What about those of us who are not fortunate or affluent enough to have or own any property at all? Right now I would vote NO simply because I really do not have 'a dog in the fight' so to speak. Why should I vote on something that really does not concern me since I have no property? Believe me - there are a lot of those like me out there that would like a reasonable explination (devoid of propaganda)as to why I should vote YES or why vote on it at all if I do not have any property.

Do you enjoy going to Farmers' Markets? Do you drive a car in the Tri-County area? Are you concerned about global warming? If the answer to any of those questions is "Yes," the Measure 37 reform will definitely affect you. Without reform, increased urban sprawl will erase farming from local rural areas such as southern Clackamas County and the Hood River Valley, requiring food for Farmers' markets to be transported from much further away. Without reform, increased urban sprawl will increase the need for long commutes and will further clog our already overburdened highways. Without reform, our carbon footprint will only get larger.

That is a great campaign web site. I spent a lot of time there. Worth a visit to read those Oregon Stories.

I am not currently a property owner, but I will still vote YES on this.

Why? Because Urban Sprawl is horrible on many levels. I grew up in LA where every lake is man made. The "LA River" is really just an aqueduct. Traffic and smog are horrid.

If I buy a single family home or a farm, I would expect that it would remain that way. If I want a mult-family home, then I would buy in an area that is zoned for that accordingly. People that complain that they cannot subdivide their land when they bought it knowing full well what it was when they bought it are either ignorant or selfish.

So, again... a repeat of my statements prior to the '06 election. If you LOVE LA, or NYC or New Jersey for that matter. If you want miles and miles of concrete without border, by all means, keep M37 just the way it is.

Eric's comments evidence a real wall that the campaign will have to somehow climb. Measure 37 passed in Multnomah County, the most populous and liberal county we have. That was because the anti-M37 campaign talked exclusively about farmers, and did not let people like Eric, who have no property, know how M37 will impact them, the urban dwellers.

Sadly, if you read the "Oregon stories" on the M49 campaign Web site, you will find only stories from farmers and a few M37 apostates. And since these stories will form the bulk of the imminent media campaign (TV, direct mail, etc), there's NOTHING that will bring it home to urban voters.

M49 should talk about the Wal-Mart using M37 to gain footholds into Sellwood, about traffic congestion, about pollution, about clean water, about encroaching sprawl.

The M49 Web site is very good, and some of the messages are far better than what we had before. The message has shifted from "shiny happy farmers" (a la the original anti-37 campaign) to "depressed scared farmers"... that's good in that fear will help sell this to Oregonians. But it is bad in that we still don't have any urban voices.

This is all about credibility. M37 opponents have none. Those wondering can simply go back and read the BlueOregon comments (by the same people on this thread)about the Judge James ruling which over turned Measure 37.
Her ruling was referred to as brilliant and well thought out. Turned out , Not So Much as the Oregon Supreme Court found Judge James was wrong on all counts. Just as the Judge James retarded law, anti-M37 Legislators (Democrats) are retarding the public will with this new tactic and propoganda. And all of you same anti-M37, anti-property rights, central planning fans are piling on more of the same misrepresentations you did during the M347 campaign and Judge James' adventure.

M37 effects a tiny fraction of Oregon.

It is our "planning" system which impacts us all in all sorts of ways - from affecting the quality of the environment, to the availability of drinking water, to what can go in next door to where you live. Last night's rain spewed sewer and closed the Wilammette to swimmers for days, Planners ignoring available drinking water has municipallities scrambling to boost supplies and some are now drinking the Willamette, and those same planners and agencies are forever cramming upon neighborhoods things people don't want next door. It's pure delusion to pretend "planning" good, M37 bad.

Let me get this straight - If we don't pass M49, the Willamette Valley will turn into what you see from Olympia to Everett on I-5 through the Puget Sound area?

Yucch!

What a bunch of liars. 1) The total acreage doesn't mean that acreage is lost to urbanization.
Stop suggesting it is. Many claims amount to no more than a dot footprint of a home on the acreage or several footprints. Your propoganda that it means a loss of that parcel and acreage is dishonest. Your pitch that "we're really talking about an area that will be 20% urbanized if all of these claims go forward" is such
spin and out right BS that it's no surprise at all. That's what YOU do. Tallying up total acreage of all M37 cliams is meaningless and serves only to distort and inflame in place of real debate. But that's what YOU do.

M37 only applies to parcels bought many years ago if the same owners own them. M37 applies to very few parcels and property owners, and is incappable of doing what you claim and will NOT be turning the Willamette Valley into what you see from Olympia to Everett on I-5 through the Puget Sound area?

In stark contrast is the status quo such as Metro's 2040 plan which is and will certainly turn everything from Forest grove to Sandy into LA. Every Oregon city will be overcrowded and facing the chaos from the neglecting of growth our planners really engage in.
Among others, Metro is urbanizating 800 acres of farmland in North Bethany and not one squeak from YOU people. If the guvmit does it fine? By comparison to our planning agencies M37 is harmless. Boy the lies from M37 opponents are really going to heat up again.

Measure 49 will probably pass simply because of the pretty obviously biased ballot title. The 49er campaign seems pretty efficient, but the messages, particularly in the testimonials, is weak: it doesn't bring it home to urban voters, it doesn't bring it home to people who don't own properties... it simply presents it as a "farmer versus farmer" battle which is rather uninspiring.

But that beautifully biased ballot title will cinch it for us.

Oh please, stop distoring the acreage and impacts. Torrid, you're the worst. Essentially, and relatively speaking M37 applies to very few parcels. "Applies" being possible to facilitate a significant change in the use. Your sweeping assertion that "M37 applies to ALL parcels and property owners" is just so much BS I laughed. But that's so you. And that's what you want people to base their vote upon. Your BS. Go out there and stand anywhere. Spin around and note that M37 has just about zero real world change of use application to every parcel you see. And you know it. Your nitpicking to the extremes with throwing in every parcel because some insignificant petty zone change may have occured on many more parcels is just nonsense. Why don't one of you tell me how it is that Metro's heavily subsidized ($300 million) urbanizing of 800 acres of farmland (North Bethany)is good while ALL M37 development would be bad.

I think Peter is right -- the "slant" of the ballot title will go a long way towards improving the odds of M49 passing.

The title:

MODIFIES MEASURE 37; CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD HOMES; LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS; PROTECTS FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER.

As with most spin, the title isn't technically incorrect. But it certainly presents one side of the measure without acknowledging the other side.

MODIFIES MEASURE 37 -- well, no argument there. ;-)

CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD HOMES -- true, and in "clarifying" it limits that right to 3 homes.

LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS -- true, though it also limits "medium" and rather "small" developments, subject to interpretation. Some might consider 12 houses somewhat less than a "large development", but that would be strictly disallowed under M49. It's very hard to argue that even 4 houses is a "large development", but the requirements for such in M49 are virtually impossible to meet. And commercial development of any size is limited.

PROTECTS FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER -- this is the REAL sweetheart part of the title. Who doesn't want to protect farms, forests, and water -- in the abstract? But when you get down to specifics, particularly the specific costs of that protection, there is bound to be disagreement over how much that protection is worth. Yet the emotional impact of that last clause practially seals the deal anyhow.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that M49 is either bad or good. I'm just agreeing with Peter that the title is crafted in such a way as to give a distinct advantage to one side over the other.

Peter, can you point to a portion of the ballot title that's misleading or untruthful?

Sure, see David's comments above. And I've already dissected the title on my blog. For now, I will highlight one part of the summary:

Disallows claims for strip malls, mines, other commercial, industrial uses.

Now then, what if I told you that the GOP was trying to pass some anti-crime bill that had language that said:

Disallows trial by jury for mass murderers, child molestors, others." (Where "others" includes, say, all others accused.)

Do you think it is fair to represent a group by their most extreme examples?

In the case of Measure 49, it is not fair to say "strip malls, mines, other commercial, industrial uses". Strip malls and mines are two of the most egregious and upsetting forms of commercial/industrial M37 waivers... but they are not necessarily the most common C/I claim, nor do they accurately serve as examples for other such claims. Including them serves only to accentuate the worst possibilities of M37.

I think M49 is great, and I don't have a problem with a biased title. But let's recognize it as such and not try to suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, I just want to point out that in the perverse world of ballot measures, the "title" doesn't just refer to what we think of as the thing that appears at the top. It refers to the entire section. Here it is:

{ + MODIFIES MEASURE 37; CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD HOMES; LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS; PROTECTS FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER. + }

{ + RESULT OF ‘YES’ VOTE: ‘Yes’ vote modifies Measure 37; clarifies private landowners’ rights to build homes; extends rights to surviving spouses; limits large developments; protects farmlands, forestlands, groundwater supplies. + }

{ + RESULT OF ‘NO’ VOTE: ‘No’ vote leaves Measure 37 unchanged; allows claims to develop large subdivisions, commercial, industrial projects on lands now reserved for residential, farm and forest uses. + }

{ + SUMMARY: Modifies Measure 37 (2004) to give landowners with Measure 37 claims the right to build homes as compensation for land use restrictions imposed after they acquired their properties. Claimants may build up to three homes if previously allowed when they acquired their properties, four to 10 homes if they can document reductions in property values that justify additional homes, but may not build more than three homes on   high-value farmlands, forestlands and groundwater-restricted lands. Allows claimants to transfer homebuilding rights upon sale or transfer of properties; extends rights to surviving spouses. Authorizes future claims based on regulations that restrict  residential uses of property or farm, forest practices. Disallows  claims for strip malls, mines, other commercial, industrial uses.
See Explanatory Statement for more information. + }</i>

The whole issue is a catch 22. I'd be willing to bet a lot of the people who are against development and urban growth have children and perhaps grandchildren who they assume will own their own home someday. Like it or not, if we don't have some controlled development...enough to match the population growth, be resigned to your progeny living in rowhouses, condos and apartments. There will be no affordable housing. You can't have it both ways.

And 60% of the Measure 37 claims involving land within the Willamette Valley does not mean 60% of the land there would be developed!

I am not sure about M49 yet....still trying to see the big picture. But I have been watching the various urban growth boundary concept plans progress. The Damascus Boring concept plan used the idetification of delicate ecology, streams, wildlife corridors and conservation areas as their starting point, NOT to be developed or interfered with. If we HAVE to expand they've put a lot of earth-friendly thought into how to go about it. Worth looking into for those of you who are worried about urban sprawl. This is not your grandfather's urban growth boundary. Green is the keystone. You can find pages of info at the Clack. Co., Metro, or City of Damascus websites. Keyword: Damascus/Boring

In the future, starting now we also need to find ways for people to work closer to where they live...for obvious carbon-footprint reasons. How will we do that if we do not allow any industrial or commercial enterprises to establish themselves near new communities? Not-in-my- back-yard is beginning to sound unpatriotic.

"What will be stopped and/or curtailed are rural subdivisions, and particularly very large rural subdivisions"

But not when Metro does it with countless millions in subsidies and the haphazard development which they genuinely represent.

There is nothing wrong with the bulk of the larger M37 claims at all. Just because of the hysteria driven load aimed at them doesn't mean squat. All of which could be aimed at Metro and other jurisdictions.

The Damascus story may make the greenies FEEL good but as a way to accomodate growth it's chaos, unworkable, costly and will fail miserably to place people closer to their work or increase ped/bike/transit use to any measurable level of contribution. The cost will be enormous and will likley never be fully funded. The rest of the UGB story is equally comical and dysfunctional as nearly all observers acknowledge it is broken. Obviously for different reasons as Metro councilors would agrue we haven't done enough of their handiwork and others find the whole approach a lesson in deliberate obstruction and chaos.
Somehow we have a major contigent of people forever believing we are a model for the nation. That my friends is a hoot.

What I see here in this whole discission is: Those who approve the measure speak intelligently, those who oppose the measure are using garbage 'buzz words' that speak so loudly towards propaganda it is almost comical. They seem not to have a single thought of their own. I have changed my mind - YES it is. And no amount of propaganda by Melody will change it back to no anytime soon.

torrid, Your perpetual lack of ability to focus and forever diverting is as lame as it gets.

The only point about M37 is how it enables a change in use. Your stupid coughing up the "100% of privately owned land in Oregon" is the stuff of political hacks ans extremists.

The fact is a relatively very small amount of property owners have any M37 claim of any significance or concern worth mentioning. Even among the claims already filed. The notion, among many others, that M37 would shut down farming near our cities is just plain preposterous. Pitches by anti-M37 activists, such as, that M37 development would clog roads and disallow farmers access and delivery of their goods is indeed just plain stupid. There are working farms right now next to dense Metro mandated neighborhoods all around the UGB. There is none of the clalamity from those identical to M37 developments your anti-M37 propagandists clamour about.

In regard to the UGB, you completely, and no doubt deliberatley, miss the point. The UGB is not working as it was intended despite your narrow minded reaction. Land supplies are NOT being provided for growth in the framework of the UGB. Not for any use let alone the many diverse needs. Perhpas you are simply not well read on the current UGB events. Big surprise!

Eric J, You are mistaking ignorance for intelligence because it comes across in a chorus. Torrid et al are out to lunch and distorters of M37 and our land use planning. Just as he does with the UGB which even Metro admits is not working. All he cares about is that is blindly blocks development, period. That's hardly genuine planning.
You appear eager to be duped and join the chorus.

I'm sure the chorus looks at the county prepared M37 claims maps and sees every colored parcel in it's entirety lost forever. As if any foot print on any parcel somehow means something more than it is. Then add up all the horror (acreage) and distribute the misrepresentations with added embelishment.
I encourage you and others to actually study the issues outside of this 1000 Friends chorus and discover the failures of our planning and the harmlessness and benefits of M37.

torrid, Your ignorance on this issue and the UGB deserves to be attacked. North Bethany 800 acres and Damascus don't mean the UGB is accomodating growth. North Bethany was passed up and the 2002 expansions sit idle waiting for more layers of planning. The state delayed the next round of UGB expansion till the old ones can be processed. In the mean time everyone involved, but not you the torrid, accepts that the UGB process is not working. Your torrid math and twisted version of "setting the recrod straight" serves only to misrepresent and mislead. Just as you intend.

"chorus", "political hacks", "foot print", "greenies"...

Wonderful buzz words here by Melody. It's the kind of the standard ubiquitous drivel that turns into mindless propaganda if you repeat it often enough to the unsespecting masses who are hard of thinking. Torrid sounds more reasonalble, thoughtful and level headed..and he doesn't use buzz words unless absolutely necessary to gain his point.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 13, 2007 5:04:18 PM

"What a bunch of liars.

Kari, I agree with you!

RinoWatch

Well Kari, as long as we're having fun imagining the future....real estate law states that ownership of land extends not only below the surface of the land (to the center of the earth) but above the surface only to a height necessary for the ordinary and reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. (Before commercial air travel, that height above your parcel ranged all the way into outer space....theoretically, but legaly.) SOOOO...in your sci-fi world, if everyone owned flying cars, I guess that landing one's flying car on one's land would constitute ordinary and reasonable use and enjoyment of the property.

But gee Kari....I'm still waiting for the jet-pack they promised me 40 years ago. And I still haven't made up my mind about M49....I just can't let loose of the idea that the founding fathers considered property rights as important as other inalienable rights. Equal treatment was a very big deal for them, and tampering with or retracting property rights should be as carfully considered as tampering with other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Oh wait....I forgot what year it is and how many of those other rights have been trampled. Have we become inured to the travesties?

BTW, if anyone would like to have additional info and input into future land-use planning there is the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning: http://www.oregonbiglook.org/. They have two years (maybe less) to come up with recommendations....but it seems like the M49 proponents are trying to push this legislation through before the task force reports. THAT raises red flags for me on M49. Since the wheels turn so slowly anyway, what's the rush? I'm always a cynic, looking for motives, and I really don't like this trend of voters' choices being ignored or overturned after the fact. Especially when it is accomplished with big-budget marketing tactics by highly biased special interests....on either side of the issue.

And if anyone has a jet-pack for sale let me know please.

Torrid....eminent domain is not trap door solution for real property rights and zoning disputes. The founding fathers needed eminent domain to build the infrasturture of a brand new nation, as to an extent we still need it today. It does not imply that all land can or should be public land!!! And "we the people" better have a damn good reason to use eminent domain, and be willing to pay replacement value...that is what I consider just compensation. If, after a property owner is turned off his land and given compensation, he cannot find comparable property for the amount he was given...then the compensation was not just.

There are both economic and moral issues to be considered when you talk about property rights. And yes the founding fathers DID believe real property, bought and paid for by individuals, belonged to those individuals. It stems from English Common Law, and the Magna Carta, which the founding fathers drew heavily from. EVERY property owner STILL has a "bundle of rights", and there are numerous things they can do with those rights...sell, lend, lease, use as collateral...as well as the right to quiet enjoyment. So yes Joe, when you buy property there are rights not just implied, but guaranteed. And "not in my back yard" is not always a good enough reason to take away those rights, nor does it necessarily equate with "public good" or "public GAIN". (Did you really mean to say GAIN? Are you a closet communist, Joe? Just yanking your chain, joe....don't get all torrid on me). You can check out these arguments from Harvard Law, and see why we need to think very deeply before "taking". Just cut and paste...I'm too lazy to link.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/LawEconomics/takings.htm

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/takings_toc.htm

MCT: And yes the founding fathers DID believe real property, bought and paid for by individuals, belonged to those individuals. It stems from English Common Law, and the Magna Carta, which the founding fathers drew heavily from.

Fair enough. And you probably know that the Crown owns all of the land in England, right? And that only limited rights are granted to individuals via the notion of "freehold"? And that the US, as you point out, copied much of this, and that allodial rights are expressly not granted, and the government has police rights (including regulatory rights), taxation, eminent domain, and escheat expressly granted.

It also doesn't appear that you read the Harvard links that you provided.

Even measure 49, which will allow a few houses to be constructed on properties acquired before various zoning regulations gives me some cause for concern. The obnoxious way that some people site a house on a significant landscape can really ruin the view that the landscape provides a great many people with. Still, the limitation to just a few, or at most, 10 houses seems far better than what M37 appeared to make way for. So, M49 looks like the way to go until a more substantial concept of protection and planning for the state's land resources comes to form.

I really, really dislike pushy, blow-hard rhetoricians that try to cow and intimidate people into accepting their point of view. Reason and logic, especially backed up with meaningful facts, works much better for me. I've got to give some of you credit for determining to carrying on intelligently despite being interrupted by that sick, sour melody.

I found the following comment by TorridJoe to be helpful in understanding a fundamental concept underlying this issue:

' "Have we set up a world where the state's hands are tied when it comes to crafting new land-use regulations to deal with a new world?"

Without Measure 49, that answer is inevitably Yes. I think the idea that laws in play when you buy property are to apply to you in perpetuity is somewhat nutty, but I'll acede that being barred on a practical basis from putting one to three houses on the property you live on is itself nutty.

What's the intent of the land-use arrangement in this case, pre 37? To maintain the character and functionality of EFU and forest space by preventing development that would impair that character and functionality. There is broad, deep agreement among Oregonians that we do indeed wish to maintain that space and prevent its eventual disappearance.

But rather than assessing what might and might not upset the balance, M37 simply rejected the right of the state to prevent development, a blunt tool that was written not to reflect popular sentiment but to maximize profit. Now we have M49, which essentially makes the assessment that would have been best all along--what KIND of development is truly deletrious? I certainly am no fan of the concessions M49 makes to enshrine the concept of perpetual land rights, but it limits damage and treats the legitimate concerns of ordinary people to maintain the family plot of land with some respect. It clarifies things left badly unaddressed in 37. And it makes clear which things are not to be allowable claims.

Even if you don't like what it says, for God's sake vote for it so we can save literally BILLIONS in legal fees arguing over what M37 really means. Seriously. The general guidance to counties alone is worth millions in bureaucracy. Vote YES to prevent hearing about M37 court cases for the next 20 years." '

And the following one by paul, also helpful in that respect:

' "Eric, luckily, you do own a piece of what is sometimes called the "commons" or "collective property."

What do I mean here? One nice local example--the view of Mt. Hood from Terwilliger. This is a "common" resource that is recognized by the City of Portland.

What some argue is that Measure 27 elevates private property interests over any consideration of collective or common property interests.

One could argue that individual property interests--the right of an individual to build a 10 story building just east of Terwilliger--trumps the common interest. That is your judgment to make.

But don't believe that you have no dog in this fight because you don't own property." '

I found the comment by TorridJoe to be his usual diverting and mudding jibberish.

These wild hypotheticals and enamour with the theroetical have your imaginations running away with you. Melodramatic reactions and child-like judgement makes you incappable of focused discussion.

Is the "state's hands tied when it comes to crafting new land-use regulations to deal with a new world?" Hardly. Busy bureaucrats will never relent in that pursuit. But we could speculate forever.

Oregon is fully labeled to the point of being punitive and over reaching. EFU, "Exclusive Farm Use" is stuck on land of all types. Mush of which is not "farmland" at all. Still the "farming" label has taken away use and devalued a lot of land. It wasn't and isn't about farming on these countless parcels. It's about prohibition.

If further restrictions are to be piled upon our existing extreme system, then yes property owners deserve to be compensated. That or no more regulations. Oh now that's blasphomy.

Oregon has extensive regulations to maintain the character and functionality of genuine EFU and forest space by preventing development. M37 doesn't remove those protections as opponents propogandize.

Just as ws said "M37 simply rejected the right of the state to prevent development, a blunt tool that was written not to reflect popular sentiment but to maximize profit."

Ooooh the "profit" card.

Why not create a new bureacracy to screen all development to judge profit levels? We could start with Urban Renewal schemes and other municipal "partnerships". No let's not.

49 is an insult far worse than the perceived vitrial some of you find my contributions here. Your support and wild assertions further insult. "we can save literally BILLIONS in legal fees arguing over what M37 really means" Billions? Wow!
Judge James's fallacies and the Oregon Supreme Court wisdom already took care of much of the 1000 Road Blocks. M37 opponents just can't stand the idea of M37 development moving forward as it will proove to be nothing like the clalamity they profess.

Interesting that you would raise the local example--the view of Mt. Hood from Terwilliger. This "common" resource that is recognized by the City of Portland was at risk with South Waterfront towers rising 325 feet. Fortunately little impact has occured at Terwilliger. But given the folliage there isn't a great deal of opportunity to appreciate Mt. Hood along Terwilliger. The real problem comes from the planners and official granting the 325 ft towers with little spacing which now blocks the same Mt. Hood view for countless homes and businesses just below Terwilliger.

No one "argues that Measure 37 elevates private property interests over any consideration of collective or common property interests." It's the unequal treatment of excessive, punitive and confiscatory restrictions which steal from the average jo and hand over windfalls to the favored South Waterfront-like
developers.
No one argues that individual property interests--the right of an individual to build a 10 story building just east of Terwilliger--trumps the common interest. That is your BS to make. It's not M37 that is blocking views it's our current planners and shady officials. It' also not M37 dumping sewage into the Willamette in the middle of summer. It's also not M37 sucking of 100s of millions in public subsidies for developers.

Vote no on 49. The voters got M37 right.

The only reason torrid obsesses with M37 applying to 100% of privateley owned land in Oregon is he wants folks to wrongly believe that M37 represents a much broader risk to Oregon than it does. He knows that relatively few parcles qualify for claims which represent any perceived risk of anything. But that's no way to inflame the populous into voting his way.
So try and separate the imaginary, speculation, drama and BS from the harmless benefit M37 is to Oregon.

That sick, sour melody drones on and on. A bit ironic that it sounds so much like the Betsy from St Johns, or was it Becky from St Johns(?) that railed on monotonously against those with concerns about the dangerously flawed M37 some time back.

No matter. Most people that can summon the energy to focus their mind on the subject are more interested in seriously learning about real aspects of land planning, zoning, livability commerce, and efforts to sustain the best balance of all of them than they are in hurling unwarranted insults, name-calling, attempting to scorch readers with bombastic rhetoric and generally behaving like obnoxious cows.

There are things about zoning and land use planning in Oregon that I'm not happy with. I certainly agree that N Bethany is kind of an insulting use of formerly open land, but I don't see it as realistic to lay the blame for this misuse exclusively to land use planners. Developers and people with the money also have obligations in respect to situations like this that they are not adequately meeting.

As far as zoning designations and classifications such as EFU go, in certain settings, they may seem overly broad, or not sufficiently specific. As someone that doesn't own land or is involved in buying and selling it, that doesn't bother me too much at all. This is because one of the primary functions I see such zoning and classifications as having is in controlling and restraining developers and development, thereby helping to insure integrity of Oregon lands and the livability they are capable of providing people with.

Strategies associated with zoning and planning, despite their complexity, seem to be very primitive and slow compared to those of speculators and developers, who've demonstrated time and again, the ability to move lightning fast over available land resources, descending like locusts on a ripe field. M37, thanks to it's many constructive critics, was but an abbreviated variation of that phenomena. M49 will go a ways further towards correcting the threat posed by the former.

Peter....The Harvard articles I mentioned and read (plus many more) are well rounded debates. I merely stated that T-Joe had implied people were nutty in thinking buyers of property have rights into perpetuity is "nutty". Never have I implied that freeholders' rights were without limtations.

And as a person holding a dual citizenship (UK/USA) I am aware of the differences in property ownership between the two nations.

I am still undecided about M49, but the more bad rationalizations I read here on blueorg, the more suspcious I am as to the motives of the drafters. I contend M37 does not pose as big a risk to Oregon as the proponents of M49 would have you believe. I begin to suspect power-grabbing where individual property rights are concerned. I would prefer the frying pan to the fire.

And why is it that where some factions of government are striving toward planning growth that would ensure some employment opportunities be built near new communties in order to cut down on traffic and commutes, other factions are insisting that no new industry or commercial enterprises be built anywhere, lest we ruin the landscape.

No growth, no building would be great you think? Especially for those who already have their slice of heaven and panoramic views. But that would have a negative domino effect on our economy, and not just the building industry. It would effect every business that survives on people having jobs & money to spend. That's ALL of us. But as long as we are a free country where people are free to move around at will, as long as you keep having children....there will be growth. Where will we live? Where will we work? Where will the tax revenues come from?

As for leaving the choices up to government....look where that got Portland. PDC is a sham. Planning and zoning has for years allowed (encouraged)the most hidious sort of in-filling building that has ruined the look of the city....all to accomodate the 20/40 plan and retain the UGB. Don't you think those people owning sweet little bunglows and a nice big yards have been pissed off and appalled to wake up and find a 4-plex towering over their back yard? City dwellers have had to pay a high price for those who dwell inside the UGB's. Is that fair?

And folks...all in all, I think we have a healthy dialogue goning on here. Save the name-calling and mud-slinging.

I voted for M37 and so I'll vote against M49. I'm not a chicken little type is all freaked out that those big bad developers are going to turn Oregon into a strip mall. I actually have a little bit of common sense and I know that developers only develop stuff when there is a demand for it. I consider M37 to be a nice antidote to the legions of elitist scum who seem to prefer that they make all the decisions regarding my property but they never seem to show up to pay any of the bills. In fact, these scum just keep wanting to increase my taxes so they can make more enlightened decisions about my property for me. Sorry, I see no need to feed their constant greed for more power and control. I'll make my own decisions and tend to my land as I see fit.

Andy you're right in noting that you are "not a chicken little type freaked out that those big bad developers are going to turn Oregon into a strip mall.", but it does sound like you could be one of those joe sixpack doofuses that are happy to let developers do anything they want just as long as you got a dry place to sit and your television to watch.

If that's what you like, I don't really care, just as long as your little hole isn't in the middle of some ugly development that was allowed to crop up out in the middle of zoning protected open land because of the sloppy, misleading consequences of M37.

Clark county here we come!

I am wondering what kind of Propaganda fountain andy drank from to produce such ubiquitous drivel of rhetorical garbage. He sounds like he got his post directly from a mass maling flyer.

Eric, What have you been drinking? How about torrid with the slaughter house crap.

There isn't a M37 claim anywhere that allows a pig farm or slaughter house to get around zoning and permitting laws and locate next to any community. And he knows it. That's one of the many lies he propagates.
Same goes for smelters and many other fabricated M37 scenarios.

You people just can't tell the truth.

Does Measure 49 address my family's situation?

We own 23.5 acres in Sherwood on HWY 99. The property has been in my husband's family since the 1800's. When HWY 99 came through and was build (in the 50's?) the land was cut in half. The original farm house was on the other side of HWY 99. This piece is listed as Agriculture/Forest 20. My mother in law, who lives in another state, gave/gifted the property to us two years ago in the hopes that we could build a home on her grandmother's family property. No such luck. We understand that we need to make 80K in profits from the land several years in a row in order to get a building permit for a single home. As I understand it, the fact the land was gifted to us makes any of the measure 37 guidelines not apply to us...we are now considered "new owners". Some how this doesn't seem fair. Does Measure 49 address people like us who want to preserve our family land as farm land?

Ironically, land developers have sent my mother in law offers year after year long before Measure 37 passed. It was as though they knew they could get their hands on this prime HWY 99 front property and get it rezoned to meet their needs with no problem. Otherwise, why in the world would they have offered her over $400,000 close to ten years ago for property with an assessed tax value of $10,000? The rest of us who don't have friends in high places are apparently out of luck.

The ironic part is that our family is involved in equestrian sports. We pay to board our horse at a stable, because we can't build a barn on our own. Next door and adjacent to our property lies Devonwood Equestrian Center. The most expensive, high end dressage center in the Pacific Northwest. It wasn't there 10 years ago when we first started trying to figure out how to build a house on our property. The owner is a former VP of Intel if I am not mistaken. He somehow knew how to get the process to work for him.

It would be very sad to have to sell this piece of land to buy one in Clark county where we would actually be allowed to build. We are holding out with the hope that the law will eventually be amended to allow us to use our family property. I think that is the developer community's grand strategy. They wear down people until they give up and sell. Then they swoop in and make some serious profits.