The justices have provided a tightly reasoned reversal that merits line-by-line reading. Ample references are provided for those who wish to learn more of their source material.

A close reading reveals that the decision,while relatively clear cut, does not eliminate local government action that may impede or promote future Measure 37 claims and objections to those claims.

From the release linked above: First, the Court determined that Measure 37 does not unconstitutionally limit the legislature's plenary power as a law-making body. The Court reasoned that nothing in Measure 37 prevents either the legislature or the people, in the exercise of their initiative power, from enacting new land use statutes, from repealing all land uses statutes, or from amending or repealing Measure 37 itself.

So there we have it. The voters can pass a measure changing 37 or any land use laws, and the legislature can ammend or repeal Measure 37.

I am grateful they spelled that out--it was not clear to the average person in 2005, I don't believe.

So now anyone can mount a ballot measure (is there time this year?) or any legislator can introduce a bill to either: say "Transferability shall be part of Measure 37 " (although it wasn't in the measure text as I understand it) OR to overturn Measure 37 entirely.

When I was in the capitol late last session, I learned there was a 1037-D to "fix" Measure 37, that very few people realized what the -D version actually said/ did, and that there were people who did understand it who had drastically different opinions about it--but they were a very small minority.

Clarity is a virtue.

There is now no reason OIA can't put forward something straightforward like adding transferability if that is what they want. 1000 Friends or any similar group can mount a campaign for outright repeal if that is what they want. The court has now made it clear that either is permissible.

So let's have people involved in the issue state a clear positive they support, not just attack those they disagree with or use language which sounds like propaganda.

If I didn't know better, I would think that it is an election year for some of those judges.

""""""Of course, the court did not rule on whether Measure 37 was a wise policy choice for Oregon voters""""""

No, but voters decided it was wise for Oregon.

Since the high court ruled that "the measure does not contravene any pertinent, applicable constitutional provisions"

by extension, they essentially also ruled Judge Martens' ruling was outside the law.

And every single defense of her judicial maleficence that I read here on Blue was flat out wrong.

All of the praises for her well thought out ruling were wrong.

All of the amateur legal opinions which defended Martens' ruling were wrong.

And unanimously so.

Go back and read your own comments and,

Now today's question is will anyone in the Blue M37 archives admit they were wrong?

This OSC decision just solidifies the fact that Judge James made a terrible ruling which was in no small part influenced by her own ideological stance and bore a definite conflict of interest.

Bravo, for the Oregon Supreme Court, I didn't know they had it in 'em!

Unfortunately, land use will still be bandied about in the legislature with no real resolution.

For sweet victory and all those other gloaters:

The decision does not say some of the more extreme things some believed Measure 37 says (For instance, that if someone wished to they could bulldoze some historic house in a settled neighborhood to put up a video store or some other high traffic business, or could set up a motocross track next to someone's home, then there was no due process for the affected neighbors--no one could stop the development). The decision DOES mention due process--it does not say "anyone who files a claim wins because Measure 37 says so". THAT would be a lack of due process and I don't think the decision sets aside due process.

As quoted in the press release, it says: With regard to Article I, section 22, the Court held that Measure 37 does not "suspend" the operation of laws, but, rather, authorizes a governing body to modify, remove, or not apply use regulations in specific situations. With regard to Article III, section I, the Court held that the measure does not encroach on executive power; rather, it simply provides avenues for judicial review in specific land use cases.

Therefore, a campaign which says "the voters have spoken on 37, therefore no one has the right to change it", as the House majority leadership said of Measure 30 during the 2005 session, could create a backlash. This could be a campaign issue for legislators--do they support ammending or overturning Measure 37 as outlined in the decision? "avenues for judicial review in specific land use cases" could well mean that if anyone goes too far they could land in court.

And I wonder about the attempt to recall Judge James or otherwise make the judge's life more difficult/ less secure. Were those of us who said that was not appropriate because the Supreme Court would always overturn a Marion County decision wrong to say so? Do you folks who supported the repeal now look like sore winners/losers for having done that? Or do you believe in a principle that any judge who makes one "wrong" decision should be subject to a recall? I wouldn't support that proposal, but then one of my relatives was a judge.

Sounds to me like the Supreme Court clarified the issue. The winners have the right to be happy today. Those who are on the other side, though, have the right to say they have always admired Hector Macpherson and Tom McCall and the original SB 100 although over time any legislation could use some tweaking.

And if this becomes a further battle over a measure or legislation, telling us we have no right to admire what McCall and the others did because ha ha you won in court is not likely to win you any votes.

LT, Do you remember your earlier lecture on the rule of law?

Posted by: LT | Oct 14, 2005 9:10:06 PM

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.

This is an interesting read now.

Measure 37 Thrown out http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/10/breaking_news_m.html

My-oh-my.

Judge James wasn't just reversed, she was bodyslammed.

She had not one, but six(!) different theories as to why M37 violated the constitution. (5 state, 1 federal).

Every one of them rejected.

It takes a lot of judicial creativity to be overturned on six separate legal theories.

One might wonder whether she had a personal interest in the outcome?

The best spin is that she was an impetuous rookie judge who called it as she saw it, but was wrong. Really wrong. And her wrong decisions delayed justice under M37 for thousands of claimants based on novel legal theories.

Corrupt or incompetent. Take your pick. It's more obvious than ever that she deserved to be recalled.

What fabulous news! As someone who is on the forefront of protecting property rights from the overreaching of government and their communist syncophants, I rejoice in this decision.

I just can't believe that the Supreme Commie Court of Oregon did it, though...They actually upheld property rights! Were they smoking something?

No matter, it's done, at last! Property owners, rejoice!

Torridjoe,

There were thousands of state claims that were held up by her decision as well as hundreds of county claims in the 4 counties named in the lawsuit as well as those counties that put everything on hold pending the decision today.

And, yes they did uphold property rights, the property rights of those people who want to develop their land as they see fit without overbearing government influence.

Posted by: LT | Oct 14, 2005 9:10:06 PM

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.

Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 14, 2005 10:02:26 PM

No one is "using" the courts. It's not like people weren't warned about the dubious nature of the initiative. Either the provision meets state Constitutional muster, or it doesn't. And I think finding five separate provisions it violates, is not an encouraging sign that it was drafted well. (Of course, many of us didn't need the sign to figure that one out).

Posted by: Gil Johnson | Oct 14, 2005 11:39:17 PM

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.

Posted by: engineer | Oct 15, 2005 7:23:00 PM

Voters (and legislators) have been known (gasp!)to pass measures or laws which are unconstitutional, and apparently now M37 is one more example. Thank God we have a constitution!!

Al:

Thanks for elevating this conversation to the level of...cold war-era polemics. I've often thought that we need more name-calling and blind rhetoric in conversations about land use and property rights.

 -AE

Hey Jar-Jar Alworth...

For the love of god if you are going to condemn some for being amateur, save the baby talk for you boyfriends.

Jeff you don't want to admit you were completely wrong. And worse yet you have the gaul to declare there should not be any "lecture from some moral position".

What were you doing with your earlier judgement?

December 2, 2004 | Jeff Alworth Measure 37: Proof that the Initiative Process is Broken?

"The ugly side of citizen action is that citizens often don't know what the hell they're doing. The initiative system plays to the same kind of indulgent impulses that keep us buying SUVs and watching Jerry Springer. But what's benign to entertainment is devastating to public policy."

Hey Jack, Brilliant advice. I'm sure no one considered that if the supreme court had ruled the other way, that would that have made Judge James right and her critics wrong.

Imagine that? Sorry for the sarcasm.

But, what's important here is not the what if's.

But rather, we have a constitution and laws which Judge James sought to violate with an activist's ruling. Her demonstrated gross disregard for law, and our constitution, is unquestionably solid grounds for her removal.

If she has any remaining ethics or a conscience she should resign immediately.

I seem to remember that the compromise SB-1037 was villified in a former thread by a commenter for being a weakening of our land use system. (Apparently, the better course of action would have been to wait to this very day, when M37 was simply declared unconstitutional.)

That compromise doesn't look so bad now, it seems.

This serves as a fine example of both sides run amok... each side refusing to compromise when the boat tips their way, which ensures that one way or another, Oregon's going to get a very extreme policy.

And if M37 had been tanked?... the pervasive discontent with the land use system wouldn't have simply evaporated. Here's to those who seek out lasting solutions rather than playing judicial roulette.

There's a lesson to be learned here. And now... a moment of silence for Oregon's open spaces.

Told you so. Now where all those people talking about how OIA should have gotten better legal advice? Turns out the judge's rubber stamp of the 1000 Friends arguments had a few holes in it.

Sweet, I can hardly wait for more subdivisions and strip malls! Who needs those forests anyway. After all we couldn't have ONE state that was free from sprawl, that would be some sort of commie abomination. Got to make sure everyone get's their damn "property rights" lottery ticket! Today I really really HATE what Oregon has become!

Why are these right-wingers allowed to post here?

And as all these developments outside of urban growth boundries go in, who is going to pay for the infrastructure? We can't even pay for our existing infrastructure (see problems with such areas like Happy Valley.)

Unchecked development without raising taxes to pay for that development will result in a huge mess. If Oregonians honestly believe that property owners have the right to build subdivisions outside of urban growth boundries, then we need to be ready to pay for the infrastructure to support those subdivsions, which tend to require higher costs as a result of their existence outside the UGBs. And as the Happy Valley scenerio demonstrates, the taxes collected from those developments is not enought to cover long term infratructure costs.

I was waiting for this line,,,

Adventuregeek said """""I can hardly wait for more subdivisions and strip malls! Who needs those forests anyway.""""""

Imagine that. Affordable housing and livable neighborhoods.

What forests? There is plenty of land that is neither forest, farm or wetland, that M37 frees up for reasonable and regulated use.

""""After all we couldn't have ONE state that was free from sprawl,that would be some sort of commie abomination.""""""

If you think the chaos alternative we have been witnessing is swell it's no wonder you are confused about M37. The Urban Renewal and tax abatement subsidized developments, mandated high density and infill have turned many parts of the region into seas of concrete, roofs and asphalt without regard for any the impacts including to livability.

""""""Got to make sure everyone get's their damn "property rights" lottery ticket!"""""""

60% or Oregonians demanded they be preserved.

""""""Today I really really HATE what Oregon has become!""""""""

That's impressive. Anything Oregon "has become", that you hate, is the outcome of decades of planning and land use laws. M37 has had very little impact to date.

Hang around and you'll never witness the destruction you imagine.

When Judge Merten declared M37 unconstitutional, I thought it was a wholly asinine decision. And a lot of the comments that I read here on BO seemed like people were really stretching to support her decision, on wholly ideological reasoning. The arguments really didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. That being said, I don't believe Judge Merten should have been the target of a recall because of her decision. However, I am VERY concerned that she seemed to have a conflict of interest in the case, and she certainly should have recused herself.

What I would love for some regular BO posters to do is to answer a simple question I have. Really look into your soul and tell me what you believe is right or wrong - Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?

Oregon could have avoided all of this mess if they had only grandfathered in existing property owners when land use changes were made. In so many other areas of local, state, and federal gov't, we see that being the case. I'm not sure how anyone couldn't see the day coming when folks would finally "have enough" and put an initiative on the ballot to regain the value that they lost.

I believe that M37 passed because most people can easily see what is fair and what is not - and not allowing someone like Dorothy English to add a couple more houses to the property that she's owned for 54 years is simply not fair.

So I'm just asking some here to strip away what your party and close friends "tell" you what to think and just answer the question - Is it fair for government entities to take away your ability to enjoy your property (as you were entitled when purchased), without any sort of recourse or compensation?

I'd love to read your simple, one sentence answers to that question. Because I think the question really is that simple.

Peter Bray wrote

Why are these right-wingers allowed to post here?<

What makes you think only right wingers voted for and support M37?

Or did you mean "nutjobs"

At 60% approval counltess moderates, Democrats and reasonable people voter for M37.

Perhaps your own words say it best.

Posted by: Peter Bray | Aug 21, 2005 4:23:48 PM "Clearly M37 is unconstitutional,,,,,, Let's hope that the hearing next month in Marion County sets things in motion for M37's demise. That said, of course, if M37 is vanquished by the courts, we must prepare for more onslaughts from OIA... both M7 and M37 passed with wide margins. What can be done to properly educate the public so as to head these nutjobs off at the pass?"

There seems to be a remarkable lack of legal acumen by those trumpeting this ruling. Reversals are not uncommon, and I don't think I've heard a lawyer say that a reversal shows incompetence or corruption. Especially when the decision contains pure questions of law, with no factual disputes, it's just not that odd. Every lawyer who gloats in a victory should know that there will come a day when they'll get slammed, which is why I don't hear many lawyers gloating about their victories (though I wouldn't be surprised if Ross is out there trumpeting, and ignoring his recent tubing in a ballot measure case).

Put another way, and sorry to be such a naive golden-rule follower, but lawyers who strive to be professional seem to understand that they may be standing in another lawyer's or judge's shoes someday. So for the non-lawyers who are having such a fun time (or who were gloating before), here's hoping you learn the pleasure of being on the losing end.

Dear poor (loser/speller). "Do you have the gall....?" is the correct spelling. Having taken Latin in high school, I could make a couple of jokes about "gaul": There is a famous passage students learn to translate which is something like "all Gaul is divided into 3 parts". And I believe that area of Europe is now called France.

Thank you Jack Roberts for once again adding an adult perspective: Those of us who agree with the Oregon Supreme Court's decision shouldn't engage in an orgy of recrimination against Judge James or those who agreed with her decision. If the supreme court had ruled the other way, would that have made Judge James right and her critics wrong? Could it be so many tune out politics because yours is often a rare civil mature adult voice?

Pop the champagne corks today folks, then read the opinion in detail. Sounds to me like there is a process in place more detailed than "Measure 37 says we get to do this and no one can complain". It also sounds to me like the door is open to "givings" legislation. New roads, sewers, and other infrastructure improvements can add to the value of land. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that according to this decision, someone would be within their legal rights to start a ballot measure campaign or become a legislator and sponsor legislation saying that if payment were being made for "takings" then any improvements could require a "givings" fee from the developers.

It was more than 30 years ago in an unincorporated area, but it seems to me that when there was a sewer upgrade in our neighborhood, all the homeowners were assessed to pay for it. Can't see how this decision would make such a process illegal or prevent laws being passed relating to such ideas.

"At 60% approval counltess moderates, Democrats and reasonable people voter for M37."

I believe time will show that these voters did not understand the implications of M37, and that they will wish to see it overturned when the fruit of this measure lies rotting on the ground.

Where is this lack of sprawl? Are we living in the same city? I guess you can't see it from your Pearl District condo.

But we've got sprawl from Vancouver to Woodburn? From Gresham to McMinnville? Just where is the supposed urban growth boundary, the coast? I never understood all the land use advocates patting themselves on the back about Oregon's lack of sprawl or overdevelopment... am I just imagining all those mansions on top of Mt. Scott?

As for the judge, clearly this ruling is a set back for her decisions because she was wrong on all counts...not just one or two...all of them... you can spin it any way you want, but she's been outed as a judicial activist and not a thoughtful constitutional jurist.

Larry,

Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?

Those same property owners can also claim the right to stack their land with billboards, or otherwise stick it their neighbors at the public's expense, because Measure 37 is a dinner-napkin piece of lawmaking.

Right you are, Tom C.

It sounds to me like the decision doesn't say "just file a claim and you'll get the regulation changed or compensation paid then and there", it talks about process to deal with claims.

I heard on the radio that there are still some cases dealing with the implementation of Measure 37.

The end result may be a process more structured than the proponents expected--wouldn't be the first time that what people thought they voted for was not the end result.

Sid said

""""And as all these developments outside of urban growth boundries go in, who is going to pay for the infrastructure?""""""

Did you ask that question about SoWa or any of the developments where tax dollars pay for ALL of the infrastructure?

""""Unchecked development without raising taxes to pay for that development will result in a huge mess. """"""""""

In stark contrast to the SoWa type development all of the subdivisions and development you are talking about pay for ALL of their own infrastructure as well as System Development Fees toward system capacity increases. These developers are also required to extend services to and through their development so future expansion will be accommodated. The cost is tremendous to submit a land development application.

""""" then we need to be ready to pay for the infrastructure to support those subdivisions, which tend to require higher costs as a result of their existence outside the UGBs."""""""

Countless acres of marginal land are already adjacent to readily available services and the only thing preventing development is either the UGB or a lack of planning which developers have offered to do.

""""""""the taxes collected from those developments is not enough to cover long term infrastructure costs""""""""""

Of course they are not. Neither are the taxes collected from existing developments. Fees are collected and property taxes are at least collected for basic services. Unlike the alternative SoWa you apparently prefer. SoWa won't be paying for any services or infrastructure expansion decades.

Charlie,

Yes, we do "live in one of the most beautiful, livable corners of the world" and it has nothing to do with "the lack of sprawl and overdevelopment".

We have the worst sprawl possible. Right where most of us live.

In fact the Metro region has been so overcrowded, congested, haphazardly developed and affordability diminished that it's not as nice as it was 20 years ago. Of course many people have been sold the bill of goods that the only other choice was some mindless paving over of the whole state, (we livbe on 3% of it) and that nothing in between were possible.

The previous 20 years, going back 40 years, worked fine and we didn't have a fraction of the "planning" or the cost we have now. It ain't better or saving money.

what i find interesting is not that the judge was overturned -- that happens frequently and does not mean the judge was bad, just that the OSC decided she was wrong in this instance -- but the trouble they went to in saying they were not saying M37 was wise or foolish. why would they take that time unless they had doubts about its wisdom?

Good grief, its not their job to say whether its foolish. That involves emotions, not the law. They are there to see if rulings fit within the law. Period. Anything else is judicial activism. Thats the problem I see with progressives. They want judges to use their emotions or personal feelings. They cant do that, they interpret the law. Thats all. Save the rest for the op-ed pages.

One more thing about Measure 37 implementation. As I understand 37, it basically says "they have to compensate me if they don't change the regulation, and my neighbors have no right to object because this is MY PROPERTY !".

If someone finds language in today's Supreme Court decision which says "Measure 37 sponsors are correct--neighbors have no right to file any complaint about the development proposals made by those filing Measure 37 claims" or something along those lines, I hope they will share it with the rest of us.

And if the decision says nothing on that subject, watch out--there may be a budding "neighbors rights " campaign.

LM - Thanks for the comment, but you didn't answer my question. And please tell me what you mean by "sticking it to your neighbor"...

The bottom line is so simple here - for years Oregon has been bending over property owners - without so much as a reach-around... Decisions on land use weren't made with the thought of how to properly treat the property owners, they were made with the idea of advancing a particular ideal. Regardless of whether you think that ideal is right or wrong, you still have to treat people fairly. And when you don't do that, year after year after year, it's only a matter of time before people rise up and attempt to "right the wrong"

And it's so disheartening to see so many on here make comments that basically say "the people that voted for this don't understand the ramifications". How condenscending.

What the folks DID understand was that their rights as landowners were being steadily stripped away. And finally, enough was enough.

That's how you get "dinner-napkin pieces of lawmaking". Had any of the anti-development folks ever come to the table with a piece of legislation or land-use laws that fairly treated property-owners, M37 would have never come to pass.

I'm still hoping you'll answer my simple question...

Larry,

"Is it proper that one can buy property with the intent to develop it in a manner that is completely compliant with existing land use laws, and then have that ability yanked away from you, with absolutely no recourse?"

Who said life was fair? The whole idea of government is to create a balance between personal rights and public good. I, for one, think the balance should tip more towards public good than private property rights. Making private property rights into some kind of an all-important sacred untouchable element of society shows backward priorities.

Here is an excellent, timely example of why we don't want a government attorney being able to decide whether an initiative that has been filed is constitutional or not or having the authority to prevent it from even being circulated, let alone voted on. Just as I pointed out earlier in "Idea: Initiative Reform," different people, being well-trained in the law and highly experienced, can come to different conclusions about constitutionality. Such decisions rightly belong with the Supreme Court, whose members are accountable to the voters. This time, the initiative is one you may not have cared for, but next time it could be one you strongly support - and all are subject to the same rules.

The AG already screens out the obviously unconstitutional initiatives; the rest of the time, there is simply a price to be paid for citizen access to the ballot. I happen to think it's worth the price.

Hello Qwendolyn:

I liked part of your post: "The whole idea of government is to create a balance between personal rights and public good. I, for one, think the balance should tip more towards public good than private property rights"

I agree with your first sentence and respect your honesty with the second.

But then you said: "Who said life is fair"? That line of thinking could be used to counter A LOT of things in life that I'm sure you wouldn't want to see happen. So be careful with that... To me, that argument doesn't really warrant a response.

And then you said: "Making private property rights into some kind of an all-important sacred untouchable element of society shows backward priorities" Fair enough. But I'm not talking about making property rights untouchable and sacred. I'm talking about fairness. About treating people with respect. Ya gotta respect the folks that were here before you. People who have owned their property for 30 years before a bunch of "progressive whipper-snappers" decided that the best thing for Oregon is to strip away the rights they've had.

And as for "backward priorities" - that's simply your opinion (and awfully snooty-sounding). As passage of M37 showed, most Oregonians consider that "proper priorities". I'm sorry if that doesn't align with your view.

And you didn't answer my question, either. Is it right or wrong for a gov't entity to take away those rights, with zero compensation?

Hello CG -

First off, don't overestimate my intelligence... I do that enough already on a regular basis, and it frequently gets me in trouble...

Seriously, though, I'm not saying that I'm convinced that M37 was written in the best possible way. My main point here is that it was inevitable, because land use regulations have been shoved down property owners' throats for so long here. All in the name of chasing an ideal that I don't believe most Oregonians believe in.

And it certainly wasn't unconstitutional.

LT --

The "neighbors' rights" movement... sounds like something that was floated last session in Salem, Senate Bill 663.

I heard a (completely unsubstantiated) story that a certain east-Oregonian senator was an ardent supporter of M37 until his neighbor filed a claim. Then he announced, "Measure 37's got to be fixed! My neighbor's developing... That's not what Measure 37 was about!"

I'd have a good chuckle if 663 had passed. If the government has to pay for decreases in value, why not your friendly neighborhood Measure 37-filer? Too bad it didn't have legs.

"What used to be 80 percent farmland is now a nearly uninterrupted urban center that stretches nearly 150 miles from north to south, and 30-50 miles from east-to-west."

So? What's your point? Why do you think farmland is inherently better than suburbs? Because it looks prettier?

"Measure 37 will end that, and put a nail in the coffin of our nascent wine industry unless something is done within the next 3-5 years."

Oregon's wine industry is strong and won't be going away just because land originally zoned residential becomes available.

A sound land use policy would put regulatory powers back in the hands of local jurisdictions. Portland bureaucrats and special interests shouldn't decide what's good for Amity. Amity should decide what's good for Amity.

It's time for urbanists to keep their noses out of rural areas' business.

Steve Schopp,

I'm not sure I understood your posted comment. Are you saying that developers in Clark Co. Washington pay for the full cost of development outside the UGBs?

Perhpas the laws have changed since a large development was approved near my mom's farm in Clark Co. Close to seven miles of public water lines had to be put in for the development. The county paid for it, and charged each new homeowner a $3,000 hook-up fee, not enough to pay for the total cost.

I doubt if developers had to pay the true "full" cost of rural subdivisions, they wouldn't build them. This will become an issue in Oregon, and the Oregon Home Builders Association along with property rights activists will come up with some yahoo meme that makes it sound like they are taking on the full cost of large rural developments.

Chris McMullen said:

It's time for urbanists to keep their noses out of rural areas' business.

For every tax dollar that an urbanist pays to the state of Oregon, that urbanist only gets .80 cents back in services. The other .20 cents goes to services that help keep rural communties functioning. Perhaps if urbanists keep their noses out of rural areas, they should get their .20 cents back in services. It certainly would solve Portland's school funding problems.

Chris, Do you grow all your own fruits and vegetables? "What used to be 80 percent farmland is now a nearly uninterrupted urban center that stretches nearly 150 miles from north to south, and 30-50 miles from east-to-west."

So? What's your point? Why do you think farmland is inherently better than suburbs? Because it looks prettier?

Or is it that you like to have all fresh produce imported from out of state? And what about meat and eggs? Where should livestock farms be? Or maybe you eat only fish?

Once paved over, the farmland is gone. If that is OK with you, fine. But those of us who enjoy local produce know that it isn't just that farmland looks prettier.

Or were you only being sarcastic?

So what exactly was the point of preventing Dorothy English from developing her 19 acres of property in the West Hills? Wouldn't developing that land reduce sprawl? After all, don't we want to increase infill? The way I see it, the land use laws got so stupid that the voters threw them out. That is exactly why I voted for M37 and why I'll keep voting for people who support it.

(joining thread a bit late)

Chris M- I don't think that you understand how our land use system works. Almost all land use law is applied and administered at the local (city/county) level. If you're referring to the statewide goals, then I think you might have a point. It has become past time to regionalize our "statewide" goals. What works Portland might not work so well in S Oregon/Eastern Oregon, and we should definately consider that.

And let me just be absolutely 100% clear. MEASURE 37 IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT DIDIVDES URBAN/RURAL!!!! HELLO!!!! Some of the strongest opponents of M37 were farmers, ranchers, vitners, orchardists. He11, the largest contributor to the Take Another Look Committee (No on 37) at over $550,000 was a vitner. Another large contributor were the Farm Bureaus and Harry & David orchardists in S.Oregon. Farmers/ranchers/vitners/etc are rightfully concerned about residential/commercial development adjacent to their plots. Why? Have you ever been out to a farm/ranch/orchard/vinyard? They spray...not just irrigation, but more importantly: they spray herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides. Perhaps now the orcharists/vitners/etc will be liable for health problems in the subdivision that just cropped up next door? How does that fit into "Government shall pay..."

Finally, it's not about preserving "pretty" land. That's rediculous and fantastical to suggest. It's about being good stewards of Oregon's most valuable assets, its forests and its farmland. And it's about the economy stupid. It's about jobs. It's about economic vitality. It's about Oregon's future. My prediction (if a comprehensive reform package doesn't come out of the next session): what you saw happen to Oregon jobs and families during the timber crises in the 90s will not even come close to the devestation our state and economy will suffer...10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road due to Measure 37.

JTT - Interesting notes... but I would love to hear your reasoning behind this statement - "what you saw happen to Oregon jobs and families during the timber crises in the 90s will not even come close to the devestation our state and economy will suffer...10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road due to Measure 37"

How does M37 kill jobs?

And your statement is pretty strong - I don't have the numbers that show the loss of timber jobs in the 90s, but didn't logging drop by around 60%? If so, that's a LOT of jobs that M37 would have to kill to make your statement true...

JTT-

You forgot to mention Willamette Valley Vineyards, one of Oregon's largest. The founder of WVV, Jim Bernau, has made it quite clear in interviews with the Oregonian that M37 is bad policy. Bernau was one of Oregon's first pioneering vitners and has played a crucial role in putting Oregon on the wine world map, thus helping helping establish a multi-million dollar industry in the state.

"Or were you only being sarcastic?"

Not at all. Colorado is bordered by three huge agricultural states; Texas, Kansas and Nebraska. I seriously doubt Coloradans will run out of food. Same with Oregon. There's plenty of farmland here -- however, farmland is merely a guise urbanists like to hide behind.

The minor dry-up of farmland in the region is due to market forces outside the state and country. Price compression from competition are forcing farmers to sell. It's not because evil suburbs are encroaching on their land. However, agriculture is still a huge industry in �Oregon and always will be.

No, smart-growthers generally just don't like the suburban way of life. And, I'll admit, there are vapid, materialistic, SUV-driving, suburbanites who make my skin crawl. However, they have as much right to choose how and where they live as the next guy.

Informed by an understanding of Peak Oil, building more suburbs is clearly an economic mistake. This is not fringe thinking.

Many of the folks who seek to destroy landuse planning reflexively disregard Peak Oil, as they disregard Global Warming. Discussion of M37 with such folks is a waste of bandwidth.

I forgot to mention a big congrats to Jim Huffman. Dean Huffman is a heck of a nice guy, a great Dean and was one of my favorite profs during law school. Congrats on the big slam dunk win in front of the Supremes.

Actually, I am one of those rural urbanists, as I live in Yamhill County. Our county commission is dominated by two extremely right wing commissioners, one of whom, Kathy George, is the mother of one of the leaders of M37. As soon as Measure 37 passed, this commission began rubber stamping M37 claims. After looking at the maps and descriptions printed in the local papers, I could see that many of these claims are going to stick large housing developments in the middle of prime vinyard land. It's not at all clear that these developments will be "affordable"--they may just as easily be large clumps of McMansions.

The wine industry is one of the few legal enterprises in Oregon that is showing strong growth and profits. That growth is going to be stymied by these housing developments, not only in lack of access to more land for vinyards, but also in the inevitable conflicts that occur when tract housing abuts farmland.

I suspect the pendulum will swing the other way in a few years as people see the results of rampant development. I only hope that the wine industry survives until it does.

1000 Friends needs to mount an initiative campaign to state a positive case for the goals of land use planning for community rights.

"A sound land use policy would put regulatory powers back in the hands of local jurisdictions. Portland bureaucrats and special interests shouldn't decide what's good for Amity. Amity should decide what's good for Amity."

As far as I know, Measure 37 doesn't increase local control. It applies to people in Amity as well as everywhere else in Oregon. They can decide whether to enforce their regulations or pay people who want to develop their land the difference in value. My guess is that for small communities like Amity with limited resources the actual choices will be few. They simply aren't going to be able to afford to buy out the development rights on any large new development.

As I understand it, the local decision to not enforce can be overturned by any level of government who has to waive its regulations. So in some cases its likely local governments like Amity are going to be going hat in hand to county and state governments to try to get them to uphold state regulations even where they have waived the local requirements. That doesn't really sound like Amity deciding what is best for Amity.

Not at all. Colorado is bordered by three huge agricultural states; Texas, Kansas and Nebraska. I seriously doubt Coloradans will run out of food. Same with Oregon. There's plenty of farmland here -- however, farmland is merely a guise urbanists like to hide behind.

Chris, do you by any chance know if there are more Coloradans / Colorado companies moving to Oregon, or more Oregonians / Oregon companies moving to Colorado?

I have been to Denver for a college graduation and then a year later for a wedding of a relative. Sure seemed like sprawl to me. Seems like I heard somewhere some companies got tired of the sprawl, long commuting distances, etc. and began to look at Oregon--but don't remember where or how long ago I heard that.

"That growth is going to be stymied by these housing developments, not only in lack of access to more land for vinyards, but also in the inevitable conflicts that occur when tract housing abuts farmland."

What a crock.

You know, I voted for Measure 37. But after some time traveling in the LA area, Bakersfield and Fresno areas, I am proud of Oregon for going against the grain and controlling growth. California still does not get it. They are still sucking up land for the rich folks who can afford the 500K houses. You can still get good housing under 200K here in Portland and Vancouver. Besides, condos are going up left and right which actually promote affordable housing.

Sorry, I don't want sprawl. Sprawl is bad. However, I still think m37 is good.

blue wrote:

"Many of the folks who seek to destroy landuse planning reflexively disregard Peak Oil, as they disregard Global Warming. Discussion of M37 with such folks is a waste of bandwidth.

Good point, Tom. Thanks for the reminder."

And discussing individual rights; personal responsibility; and moral values with those who psot comments like yours is an even bigger waste bandwidth.

"Not at all. Colorado is bordered by three huge agricultural states; Texas, Kansas and Nebraska. I seriously doubt Coloradans will run out of food. Same with Oregon. There's plenty of farmland here -- "

Yea there is plenty of farmland here--now. Wait until m37 takes its toll and you'll be singing a different tune.

If you think Oregon has sprawl, you must not have travelled to other parts of the country.

As for the arguments that Oregon's land use planning drives up housing costs.. Portland, despite 30 years of strict land use and UGB policies, remains the cheapest metro area on the west coast to live.

"Now, a study by the National Association of Homebuilders, a group that fears Smart Growth, shows that Portland’s prices are actually lagging behind most of the rest of the hyper-inflationary West Coast. The study confirms that the affordable housing problem is national, has little to do with enlightened land use policies, and much to do with lagging wages and an overheated high-end housing market, a combo that pinches low- and middle-income families. http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16953"

Larry,

If I'd bought a new '69 Corvette and learned to drive on the freeway at 80 mph, should I have to live by new speeding laws?

The only way Measure 37 claims amount to anything is when some people can do whatever they want with their property and the rest of us can't. If everyone did whatever they wanted with their property, there'd be very little incentive to own property -- you'd be constantly at war with your neighbors.

Once paved over, the farmland is gone. If that is OK with you, fine. But those of us who enjoy local produce know that it isn't just that farmland looks prettier.

People keeps crying about "farmland"...but then the same people took away the water from the farmers in the Klamath Basin (or applauded it), so they cant actually farm the land. So what exactly is the goal here? And I dont think I have seen local produce in a store around here in quite a long time.

Chris McMullen wrote:

No, smart-growthers generally just don't like the suburban way of life. And, I'll admit, there are vapid, materialistic, SUV-driving, suburbanites who make my skin crawl. However, they have as much right to choose how and where they live as the next guy.

Thanks for that cringing endorsement of my lifestyle! What's vapid and materialist about wanting to live in house with a back yard, or drive a car/SUV that may be larger (or less fuel efficient) than yours? Do I have to rely on Tri-Met to be a good progressive?

My home/work commute is 4.4 miles. It takes about 9 minutes if I hit all the lights, door to door. Or 45 minutes by bus (assuming the bus is on schedule, including my walking time to the bus). 9 minutes vs. 45 minutes: which would you choose? And nobody asks me for spare change when I'm leaving my car.

I'm more concerned about "Peak Revenue" (Portlanders that are disgusted by new tax initiatives) than I am about Peak Oil. Internal combustion engines (and hybrids) will get more efficient, and may eventually be replaced by something cleaner (electric, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, ethanol).

If you're waiting to dance on the grave of personal automobile ownership, you are going to be very disappointed.

Whoa, hold up there Alice! I'm on you side.

I live in a Beaverton suburb and I love it. I have an eight mile commute (not into Portland), quick access to major arterials and am within walking distance to grocery stores, restaurants and dry cleaners. My neighborhood enjoys low crime, is clean and everyone owns a car. House values have skyrocketed.

However, there are those who's lifestyle bugs me, on both sides of the spectrum.

And I totally agree with your assessment of the automobile.

If everyone did whatever they wanted with their property, there'd be very little incentive to own property -- you'd be constantly at war with your neighbors.

I see it exactly the opposite. Whats the point of owning property if you are constantly being told you can't do anything with it?

"You cant build a house on it, and you can't have any water to farm it..."

Chris Mc.,

You may be surprised to learn that Oregon is the only state in the nation that has had an increase in the number of family farms since the early 70s. All other 49 states have lost family farms. Oregon's unique land use planning system has made this possible:

Buried in dry data spreadsheets cranked out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture lies a dramatic tale: At a time when small farmers are dying out across America, the number of farmers in Oregon is on the rise. The latest USDA "agriculture census" showed the number of full-time farmers in Oregon increasing more than 55 percent from 13,884 in 1974 to 21,580 in 2002, the last year the USDA surveyed.

This is a consistent revenue stream for Oregon. Once the state becomes like the other 49, where family farms disappear, we will no longer have that revenue stream. When a subdivision is built on farmland the building of that subdivision is a temporary economic income stream. Once it's built, that land can no longer generate an industry.

I think LM's example (corvette) is right on target.

After all, there are coal mines back east that have been around since before child labor laws... why should they be subject to new-fangled profit-cutting labor laws?

If a pharmaceutical company pre-dates the FDA, can they just sell tic-tacs and snake oil and label it as a wonder drug?

I'm sure there are some farms in Dixie that have been operating since before the 1860's...

Sorry Chris:

My mistake. I mistook you for one of them when the word "vapid" and "suburbanite" appeared in the same sentence.

Lots of liberals and progressives live in the suburbs. Washington County voted for Dems in the last election at every level from the state legislature to John Kerry. Many of my closest progressive/liberal friends live in places like Lake Oswego, Beaverton and Hillsboro. But they have chosen not to drive SUV's because they understand that the more oil we consume the bigger our problems become, such as global warming and more petro dollars flowing into countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran (although the US does not buy direct from Iran, Iran's oil is part of the global market.) Last night on Frontline a journalist who spent extensive time with the insurgents in Iraq talked about how much money was flowing into the insurgency campaign. He noted that when the money began flowing in, it just so happened to be coming in with Saudi citizens who are assisting the insurgency. He said the amount of money flowing in was insane. And where do you think that money comes from? I don't think it is any coincidence that Saudi Arabia happens to be America's largest oil supplier.

So, the question is, are we really supporting our troops when we purchase a vehicle that only gets 11 - 13 mpg? Who supports the troops more, a guy who deliberately takes MAX to work every day in order to play his part in decreasing demand for oil (albeit hardly a drop in the bucket, but if everyone did it, imagine...) or the guy who buys a Hummer because it proves to the world that he's American and no one messes with America.

In a nutshell, petro dollars fund terrorist networks and the Iranian nuclear program. My liberal suburbanite friends understand that.

Do I have to rely on Tri-Met to be a good progressive?

Yes. You do have to actually walk the walk.

"What's vapid and materialist about wanting to live in house with a back yard, or drive a car/SUV that may be larger (or less fuel efficient) than yours?"

What isn't vapid and materialistic about a large car and a large backyard? You will have to explain the deep and spiritual meaning they have. Ot look up the meaning of materialistic and explain how a car and private yard don't fit the definition.

"My home/work commute is 4.4 miles. It takes about 9 minutes if I hit all the lights, door to door. Or 45 minutes by bus (assuming the bus is on schedule, including my walking time to the bus). 9 minutes vs. 45 minutes: which would you choose?"

To take the bus. Its better for the environment, the walk will do you good and you will save a lot or money. You can read a book or listen to music instead of talking on the phone. Or you can continue selfishly driving your car, polluting the air, making it unsafe for kids to cross the street or walk to school and creating traffic congestion. You are responsible for your choices.

If you're waiting to dance on the grave of personal automobile ownership, you are going to be very disappointed.

I'm not actually. I like owning a car. They are useful.

What I don't like is people using them unnecessarily and irresponsibly. And I don't like the idea that I have to approve of it when they do, just because they have some sense of liberal entitlement to do whatever they feel like. And I especially don't like them complaining about the congestion they are creating as if they weren't responsible for it. Or ignoring the fact that their use of a car necessarily involves inconvenience for a lot of other people.

Ross Williams wrote:

"To take the bus. Its better for the environment, the walk will do you good and you will save a lot or money. You can read a book or listen to music instead of talking on the phone. Or you can continue selfishly driving your car, polluting the air, making it unsafe for kids to cross the street or walk to school and creating traffic congestion. You are responsible for your choices."

Oh, so I am supposed to waste 1.5 hours of my day (7.5 hours/week or 390 hours/year that is 16.25 days) just to be unselfish in your view?

Who is being selfish now? Again and on an even more micromanaging scale "progessives" want to run my life. You tell me what I am supposed to do w/ my own property, that I paid for; then you tell me I must give up my own time, that I can't get back; next you're going to tell me what food I can eat, what kind of health care I can get and what kind of office products I can use (recycled only) - oh wait that already happens.

As long as I am ranting, let me go after a few other posts above. Allow me to ask the question - why when people vote in a majority way for an initiative (Measures 26 and 37) or a candidate (Pres. Bush that progressives disprove of they either didn't have all the facts or if thhy did, they are just stupid?

Who is being arrogant now?

Oh, so I am supposed to waste 1.5 hours of my day (7.5 hours/week or 390 hours/year that is 16.25 days) just to be unselfish in your view?

No, you are supposed to understand what selfishness is. That was your parents job. My views are irrelevant.

Who is being selfish now?

You are. At least if you are driving your car because you don't want to "waste" 1.5 hours of your day. You don't care what happens to the people who live and work between you and your meal-ticket. If you pollute their air, endanger their kids and congest their streets - that's their problem. If it saves you time, tough for them.

You tell me what I am supposed to do w/ my own property,

And you tell me what to do with mine. Last I looked we all have to obey the same laws. How quickly would you get to work if we took away your right-of-way and just made you drive safely to mix with pedestrians? The bus is faster.

Conservatives are constantly passing laws to make people behave the way they want them to and then complaining whenever anyone suggests perhaps they should act like polite adults instead of spoiled children who keep screaming mine! mine! mine! The mere suggestion that they are being selfish is an outrageous imposition on their psyches.

Hello TED K and Mayor Tom potter are net friends of the vets nor do they care about the will of the peoples votes only when it helps them to get re elected to keep their seats in a Governor race TED K has very much ties with Mayor Tom potter we voted on measure 37 that should have been given to us when we voted on it not now during an election year.Portland pge crisis will not get solved unless we have Senator Jason Atkinson for G overnor of oregon County takes Portland's spot on terrorism task force

12:42 PM PDT on Friday, July 1, 2005

By kgw.com and AP Staff

The two Portland police officers recently removed from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force were replaced Friday by a deputy from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Bernie Giusto and the FBI announced.

KGW

A sergeant from Giusto's office is being pulled from traffic duty and will work with the anti-terror team, reporting directly to task force offices each day. The sergeant, after a federal background check, will get a top-secret security clearance.

"I decided this was the right thing for the safety of this county, this state and this nation," Giusto said, "and we'll give up something else to provide this service and I think it serves the interest of this country."

The sheriff met with Robert Jordan, the FBI's special agent in charge for Oregon, after the Portland City Council voted two months ago to become the first community in the nation to end its involvement in the JTTF.

Mayor Tom Potter pushed for the withdrawl after the FBI refused to give him the top-secret security clearance he said he needed for full oversight of the officers assigned to the task force. Critics said the task forces have been used to spy on people, as in a Fresno, Calif. case in which a local deputy went undercover to infiltrate an anti-war group.

The local call for oversight grew stronger after the FBI wrongfully arrested Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield as a suspect in the Madrid, Spain train bombings last year -- a mistake that prompted an FBI apology.

The Portland officers removed from the task force kept their top-secret security clearances in case they're needed to respond to a terrorist attack, but city investigators will no longer do broader anti-terrorism work.

The FBI operates Joint Terrorism Task Forces in about 100 cities. The cooperative efforts between local, state and federal authorities investigate and guard against attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed Freedom of Information Act requests in 10 states, including Oregon, to discover whether the task forces are obeying laws.