As long as we get it straight that 100% of Democrats are against the 61% of Oregon voters who passed it.

I wonder if our newspapers will be making this clear during the campaign process? Or ever?

Yes, 100% of the Democrats are for 100% of Oregon voters.

I can now have a sign in my yard that say "Protect Property Rights - Vote Yes"

What is there, Becky, in HB 3540 that you object to?

The formula for calculating diminished value is straight out of OIA's arguments a few years ago.

It allows residential construction.

It protects farm and forest land. It protects groundwater.

It provides fairness for neighbors by protecting their property rights.

It allows those who already have claims to proceed if the have a common law vested right.

As you so strongly argued elsewhere, the vast majority of claims are small. This Bill certainly doesn't conflict with that concept.

I wager it will draw at least 70% of the voters.

I was there for the debate. Minnis, Scott, and LIm represent districts in which there has been a lot of second thoughts about Measure 37.

This bill represents what Measure 37 should have been. this could be one of those campaigns in which all of the 2004 arguments end up co-opted by the supporters of HB 3540.

Right on Red Cloud !!!!!!!!

HB 3540B will send a new ballot measure to voters that will (if the ballot measure is approved) effectively repeal Measure 37!!

HB 3540B makes the following changes to Measure 37:

1. Every claimant who filed a claim will have to refile it, even if the claim has been approved! No matter how much time and money you've spent to follow all the laws and jump through all the Measure 37 hoops, you will have to refile.

2.All existing claims for commercial and industrial uses and in commercial and industrial zones will be automatically rejected!

3.A complicated scheme is used to replace Measure 37. Under this scheme, some Measure 37 claimants who refile their claims may qualify for up to three homes. But LCDC will decide what the claimant will get (if you get anything), not the local government.

4.There is a 25% threshold for new land use regulations. That means that for all new land use laws, state and local governments will be allowed to steal 25% of your property and you can't do anything about it! If you own commercial or industrial property, like a small business, state and local governments can pass new land use regulations that steal your entire property!

5.Metro land use regulations are exempted. That means that if you live in the Portland Metropolitan area, Metro, the area's regional government, can pass new land use laws that steal all of your property and you'll have no claim!

6.There is no time limit for LCDC to resolve refiled claims. It may take a year, two years, or ten years. LCDC says that you shouldn't worry about it, that they'll get claims resolved quickly. I would worry.

7.Anyone with an axe to grind can challenge the LCDC decision to approve your claim, for whatever reason they choose, and you have no right to attorney fees if you win. This complicated law will be a full employment act for environmental lawyers and the "friends" groups that have used the courts for years to steal your property!

I haven't seen anything in the news reports that states that non-residential claims are barred. I hope so - the claimants for billboards and gravel pits are the most outrageous ones filed.

I see a fly in this ointment though - I wonder if 1000 Friends and other environmental groups will oppose the measure as being still too lenient. They've been land use absolutists in the past.

And I can only hope that the "Big Look" is looking at a fair solution for rural lands that treats all property owners alike, without giving favor to the long-time owners.

But I'm not holding my breath.

www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

Becky From St. Johns:

I cannot find your fifth point even addressed in the Bill. Help me, here.

The threshold is 10%, not 25%.

In the special election, you will see the following groups:

1. Those who despise Measure 37 and all that it stands for, preferring the world prior to 37 and Seven.

2. Those who love Measure 37 and see no problem and that any meddling is a roll-back of the voters' will.

3. Those who voted against Measure 37, but see this as a workable compromise.

4. Those who voted for Measure 37, but find that the reality on the ground is not what they voted for.

5. Those who voted for Measure 37, but acknowledge that opponents have some valid point, and see this as a workable compromise.

Groups 1 & 2, so blinkered from the perspective of groups 3, 4, and 5, fall into the intransigent "strange bedfellows" category. Whatever are they to do? The cannot and will not work together. Group 1 will appeal to group 3, while group 2 attempts to corral groups four and five.

Groups three, four, and five have common ground and will work on groups one and two. That is, until they realize the intransigents are not critical to the outcome.

If you are one of the intransigents, you have marginalized yourself from the debate. Given the numbers, you are immaterial to the outcome.

I prefer Red Cloud's number 1.

Good greif torrid, By that standard the M37 oposition should be arrested for felony distortion. On every angle of M37 with a number of added angles nothing to do with the measure.

Today's O story finally lays to rest one of the many anti-M37 falsehoods by clarifying that in the election campaign M37 oppostion outspent M37 advocates by 3 to 1.

So that's one of many reasons to know not to place any credibility with the propagandist anti-M37 side. As with the other falsehoods anti-M-37 champions knew all along they outspent the M37 proponents. Including the hosts and many people here on Blue. But they were happy to contribute to and allow the misinformation to propegate. Just as they do with many distortions. And here we go again.

This Bill, if voter approved, will require every claimant to start all over and face any and every cooked up road block anyone can dream up. And they will.

If taking away 1000s of approvals isn't a "repeal" what is? And it's no so funny that torrid and the hardcore anti-M37 cabal try to be the ones to define what the "premise" of Measure 37 is or was.
The oppostion has proven to be dishonest over and over again. Displayed here on several threads with every fabricated M37 detriment demagogued to the fullest. As the proving ground for campaign material bloggers work to distribute the misinformation and feel good about their methods as the justified means to a worthy end.

But it's nothing new, have at it.

And congrats to you brave people. You avoided that bothersome task of gathering singatures and placing a measure on the ballot.

As someone over 60, I know that maybe 4 decades ago men often bought property without adding their wife's name to the deed. That's the way people thought back then.

I saw the House debate and one of 2 things are true. A) surviving widows whose husbands didn't put their names on the deed those decades ago inherited the property and have the same right to a Measure 37 claim their husband would have had while alive OR b) as with too many things involving widows who were married back in the days when such things weren't much thought of, when the husband died the widow inherited the property but under Measure 37's language became a "new owner" with an ownership date being the day the property was inherited.

If B is true, then 37 needs to be sent to voters to fix that problem with 37's language and how it treats widows of the generations when women's financial situation wasn't much thought about. If OIA has a problem with that, OIA should have been more careful in how they wrote their measure.

I do think Red Cloud's 5 groups are an excellent analysis of the situation.

Oh yeah William that's a goody. That's been one of the more disingenuous pitches from the M37 haters.
Take your two year long, one sided, anti-M37 blitz-pushed "Poll" and give it the same, or more, weight than an actual election. Gee whiz the polls are almost the same. It's like it's already been re-voted on.

That reminds me of Castro after he came to power and declared there was no more need for any elections. "The people have already spoken". Wouldn't it be great if Democrats could do the same thing here now that they have taken over?

"Measure 37 was a badly written law, it needs to be fixed"

Yeah and if anyone doubts it just ask Judge Mary Merten James. Right?

For those who don't know that's the Judge who distorted Oregon law as much as M37 opponents distort the measure, Oregon's land use laws, and the effects over the years.

Fortunately, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Judge James swayed, (purposefully) from the Oregon and US Constitutions.

Becky:

Any discussion of Measure 37 is as moot as a discussion as to the best sort of slide rule out there.

We are in a new world. It is full of ironies (like R's complaining about the lack of bi-partisanship).

For you to say that Judge James swayed purposefully sways very close libel.

You would be better served by reading the bill and telling us what its strengths and weaknesses are. Just saying it violates the will of the people is immaterial and irrelevant. Your world changed Friday at 11:50 AM.

Becky, how can the voters subvert their own will? If Oregonians pass this measure, will that vote not be just as valid as the one that passed M37? I'm really scratching my head over your logic.

Good analysis Red Cloud. I'd put myself squarely in camp #1, but I'm willing to move over to #3 for this measure. It's probably the best we can hope for, as I don't think a full-out repeal is likely.

The M37 debacle just confirmed my suspicion of the initiative process. The initiative system should be eliminated IMHO. It does more harm than good.

Right TorridJoe. And, if you have a waiver, and have begon construction, you can proceed if you have a common law vested right to do so.

What is in the Bill that should appeal to all of is the calculation of diminished value (which was taken from OIA). It's quite simple: look at the value of the property one year prior to the regulation and one year after. Is there a 10% drop in value? If yes, bring it up to the present using the T-Bill rate.

Now, lurking out there is the off chance that the property did not decline in value; it might have gone up in value because of the protection provided.

Fellow Concerned Oregonians:

This is a big probelm for me and makes me always questions blind support of these Democrats in Salem.

This was sneaky and wrong.

My source at the capital told me the following: The final amendments to this bill were big policy changes made in co-Way and Means Committee. This is very odd because rarely do they amend policy bills in co-Ways and Means.

The reason the Democrats did not amended it in the Land Use and Fainess Committee is because the public and media were there watching and would have caught this terrible set of amendments.

They did two huge things that helped corporate timber and agriculture and should be a reason for all progressives to vote no on this framework.

First they removed the "threshold" of proving 25% loss before you can make a M37 claim. But the removal ONLY APPLIES TO TIMBER AND AGRICULTURE! This means that all other environmental regulations that we pass to protect air, water and our forest will be forced through M37!

Second, they submitted language to make future forest regulations from the federal government now also subject to M37. This is a huge win over current M37 law for the timber industry.

The rational, according to my source, is to try to take the funding of big corporate timber and agriculture from any effort to support the smaller claimants under M37. So we defund the campaign against this measure. But now the new law will be worse for the environment than the current M37 on timber agriculture, water, and air regulations -- but tougher on people trying to build houses in rural areas. Terrible public policy decision from my perspective.

This is a massive giveaway because of big moeny in Oregon politics.

This is the problem when we have Democrats who get huge contributions from construction, development, timber and agriculture!!!!

I agree with Red Cloud. But then with a judge as an ancestor, I am not willing to say there is something subversive about a local judge just because of how the judge ruled.

If a judge issues a ruling and a higher court overturns, that's just it--the local judge was overturned by a higher court. And unless someone can point to actual language in the higher court's written ruling, to say "Fortunately, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Judge James swayed, (purposefully) from the Oregon and US Constitutions", that is not what the Court said. Unless those words are used in the actual court decision, such commentary is no way to win friends and influence people.

This debate has gone on for at least a generation. Using Red Cloud's classification system, there are those who try to convince us all that each and every Oregonian fits squarely into either #1 or #2, when in fact lots of people fit into the other groups.

Venting anger is one thing, but changing minds is something else again. Every public figure (from Senators George and the OIA folks to Judge James, to people on opposite sides of this debate back when Tom McCall was still alive) has family and friends, who aren't likely to take kindly to insults against someone they have known for years.

Just like political consultants who love negative ads (and try to claim they "work" and we should all put up with such campaign tactics), partisans in groups #1 and 2 need to decide if their goal is to change minds and win votes in an election, or simply express anger.

LT,

I'll say it again and I add "purposefully" because of how FAR Judge James swayed from the law. On all six of her ruling points. Fortunately, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Judge James swayed, (purposefully) from the Oregon and US Constitutions", that is not what the Court said.

It is completely reasonable to think that any Judge that travels that far from the law, with such distortions, has a deliberate intention or agenda as motivation.

Having witnessed a mammoth display of you progressives forever lecturing us about the motives of Bush and Republicans it's a real hoot for you same progressive to play footsies with this Judge who so blatantly "motivated" her way around the law.

Of course James could have simply made some innocent, albeit gargantuan, mistakes. Which would make her stunningly incompetent. Sort of how so many of you depict Bush and company.

I can only imagine your take on a Judge making such sweeping, lawless rulings against one of your favorite agenda pieces. You'd be able to read her mind and know know every evil thing she was thinking. And you wouldn't be nice about it. Is that not so my friends?

Sal, you refer several times to the 5 defeats against changing land use laws in the 70's. Could you list those defeats as close to actuality of each measure's wording without editorializing?

"(there's been threats of using M37 to get Wal-Mart in a few Portland area locations)"

Really Jenni? A few? Where? Name one.

The Oregon Supreme Court's learned conclusions about Judge James decision is clearly not the same as that of the self indulgently contentious Becky from St Johns. "Swayed" is the terminology they deemed appropriate to describe her interpretaion of the law to the extent they thought it didn't accurately reflect it's true intent.

The Oregon Supreme Court aparrently didn't think it was reasonable conclude that Judge James had a deliberate intention or agenda as motivation that departed from the law, or I believe they would have said so.

"Of course James could have simply made some innocent, albeit gargantuan, mistakes." Becky from St Johns

But then, she didn't did she? She was assigned the responsibiltiy to make a decision on a very controversial, tricky issue. I think most reasonable people, even those that disagreed with her decision, admired her for the knowledge, insignt and courage it took to take case on and come up with a decision that was at least somewhat credible.

One thing's for certain though, Judge James is no George Bush.

Folks: wake up. Becky is irrelevant. The world changed. The issue turns on how many of us vote in favor of HB 3540. That is where the debate needs to center.

Becky's concerns are totally, as they say, so yesterday. Her issues have merit only if 3540 is defeated in November.

If she would look at the bill, if she would look at what it does for the people she claims make up the majority of applicants, she would realize there is no problem.

Having witnessed a mammoth display of you progressives forever lecturing us about the motives of Bush and Republicans it's a real hoot for you same progressive to play footsies with this Judge who so blatantly "motivated" her way around the law.

Becky, since you have such disdain for "progressives" that you can condemn us for opposing Bush (who's contempt for the law is so much more clearly documented, and has had such a much larger and more horrible impact than that of any Judge), why are you here?

This is, after all, BLUE Oregon. I'm sure there are many "Red" Oregon sites where you can find lots of others who will agree with you and cheer you on about how great M37 is, how we can't trust liberal judges, how the government should let us keep more of our own money and do what we want with our property, etc., etc., etc.

But here is not a place where spouting Lars' talking points, lies, and distortions will be applauded. If you want that, go somewhere else. If you don't, then don't reply to our criticism of them with more of the same.

Becky is like the "Good German" who will faithfully mouth the rantings of her heros, Lars and Jeff, but is not capable of reading the bill and comparing it with her earlier rants. Not once has she engaged in any meaningful analysis. It is possible for her to rise above calling her opponents the "1000 Goons" ; it is also possible that pigs can fly.

[The M37 debacle just confirmed my suspicion of the initiative process. The initiative system should be eliminated IMHO. It does more harm than good.]

No way! The problem, as with most such issues, is that OIA has deep pockets and gets their message out. In the ballot measure book when M37 was voted, it was presented as "landowners should be compensated" and I'm really, really sad to say that a whole lot of otherwise sensible Oregonians saw that and said "yes! I should be compensated."

The vast majority of the "arguments in favor" of M37 came from OIA, either via Ross Day or that Hunicutt fellow. Pretty much any measure with either name on it deserves to be voted against.

But just because some people wage disingenuous campaigns doesn't mean the ballot initiative is the problem. Greedheads like OIA and people not thinking things through are the problem.

[As long as we get it straight that 100% of Democrats are against the 61% of Oregon voters who passed it.]

whatever. of that 61%, a huge number of them have buyer's remorse and have come to realize that M37 isn't wht they thought it was. a lot of them have come to realize what a lemon it truly is. would that they had given it this much thought before enacting it, but i'll settle for a repeal. anyhoo, i'd bet that at least 20% have dropped out of the 61% and would be really surprised if even the slimmest majority of Oregonians still supported it.

and i'd just like to point out that, back in the day, the vast majority of the citizens of the USA were opposed to the civil rights act...

please read some of detoqueville's essays on the tyranny of the majority.

[HB 3540B will send a new ballot measure to voters that will (if the ballot measure is approved) effectively repeal Measure 37!!]

you say that like it's a bad thing - M37 is concentrated evil.

Please, Becky - riddle me this: where do the funds to compensate for these theoretical missed gains come from? you and me! that's our tax money paying those claims - you do get that, right? since when does any citizen of any territory have an obligation to ensure profitability of their fellow citizens?

i hope a landfill is built right next to your house. that'll make M37 heaps of fun, won't it?

Cedwyn: Becky never has an answer, but to denigrate. She is dead silent on HB 3540.

The 2004 voters's pamphlet is on line and arguments in favor and in opposition are telling, today as three years ago.

Here is the first argument in favor:

"Whether you own property or not you benefit from protecting property rights, just as you benefit from free speech whether you exercise that right or not". Thomas Sowell

RED CLOUD: HERE IS WHERE PEOPLE LIKE BECKY BEGIN TO LEAD VOTERS ASTRAY. THEY BEGIN TO MAKE A CONNECTION BETWEEN PROPERTY AND SPEECH, IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION. FREE SPEECH AND FREE RELIGION ARE REGULATED, SO TO IS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH PROPERTY.

That is why the framers included in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution a protection for private property.."Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation".

RED CLOUD: NOTE HOW PROPERTY RIGHTS IN 2004 ARE TIED TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. "TAKEN" IS THE KEY TERM. VOTERS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT 37 WAS ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN. RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY USE ARE CONFUSED WITH THE TAKING OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE, E.G. TO BUILD A BRIDGE, ROAD, ETC.

Government regulators tend to view the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment as an unfortunate obstacle. It is far easier for them to achieve their ends by taking from a few property owners than it is to tax all the voters to pay just compensation.

RED CLOUD: TAXING BECOMES A TAKING. OH, THE JOY OF IT (OF COURSE IT IS TOTALLY FALSE). THE POINT MAKES NO SENSE AND IS INTENDED TO CONFUSE THE READER.

Government depends upon taxpayers to generate wealth and taxpayers depend upon security in their financial affairs (clear title for ownership). Therefore, property rights need to be taken seriously and are essential to the generation of wealth upon which all government depends.

RED CLOUD: TAXING IS A TAKING. NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION THAT AS CITIZENS WE HAVE OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS; PROPERTY RIGHTS IS A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE ANIT-TAX, LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

George Washington said "Freedom and property rights are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other".

RED CLOUD: I CANNOT FIND ANY ATTRIBUTION FOR THIS QUOTE, EXCEPT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS WEBSITES.

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Private ownership of property is the best guarantee of a peaceful and orderly society for it provides maximum incentive for responsible stewardship". Our Oregon Century Farms are an excellent example of this.

RED CLOUD: THE APPEAL TO FAITH. CLOAKING GREED WITH THE HALO OF A SAINT.

This measure is an effort to require just compensation for government actions that diminish the value of private property. We recommend a YES vote.

RED CLOUD: AT THE END WE GET A FALSE COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPERTY VALUE AND FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKINGS.

<hr/>