI-37 groups, period, much less one that would qualify as a reform, meaningful or otherwise, and still much less one with which we didn't get on board. We and our legislative allies didn't have anything to block, in other words.

Those who opposed Measure 37 also opposed almost every single rural land use bill in the legislature for the last 15 or 20 years. Some of that opposition may have been warranted - reasonable minds differ, after all - but some of it seemed a tad silly. (Opposing a bill that would have allowed golf courses to put snack shacks out on the course, to just give one example.) And these same groups opposed, every time to my recollection, any attempt of any sort to make any changes to either the minimum lot size in EFU zones or the income test.

My point is not that they should or shouldn't have opposed any of the bills that they did. My point is that the notion that it was the anti-37 forces that were proposing reforms, and the pro-37 forces keeping them from happening, is simply untrue.

In my opinion, Measures 7 and 37 were a direct reaction to the almost total impossibility of changing Oregon's rural land use laws through the legislative process. Moderate reforms, at least by my definition, were unsuccessful session after session after session...and therefore, it doesn't strike me as too surprising that the initiative was used.

In my opinion, Measures 7 and 37 were a direct reaction to the almost total impossibility of changing Oregon's rural land use laws through the legislative process. Moderate reforms, at least by my definition, were unsuccessful session after session after session...and therefore, it doesn't strike me as too surprising that the initiative was used.

Chandler is an honest person. But as someone who knew Tom McCall, Wes Kvarsten, lots of people who worked in planning, and some people who were in at the creation of LCDC, I must say he sees the world differently than I do.

I don't recall the proposal he mentions here about snack shacks:

Some of that opposition may have been warranted - reasonable minds differ, after all - but some of it seemed a tad silly. (Opposing a bill that would have allowed golf courses to put snack shacks out on the course, to just give one example.)

I have no opposition to that, but then when I was in high school, the local Youth Center raised money by having students work in mobile refreshment trailers at local golf events. The trailers were called "Bingmobiles" because a famous crooner named Crosby (who had a golf tournament named after him when he was alive) bought them as fundraising vehicles. I graduated from Carmel High in California, and have to laugh at some of the people who talk about harsh land use regulations and public opinion here.

The number one industry in Carmel is tourism--in town, at the Bach Festival, people coming for golf tournaments and other events. It is a charming town precisely because all the trees make the small local homes known as "Carmel cottages" look attractive--without the trees they might look less appealing. In the city limits, city council permission is required to cut down a tree for just that reason.

When a plant nursery (the next street over from the Post Office downtown) went out of business when the owner retired, someone wanted to build a restaurant and an office building on the property. Lots of famous people live there because the locals treat them as locals (a movie star going into a store to buy clothes is someone clothes shopping, and only a tourist would gush about the person being famous).

The famous person who wanted to build the restaurant and office building couldn't get a straight answer on what needed to be done to satisfy requirements. He went to court not for monetary damages but to get in writing "if I satisfy every requirement listed here, there will be no more flak from city officials". He got that agreement, and then decided if it was that much work he should run for Mayor and change things.

He was elected, and while in office Mayor Clint Eastwood did change a lot of things and get a friendly city council elected during his one term. He was also a public benefactor and used his money to save a couple of local institutions which had fallen hard times. One was the Carmel Youth Center. The other you heard him mention when he accepted his Academy Award--Mission Ranch and restaurant.

I find it hard to believe that Oregon's land use laws and general attittude are that strict. But some of us do recall the push to develop "secondary lands" and that many such lands are now called wineries.

Farmers DO have the right to stand up to developers. Yes, some changes are needed in land use laws, but passing Measure 37 without a transferability provision and then demanding the legislature add transferability and do it so late in the session many people didn't understand what was in the D version of the bill is not that way.

And there are members of OIA who are not as affable as Chandler. These are the folks with the attitude "McCall is dead and his policies should be dead too" or being aghast that Wes Kvarsten would be the family friend of anyone because he was from the other side, or that there is something wrong with people who still fondly remembered SB 100 and admire Hector Macpherson.

There needs to be some conflict resolution here, but a poorly written ballot measure is not the way. Due process IS part of our system of government. ANY ballot measure which says "You're supposed to do this but it is heresy to ask how to pay for it" or "our property rights mean we don't need to care what happens to the neighbors" will not get my support. And if someone doesn't like the provision of the constitution which says all groups must be treated the same and it is not OK to treat one group better than another group, they should collect signatures for that and see how many people agree.

LT And if someone doesn't like the provision of the constitution which says all groups must be treated the same and it is not OK to treat one group better than another group, they should collect signatures for that and see how many people agree. JK:Oh, I see.

Then it is not OK for the city to change zoning next door to me to allow a 20 story building by a favored developer?

And I is no longer OK to grandfather existing uses when a zone is changed. We should tear down all those old buildings immediately.

In some Portland zones, where only apartments are allowed to be built, I take it that you advocate tearing doen ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES since they are being allowed in zones where they could no longer be built?

JK

Just because you kinda asked, LT (and thanks for the comments - I do try to achieve both honesty and affability): the snack shack bill, or a version thereof, may be found in the records of the 2003 session, HB 3247. It wasn't my bill, but I think the same idea popped up in several different vehicles.

But my favorite example, offered as proof of the proposition that we may have gotten a little carried away with regulations on rural land, was the bill that made it legal to grow bugs in EFU zones - codified in ORS 215.223 (2)(p). I grew up farming, and growing bugs was one thing that seemed to happen pretty much automatically in farm zones; it kinda surprised me that there needed to be legislation on the topic.

jc

JK,

And it is no longer OK to grandfather existing uses when a zone is changed. We should tear down all those old buildings immediately.

The ruling on M37 does not cause problems for grandfathering land use laws. It explicitly states "The class distinction <inserted> between pre-owners and post-owners <end inserted=""> is not, however, suspect."

The ruling goes on to say.. "Because the compensation requirement under Measure 37 impedes the exercise of the police power, as discussed above, it is not a legitimate state interest. Even if it were, however, the means chosen to determine the amount of compensation is not reasonably related to the interest...For the above reasons, Measure 37 violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article I, § 20, of the Oregon Constitution, because it does not serve a legitimate state interest and, in any event, the means chosen to serve the state’s interest are not rationally related to that interest."

The ruling does not mean grandfathering is against the constitution or that we will tear down single family homes that have been re-zoned. It simply means that the compensation method is not reasonably related to compensating owners for the reduction in fair market value of the property.

Fix the compensation part and a new measure might have a chance. As a practical matter, it probably can't be fixed, and if it is removed, probably wouldn't receive sympathy from voters.

Correction.

"The class distinction between pre-owners and post-owners is not, however, suspect."

should read

"The class distinction [inserted] between pre-owners and post-owners [end inserted] is not, however, suspect."

Apparently "<inserted>" did not show up as it was originially posted. Also, I was emailed a copy of the ruling but don't know where it came from so could not provide a link to the text. My apologies.

I agree with what the Oregonian said in their 10/ 18 editorial:

"Keep in mind two quick guiding principles: A government that pays people to obey governmental regulations is, in effect, constantly self-canceling. And there's no such thing as abstract "fairness" in a vacuum. Addressing the grievances of one set of Oregon property owners is fair only if you find a way to be fair to their neighbors, too. They're also property owners.

The ruling on Measure 37 gives both legislators and the governor a legacy-making opportunity. By creating a fairness safety valve for Oregon's land-use system, they can safeguard the system, respond to voters and make a difference in Oregon history. "

<h1></h1>

Data reinforcing a consideration ('framing') of M.37 and the like according to the effects against keeping "close" relations between urbanites who eat food and farmers who grow it, (a theme in my comment, above), are in empirical detail in the following piece of journalism. It shows there are examples of city folks who sensed their corporate 'successes' might, either at their personal age or the age of industrial oil wind-down, ultimately fall short of bringing them to arrive at a station where they "have it made," (I never understood what does 'having it made' mean -- never working again? Who works to stop their own working?), and the folks acted on their sense of wrong track, and went another way (to farming), creating the stories reported here and probably more in their experience, in case anyone reading Blue Oregon is looking for leads to information about bridging urban and rural assets and liabilities.

Former City Dwellers Starting Organic Farms Bring New Spirit of Enterprise to Countryside.

Published on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 by the Independent / UK

'We get life satisfaction': Chris Evans, 50, and Jane Eden, 49

#

I grew up on a family farm which is still in my family and is protected by exclusive farm zoning. I support land use planning and hope that the farm my grandparents built continues in that capacity. Subdivisions next door will not aid that continuation. This is long range planning, folks, and it's rare.

Sid Portland Business Journal poll would you vote to rescind Measure 37? (overturn)

NO 62% Yes 37%

In otherwords you can't read a poll result and a lot of Oregonians do believe in Measure 37 and personal property rights.