Kulongoski's M37 Proposal
Jeff Alworth
Yesterday, Governor Kulongoski announced a proposal that would put the brakes on Measure 37 for five months with one important exception:
Under changes proposed Monday, claims that seek to build a single house could continue on. All others would have to wait....
"Neighbors are suing neighbors, and this is going to go on for some time. And what we have proposed is an opportunity to have time-out, and keep what we believe was the primary objective of Measure 37, which is for individual property owners to build a home on their property, when they could have built it at the time they acquired the property."
Backers of Measure 37 and a number of Republicans were unsurprisingly critical of the plan, for it prevents vast development on a half million acres. (Only 15% of the 7,000 Measure 37 applications are for single, rural homes.) But M37 foes may not be delighted by this plan, either. 1000 Friends of Oregon calls it "a good first step," but this plan does nothing to untangle the competing interests with a stake in the law.
Your thoughts?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 6, '07
A disaster. The Democrats prove once again that they don't have the cajones to do real M37 reform. Or, as Kate Brown has demonstrated, they just don't care.
By allowing 1 house development W/ transfer rights, they give away their best bargaining chip. They then "put on hold" additional claims until June, when those claims will once again be active. So, in June, what will they offer up? They have already given away transfer rights and single house development.
Also, pretty lame of the Dems to backpeddle on the minority report... they should stand up to Larry George's whining.
Feb 6, '07
Forget suspending the claims. Cancel them outright. Everyone gets a home, end of story.
Isn't this why we elected these folks? To keep Oregon a place we recognize, instead of an unending mess of landslides and subdivisions and unplanned sprawl over our farm and forestland?
Don't be gutless, legislature. Pass this plan now, before it's too late.
Feb 6, '07
One gets the sense that the Dems in charge of this really aren't very strategic. Wouldn't it be far better to float an initial proposal that was far more aggressive in scaling back M37. And then compromise to something that was initially desired?
Instead, they give away single house development, give away transfer rights, and then "put on hold" considering additional claims until June (when the clock will start ticking right away). They then say they will hold hearings so as to insert additional elements to make this more bipartisan.
Man, these Dems are turning out to be a pretty bad crop!
Feb 6, '07
One gets the sense that the Dems in charge of this really aren't very strategic.
An alternative interpretation is that they are being very canny indeed, thinking that any effort to radically scale back M37 would produce a big backlash and restore a GOP majority in 2 years.
Measure 37 passed with a big majority, not including my vote or that of anyone else who has posted above, but well, democracy isn't tidy, is it? And we don't always get the outcome we want.
12:06 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
The Leg has not given away transferability wholesale; only on single-family residences. That makes sense, and always has. But the law of the land currently is that no transfer applies otherwise unless the legislature makes it so. Jackson County is unlikely to appeal that ruling, I've been told.
I don't agree it's the Dems' best bargaining chip; it's the part of M37 that most people would like to see protected. It's really the GOP's best chip; once granted that provision, little else of M37 would have popular support.
12:19 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
I considered hazarding an uninformed opinion in the text of the post--it seemed like a rather half-hearted effort to me, too. But as Lin Qiao suggests, the Guv's divide-the-baby approach did actually seem pretty in line with what people thought they were approving.
I am also a little leery of assessing the motivation of the Senate and House Dems before we hear from them. This is the first salvo. Let's see what happens next.
Feb 6, '07
Yes, they granted the part that most people wanted to see protected. But, it would have been far better if they had granted this aspect WHILE at the same time removing the most egregious aspects permanently. It seems silly to grant this while not addressing the other egregious aspects. To leave those for June ensures yet another noxious "debate" and "bipartisanship" whereby even more is given away then needs to be.
1:27 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
lin qiao:
Your point about Measure 37 being passed by a 61% margin is certainly important to keep in mind.
However, the case has been made repeatedly in the media, over the last six months or so, that voters - like Ted Schroeder, for instance - did not properly anticipate the effects of Measure 37, and now regret their decision.
Furthermore, Oregonian In Action's Dave Hunnicutt has recently acknowledged that Measure 37 may not be the best way to address the underlying concerns that led to its passage.
Finally, big money attempted to pass M37 clones in six western states last fall. They succeeded only in Arizona, where proponents successfully steered the debate toward the less-controversial, Measure 39-like eminent domain provisions of the measure. The tendency of other states to reject similar initiatives, having Oregon's experience to consider, should tell us something as well.
I concur with Peter Bray - this proposal does not go far enough. Suspension till June does not give enough time for voters to weigh in again, and it also doesn't appear to have bought any movement toward consensus in the House land use committee.
I think it's probably up to the people, not the governor or the legislature, to lead the way toward a suitable compromise. In this highly-charged environment, we have to make the case that a middle ground is attainable.
Feb 6, '07
Having a "time out" sounds very legislative. Kind of like what we did when our 3 year old daughter had a tantrum.
A number of us have been concerned over the complete failure of state and national Democrats to actually accomplish anything progressive so far. There has been plenty of talking and a few meaningless gestures (the US House Dems 100 hour program comes to mind) but no actual progressive legislation. On the federal level this can be explained by the fact that the President is Republican, but I don't understand why this is also true at the state level, where the Dems control both houses and the governor's office.
I think I may have found the explanation, as I just came across a copy of the secret Oregon Democratic Party strategic plan for the next 40 years, which reads in relevant part as follows:
2007 Legislative Action Plan: Do nothing to upset anyone so we can get re-elected in 2008.
2009 Legislative Action Plan: Do nothing to upset anyone so we can get re-elected in 2010
2011 Legislative Action Plan: Do nothing to upset anyone so we can get re-elected in 2012.
2013 Legislative Action Plan: Do nothing to upset anyone so we can get re-elected in 2014.
There are 16 more pages in the secret plan, but I think you get the idea.
Feb 6, '07
How very interesting. The Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature said that partisanship that undermined collaboration was diminishing the credibility of the Legislature and discouraging thoughtful individuals from serving. They recommended meaningfully engaging minority party members in resolving complex policy questions. Democrats across the state decried the bad behavior of the Republicans, shutting them out, holding secret meetings, and manipulating the process to advance their own agenda.
The Committee on Land Use Fairness was supposed to "sort out what voters intended when they passed Measure 37." It seems the Democrats on the committee have already decided what they think voters intended before even holding a public hearing. Chair Prozanski in particular seems to be basing his views on anecdotal evidence - conversations he has had with some people in his district. Yet back during the primary, he told the League of Women Voters, "Now that the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the measure is constitutional, the legislature needs to pass implementation language." He had specifically been asked whether legislative action related to Measure 37 should occur. He did not tell the voters he intended to gut the measure.
Sen. George, the Vice-Chair of the Committee, was completely shut out of the drafting process for SB 505, which would suspend Measure 37 until it can be gutted. He, like the rest of us, was taken by surprise. The last we had heard was that the Democrats had decided to allow the Republicans to propose substitute versions of legislation on Measure 37.
Some of us out here hate the dirty dealings no matter who is involved in them. I am particularly annoyed that Democrats are putting their own desires above those of the voters, resorting to the sort of clandestine, partisan activities that they decried when the Republicans we threw out were still in power.
Every day that goes by increases the losses of Oregonians who have suffered a regulatory taking. If the voters eventually overturn the partisan, extreme sort of changes the Governor and the Democrats seem to be considering, it will cost this state a lot more in compensation if local governments decide to buy any of the claims out. Even worse, it will leave the voters with absolutely noone they can trust. Both parties will have proven they are all about power and will do whatever it takes to get their way.
2:46 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
Becky-- first of all, there's nothing untoward about not enabling a minority report from the Land Use Cmte. Sometimes that's been the rule, other times not for joint cmtes. The Republican Party has shown already this session that they are not yet ready to play nicely and work collaboratively (remember their BS bait and switch on gifts the first week?), so shed no tears for their reapage of what they have repeatedly sown in the past. However, like you I had heard the Dems were considering allowing a minority report, so it's not clear to me what your complaint is there.
I'm also curious what steps you have been made privy to that will "gut" M37. On what basis--bills, amendments, public statements--do you make that claim?
I'm also not sure of the point you're trying to make regarding Larry George and 505. Why would the Governor ask for George's input? It's his bill. How could George have possibly been "taken by surprise?" Was he on vacation when claims flooded the counties in December and they begged for help in giving them proper attention?
And I have to say I find it amazingly ironic that you'd claim Democrats are superordinating "their own desires...," when three Republican legislators with claims of their own or their parents ARE ON THE LAND USE COMMITTEE. Talk about having your own desires front and center! This accusation rings especially hollow to me, considering you took Carla and I to task for suggesting that having a family claim and directly legislating on M37 is a major conflict of interest. You asserted that we called their purposes nefarious almost by their nature, which we did not--we merely said they were worth watching closely. You wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, which is fine as far as that goes, but why exactly do the Democrats --from whom we've found not a single M37 claim yet--not get the same benefit in your mind?
Feb 6, '07
I find it interesting that both sides are unhappy about this. Also interesting was the story in the "O" about how the Portland area is talking about expanding thousands of acres, with tens of thousands of people, roads, sewer and the works, into prime farmland and we don't here a peep from anyone. It seems this action alone is equal to every damn M37 case in the State.
Feb 6, '07
Wow, this is proof that compromise is impossible on this issue. The Oregonians in Action gang, epitomized by Larry George, isn't going to be happy unless it's implemented fully with transferable rights. That's not what the voterw wanted.
And the land use zealots, led by 1000 Friends of Oregon and the first few posters on this thread, aren't going to be happy unless the whole thing is canned. That's not what the voters wanted either.
Forget the negotiations - to negotiate, you have to have parties who don't want to sabotage the negotiations, and here we have two extremes that want to do just that.
The Governor's proposal is quite reasonable. It gives the clear beneficiaries of M37 their due, and leaves the rest for the legislature to figure out. And the legislature should just figure out what it wants to do and not listen to the zealots on both sides.
Feb 6, '07
Also interesting was the story in the "O" about how the Portland area is talking about expanding thousands of acres, with tens of thousands of people, roads, sewer and the works, into prime farmland and we don't here a peep from anyone. It seems this action alone is equal to every damn M37 case in the State.
Not so. The problem with Measure 37 is that it leads to fragmented development... so that agricultural or environmentally important lands are dotted with subdivisions or McMansions. This results in even more land impacted than just the actual land that has the house, as surrounding land is fragmented from its core value (agricultre, environment, etc.)
3:40 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
Do we really know what the voters wanted? Listening to this conversation, everyone's pretty deferential toward (or dismissive of) the voters. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the voters didn't know what they wanted. During polls leading up to the election, the numbers in favor of M37 were dropping like a stone once people knew what it actually did. By the time of the election, more people were against it than for it. Of course, with vote by mail, this shift wasn't captured.
I'd be more interested in knowing who'd vote for it now.
Becky, I think you're misconstruing a lot of things here--Torrid captures them nicely--and I'm especially interested that you let slip with the "regulatory takings" comment. That doesn't seem like the language of a disinterested bystander miffed that the Dems are jackbooting the process.
Feb 6, '07
Do we really know what the voters wanted?
No! (At least not when it comes to Measure 37.) Oregon's system is flawed with its reliance on the initiative system. Oregon voters should not be deciding complex legislative issues: that's for the legislature, and that's why we elect them!
Next, will Oregon voter's be asked to decide if, say, all cantilever bridges in Oregon should be required to use anchor arms and double cantilevers, as opposed to simple suspended spans? And what about pinned joints and mixed load weight bearing requirements? Can we have that in front of us via referendum?
What we DO know is that Oregon elected Democrats ACROSS the board. And Democrats are conservation minded as opposed to red-in-the-face GOPers. So, Oregon voters elected Democrats as a means to fix Measure 37.
Feb 6, '07
Peter
Not everyone with a measure 37 claim wants McMansions or subdivisions. And come to think of it, I can't think of anyone who has actually built a house with a Measure 37 Claim. Most out there are just like my family, we received one building lot back, out of the 2 that we lost in 2003, with our M37 claim, but have not built anything yet. The lot is on 70 acres, yeah one lot on 70 acres that was zoned 2 lots for 10+ years.
The sky is not falling, many people have and do take care of the land they own. But in the case of Measure 37 and the way it was before, there is only one strict interpretation for everyone.
Measure 37 needs to be changed, but nowhere near anything you are squeaking about, or anything even close to what Oregonians in Action is pushing.
Feb 6, '07
Peter
Not everyone with a measure 37 claim wants McMansions or subdivisions. And come to think of it, I can't think of anyone who has actually built a house with a Measure 37 Claim. Most out there are just like my family, we received one building lot back, out of the 2 that we lost in 2003, with our M37 claim, but have not built anything yet. The lot is on 70 acres, yeah one lot on 70 acres that was zoned 2 lots for 10+ years.
The sky is not falling, many people have and do take care of the land they own. But in the case of Measure 37 and the way it was before, there is only one strict interpretation for everyone.
Measure 37 needs to be changed, but nowhere near anything you are squeaking about, or anything even close to what Oregonians in Action is pushing.
4:22 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
Torrid, I asked dissenters on my blog several different times to name me the policy committees (excluding ways and means) in the past that did not allow minority reports. Especially during the time that Republicans were in control.
I did name a few policy committees that I knew of in which the Republicans did indeed allow minority reports. So if you have a list of those joint policy committees then please list them. I also asked some folks in the legislature to produce them for me and thus far.... none.
Also you ask "How could George have possibly been "taken by surprise?" The simple answer is that Chair Prozanski did not share the bill.
However I don't think that is really what you are asking. So more to the point. I had an anonymous commenter drop the message that legislation like this was coming out this week. I found that interesting so I called someone I knew on the committee. That someone was Sen. George (Larry).
He told me he asked Chair Prozanski if a bill existed. He was told that it did. Sen. George told me he asked if he could see it and the response was that he would see it when everyone else got to see it.
I then found out today that Sen. George, a member of the committee, got his copy from a member of the press.
So I guess that Chair Prozanski did at least keep one promise.
Now to the rest of your concerns. They seem to be based more on your own conspiratorial starting point and considering the two strikes I just mentioned above should be taken with about as much authority as... well...
Feb 6, '07
Oregon voters should not be deciding complex legal issues? Holy crap batman, speak for yourself. I believe the voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and my proof is the 61% figure. If you have data that says otherwise, please post it up. The truth is that NOTHING has happened yet, the sky has not fallen. What 37 opponents mean to say is that they LIKE the type of development that crams a billion folks inside the UGB and dont like the type you get with actual private property rights. Like somehow the 5000 sqft lots going in near my house in a school district that is already full is better than the 1 acre lots my folks applied for. The smokescreen of trasferability is still not totally decided either, but it will take a Oregon Supreme Court to put to rest that one. Measure 37 property would be the first in history to NOT have zoning changes transfer with the sale. I agree, since you dems have the numbers, why not take the responsibility like Peter says, I mean, you have a MANDATE for everything you think we need. So make the decisions, cast the votes, and we'll all see how it goes. Right, different story now that your boys will be held acountable and you cant sit on the sideline and whine. So, come on dems, let's cut off that money to Iraq, can 37 (that's honestly what you want), and get the PERS pensions to 200% of base pay!!!!!! Wooooohooooooo!!!!!
4:26 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
As for the rest of the concerns about what the voters wanted.
Well we could say that we know pretty well what the voters wanted in that the same basic measure passed Oregon voters twice.
The same Oregon voters who elected a majority of Democrats who said they would bring the most open legislative process in generations.
So were the Oregon voters wrong about electing the Democrat majority?
Can't have one without the other.
4:31 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
Coyote--if you want to know which joint cmtes did and did not allow minority reports, ask OIA Legal Director Ross Day; he's who told me. But I'll name one for you right now: the Joint Land Use Committee.
Why should Prozanski share a bill that is not his? It's the Governor's bill, Ted. But that's not what I'm talking about. I was asking how George could be surprised that a suspension measure was coming, given that counties have been asking the legislature for one since last fall. Washington County sent the Leg their own letter begging for a delay on January 25th. For him not to realize that a plan was being drafted to suspend pending claims while the legislation was reviewed, suggests he's not paying enough attentiion.
Really, this is just a bunch of pissing and moaning about nothing. The bill is presented, it will be debated, then voted on in committee, then voted on in the chamber. And there probably will even be a minority report on it. Where's the secrecy?
Feb 6, '07
Sorry Torrid, but I got this link from YOUR website. It lists Proz as the head sponsor.
4:49 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
I've been out of the loop for a long time since I am living outside the US. Not sure how I feel about the current proposals, but I think something should be done. It sounds to me like there have been a lot more problems with Measure 37 then the authors intended. They should step up and help come up with solutions rather then advocate doing nothing.
Feb 6, '07
Jeff Alworth's comments about M37 going south in pre-election opinion polls, but still passing because "with vote by mail, this shift wasn't captured", is perhaps unintentionally an interesting criticism of vote by mail.
Does anyone recall another controversial initiative that passed and then garnering widespread criticism that the voters didn't know what they had voted on, or didn't know what they wanted? It's called the Death With Dignity Act. And of course we in essence voted on it a second time, and it passed again. Might that indicate something about voters' comprehension and intentions? Anecdotal, of course, but worth thinking about. And it leads to this suggestion: the legislature can refer a "revote" to the ballot.
The main thing I know is: treating voters with contempt, as incapable of making intelligent decisions, is neither generous in spirit or a politically winning approach.
Feb 6, '07
Jeff Alworth's comments about M37 going south in pre-election opinion polls, but still passing because "with vote by mail, this shift wasn't captured", is perhaps unintentionally an interesting criticism of vote by mail.
Does anyone recall another controversial initiative that passed and then garnering widespread criticism that the voters didn't know what they had voted on, or didn't know what they wanted? It's called the Death With Dignity Act. And of course we in essence voted on it a second time, and it passed again. Might that indicate something about voters' comprehension and intentions? Anecdotal, of course, but worth thinking about. And it leads to this suggestion: the legislature can refer a "revote" to the ballot.
The main thing I know is: treating voters with contempt, as incapable of making intelligent decisions, is neither generous in spirit or a politically winning approach.
4:52 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
"I believe the voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and my proof is the 61% figure. If you have data that says otherwise, please post it up."
Two years after voting for it with 61%, two-thirds would now vote NO.
And don't buy the "push poll" BS; GQR is a well respected scientific outfit, and there's no evidence that push questions were asked prior to the ballot question. In fact, the primary accuser of "push polling," in an article published in Reason magazine, slips up and quotes back text from the poll's executive summary that clearly indicates the "push" questions were asked AFTER the ballot test.
Throw in Senator Metsger's own polling of his heavy-pro-37 district, in which opposition mirrors the results from GQR, and I don't think there's any doubt that M37 would no longer pass.
The more people know about M37, the less they like it.
Feb 6, '07
The bottom line of SB 505 is that property rightists will have MORE rights than under Measure 37.
Property rights benefit #1. There will be a "fast track" to bypass pesky requirements under M37 for single family developments. You just have to file a county waiver, and, boom, you have the right to build... you don't have to go through county approval, etc, for the waiver.
Property rights benefit #2. Such developments will be transferable. ("If a claimant is an individual, the right to prosecute the claimant's written demand and any rights to use private real property provided by waiver: 2) Pass to the person who acquires the private real property by devise or by operation of law.")
So why the stress from the GOPers? Clearly the Dems have caved into their demands and given them MORE and taken away NOTHING except for a few month holding period.
Great.
This bill sucks. The Democrats should grow spines and truly offer progressive reform of M37.
4:52 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
As for the rest of the concerns about what the voters wanted...
So were the Oregon voters wrong about electing the Democrat majority?
You nimbly dodged the evidence I supplied to suggest that they didn't actually want M37 by the time of the election. Personally, I'd love to see that sucker go right back on the ballot as is. It wouldn't get 40%.
However, as to your larger query--it's specious. Electing a candidate is a different matter than voting on a complex issue. Many who are strongly populist despise the current initiative system because it exploits political ignorance of complex issues to thwart the good of the many for the benefit of the wealthy--precisely the opposite of what it intended.
4:53 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
Sorry, that should be "the opposite of what initial sponsors of the initiative system wanted."
4:54 p.m.
Feb 6, '07
"Sorry Torrid, but I got this link from YOUR website. It lists Proz as the head sponsor."
Read the text of the bill itself. It says very clearly that the bill is at the request of the Governor. The Governor cannot introduce a bill in the Leg; a representative must do it for him or her.
And note that the announcement of the bill did not come from the Capitol, but Mahonia.
Feb 6, '07
Just curious: have any legislators actually called for referring M37 back to the voters for repeal? Why only talk about "reform"?
Feb 6, '07
Your "bottom line" is iffy at best.
Property rights benefit #1
Where in the Bill does it say anything about not going through a county approval process? How is this even possible? All of a sudden water, roads and sewer are no longer needed to get a building permit? You have got to be kidding me
Property rights benefit #2 is a valid point but how many houses are we talking about there? 15% of the claims are one lot. What is 15% of 6 or 7,000? 900 some odd houses?
BFD.
If these are the "bottom line", "bring out the big guns" sales pitches you are going to use to get your point across, I think it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Feb 6, '07
Where in the Bill does it say anything about not going through a county approval process? How is this even possible? All of a sudden water, roads and sewer are no longer needed to get a building permit? You have got to be kidding me
I mean, the claimant no longer has to go through a demand for compensation and then an up-to 180 day waiting period.
Feb 6, '07
The demonstration here is the Governor has no respect for the voters of Oregon unless he agrees with them. The same is true of many in the legislature. Measure 37 was written as a desperate attempt to reform and add some flexibility to Oregon’s overly ambitious and socially engineered land use laws. Allowing more time to process claims, and/or tweaking M37 then sending it to the voters are both acceptable. But suspending the law only demonstrates both arrogance and contempt on the part of the Governor.
12:22 a.m.
Feb 7, '07
And note that the announcement of the bill did not come from the Capitol, but Mahonia.
This is really beside the point, but when the Governor announces things, they come from the Capitol. No one works full-time at Mahonia Hall. It's really just a house.
Feb 7, '07
TJ –
first of all, there's nothing untoward about not enabling a minority report from the Land Use Cmte.
That's not my concern with it. My concern is that we were promised bi-partisanship and Prozanski wouldn't even let Larry George see the bill. The way it's looked to me – and I"ll admit I've been too busy to follow this as closely as I should – has been that two weeks ago the Ds weren't going to allow the Rs meaningful input, but got such a backlash that they relented and said last week they would allow them to introduce their own legislation. Then all of a sudden here comes a secret bill that the Rs can't see – not even the Vice-Chair of the committee. This is just the sort of behavior we're so tired of seeing. And I would say it is the sort of behavior that led to the country-wide ouster of Rs in November.
The Republican Party has shown already this session that they are not yet ready to play nicely and work collaboratively (remember their BS bait and switch on gifts the first week?), so shed no tears for their reapage of what they have repeatedly sown in the past.
I couldn't care less if the Rs feel they're not getting their due. What I care about is that the voters get their due. And when the majority of voters are being represented on an issue by a minority party, it's unnerving to see this go on.
I'm also curious what steps you have been made privy to that will "gut" M37. On what basis--bills, amendments, public statements--do you make that claim?
Based on the Governor's press release about the measure and on the 1000 Friends effort, which has a good deal of sway if you're going to be honest.
And I have to say I find it amazingly ironic that you'd claim Democrats are superordinating "their own desires...," when three Republican legislators with claims of their own or their parents ARE ON THE LAND USE COMMITTEE. Talk about having your own desires front and center!
You claim you have not implied that there are any nefarious purposes involved, and yet you make this statement – in the same paragraph? It's so obvious to me that I can't believe you don't see it. As I wrote when I "took you to task," Measure 37 did not originate with these people. We debated the whole issue of conflicts of interest. We can only guess why no Democrats have pending Measure 37 claims, but I could take a bit of a leap and say that perhaps the fact that they don't have personal experience with a regulatory taking is why they are tending to be less concerned about it. It's not an ox that has been gored for them.
Why don't I give Democrats the same benefit of the doubt as Republicans? That's just plain silly. Ask the Republicans whether they think I ever give them the benefit of the doubt. I just happen to know Larry George and I know that what you have been implying about him simply isn't in line with his character. Don't read anything more into it than that.
Jeff –
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point about the "slip" of the term "regulatory takings." That's what Measure 37 is about. Please tell me what I'm missing here.
Peter –
What we DO know is that Oregon elected Democrats ACROSS the board. And Democrats are conservation minded as opposed to red-in-the-face GOPers. So, Oregon voters elected Democrats as a means to fix Measure 37.
People in many cases voted against Republicans, not so much for Democrats, and fixing Measure 37 was not the reason why - it was corruption and disgusting partisan behavior. You're jumping to the illogical conclusion that Measure 37 was front and center in the voters' minds in November. I don't buy it.
Feb 8, '07