Measure 49 transferability fix helps "the little guy" but stops mega-sprawl developments
The Oregonian reports that a Portland conservation group has published a report detailing the potential benefits of Measure 49:
A report by the Portland-based American Land Institute, a pro-conservation group, says passage of Measure 49 in November could break the development logjam created by problems with Measure 37, the 2004 property rights initiative that spawned thousands of claims to build on rural farm and forest land.Report co-author Henry Richmond said the lack of "transferability" has largely stymied construction under Measure 37. He said Measure 49, a revision that limits development but allows development rights to be transferred to surviving spouses and to new owners, would give the green light to perhaps 42 percent of the 7,500 statewide claims.
"If voters wanted to help the little guy who's applying (to build) one to three dwellings, then Measure 49 does that to a considerable degree," Richmond said. "I don't think voters intended to chop up agriculture in the Willamette Valley, and they will have a chance to say that."
The report states that Measure 49 would resolve issues created by Measure 37 such as the non-transferability of development rights:
Measure 49 allows property owners to build one to three houses if that would have been allowed under land-use regulations in place when they bought the property. Property owners could build subdivisions of four to 10 homes if they can prove land-use regulations reduced the property's value.Commercial and industrial development would not be allowed, but development rights could be transferred.
The latter is a key point. The Oregon attorney general has said Measure 37 development rights belong to the successful claimant and can't be transferred to a new owner if the property is sold. Likewise, if a claimant dies, the development right goes with him or her.
The issue is on appeal in the courts. In the meantime, banks are reluctant to issue construction loans based on using the land as collateral, Richmond and co-author Timothy Houchen said in the report. Title insurance companies are likewise hesitant to get involved. It's also unclear whether owners or subsequent buyers could expand or rebuild a Measure 37 development.
Measure 49 would also make it easier for over 3,000 current claims to proceed, according to the group:
Opponents say complications in Measure 49's language would result in very few claims being approved. Oregonians in Action, the Tigard property rights group that sponsored Measure 37 and opposes Measure 49, could not be reached for comment on the report.But Richmond said passage of Measure 49 would resolve the issue for many claimants. He said about 42 percent of claims, about 3,150, are for one to three home sites, and they could proceed on a fast-track basis without proving a loss of value due to land-use regulations. He predicted that other claimants would reduce the scale of their claims in order to proceed more quickly with one to three homes. "I'd be surprised if less than 50 percent aren't handled that way," he said.
Discuss.
|
Sept. 26, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
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
3:03 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Haven't seen a lot Anti-Measure 49 Propaganda either in the mail or on the TV. Will this be a last minute assault or are they down on funding?
Sep 26, '07
But wait, didn't the TV tell me that Measure 49 lets those politicians take away my house? That's what they said on TV!
Sep 26, '07
BS...BS...BS M49 hurts all oregonians The state took away peoples property rights by arbitrarily zoning property without asking the owner if it was ok or not. M37 rolls that back and lets anyone who owns land have there land back. Don’t take away peoples property rights, VOTE NO on 49, Don’t let the government have control of you land or what you can do with it.
4:27 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Hey Inthewoods - Please go back to the woods. Better yet, go find a bridge in the woods, thank you.
5:00 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Wow, your blather is not just full of shit, but spectacularly full of shit.
BTW, if you own some property, let me know, I may want to buy an adjacent lot and open up a toxic waste dump next door. After all, what I do with my property is my right, and if your property value goes straight into the toilet, oh well. You wouldn't mind if what I do on my property degrades your property values by 50% would you?
Sep 26, '07
"let me know, I may want to buy an adjacent lot and open up a toxic waste dump next door."
More dis-information - Under M37, they would roll back the usage to the zoning when you bought it. I don't know many toxic waste dump properties close to housing, but let me know if I am wrong.
The point is, if some regime on the planning commission changes the zoning someone's property and deprives them of the value it had when they bought it, why shouldn't he be compensated?
It'd be nice to hear some truth some time.
11:44 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
What misinfomration would that be precisely?
I was skewering Inthewoods blather about "let the government have control of you land or what you can do with it" via land-use zoning.
That said, there are in fact M37 claims that seek to get compensation for land not being allowed to be used for commercial purposes when they are not zoned commercial, but again I was addressing Inthewoods blather about the need to eliminate land-use zoning altogether.
Sep 27, '07
What misinfomration would that be precisely?
That you can build a toxic dump next to a house just because you buy that piece of land. Skewering usually has some loose connection to truth.
Sep 27, '07
Steve, lestatdelc could not put a toxic waste dump next to your property after buying it under Measure 37, because he wasn't the longtime owner.
But if Greedy Granny Dorothy English lived next door, she could.
And out in Washington County, a longtime garbage dump owner is planning to expand under Measure 37 - right next to the Tualatin River. Google "Howard Grabhorn" and see what you find.
Dorothy English's 2004 ad didn't say, "Give me back the right ot put a toxic waste dump on my property." She asked for the right to construct a few homes - a right taken away by Oregon's farm and forest protection measures. That's what the voters saw, and agreed with.
And Measure 49 gives Dorothy the right to pass on her bounty to her children, a right not granted by Measure 37.
Sep 27, '07
Urban Planning Overlord:
Steve, lestatdelc could not put a toxic waste dump next to your property after buying it under Measure 37, because he wasn't the longtime owner.
But if Greedy Granny Dorothy English lived next door, she could
Bob T:
Well, no. Such a thing would clearly have spill-over effects and could be successfully challenged even in no-zoning areas, if property rights are properly used by neighbors as a defense. This is what you guys don't understand.
You're also saying that in order to stop such a dump, you must also ban houses.
That's dishonest.
Bob T
Sep 27, '07
Bob T., your reliance on "nuisance law" to solve problems between property owners is misplaced. Nuisance law used to be all that one property owner could use to force another property owner to stop his greed (er .. I mean "enlightened self-interest"). But it didn't work well, which is why government regulation and zoning laws came into being in the early 20th century.
Nuisance law does not work because:
1) Under common law principles the offending property owner had a great advantage. Such common law principles as the "common enemy" rule regarding drainage impacts stacked the deck against the complainant. While the "common enemy" rule has thankfully bitten the dust in most jurisdictions, other common law legal roadblocks remain. For instance, I'm not aware of any U.S. court that recognizes view blockage, or blockage of sunlight, as actionable nuisances. And a property owner that might complain if his neighbor tore down a single family home and put up a four-plex would have no chance in court, even though the change would obviously negatively impact the single-family home's value. That's the kind of thing that used to happen in many American cities, as the value of property in single-family neighborhoods was trashed by apartment conversions or replacement of homes by businesses. It's one of the reasons zoning was invented.
2) Once in court, the complainer has the problem of mounting a successful argument and outlasting the tactics used by the defendant. A defendant with monetary resources can hire better lawyers and use procedural tactics to their advantage. The result is that moneyed property interests have a definite advantage over property owners with fewer resources. It's a problem with any legal avenue that doesn't involve contingency fees for winning lawyers, such as torts.
So nuisance law provides limited protection for property owners injured by the rapacity of their neighbors.
www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com
Sep 27, '07
All I know about voting in Oregon on measures is that traveling from Salem to Portland everyday, if those ass hole farmers along the freeway have a sign or banner I VOTE THE OPPOSITE. They have placed NO on 49, so guess what....
Sep 27, '07
"But if Greedy Granny Dorothy English lived next door, she could." OK, without calling names and showing some reasoning explain to me how this will happen. For this to happen Mrs. Englih's property would have to have been a toxic waste dump originally.
I would still like to hear how we compensate owners who get their property zoning changed and then lose value. If this isn't a "takings' then what is? My fear is we get someone like Mr Adams calling shots on zoning decisions just so he can live his dream of more ugly condos.
"I VOTE THE OPPOSITE." Glad to hear you're thinking this one through clearly. My response is more direct to all of those "Love Oregon" sign. I usually write "then stop the visual pollution already with these signs."
Sep 28, '07
Lestatdelc I do own some property by the way and yes, you can do anything you want on that property if you buy it. Do you live in a house now? And if you do live in a house does your house have paint on it? Is it not true that you can paint your house any color you want, or do you go ask your neighbors to look at your color pallet to make sure they like the color. Is it not true you can plant whatever you want in your front yard even if your neighbor does not like it? I don’t like dogs but my neighbor has one, my neighbor puts all kind of chemicals on his lawn and I can’t do a thing about that. My other neighbor doesn’t mow his lawn and his yard looks like crap, nothing I can do about it, will it make my house value go down, who knows? I drive around Portland and see all kinds of things; some houses look good others look very bad. Your argument that “You wouldn't mind if what I do on my property degrades your property values by 50% would you?” applies to all of suburbia, not just M37 claims. Go look at some of the houses on 61st and Hoyt st. in Portland, some nice and some very bad. The grabhorn guy would have to apply for a permit to expand, and if he was granted the expansion the new environmental laws would kick in and he would have to comply with all the Oregon laws for a garbage dump. In short Lestatdelc, any lot in town can lower someone’s property value, and that could be by the paint color on the house or someone has a toxic dump in there back yard or a meth house. M37 or not, your argument applies to everyone not just M37 claims.
Sep 28, '07
Sorry, I haven't had time to READ IT, but...
Does the transfer option "for the little guy" allow for the same in the case of a successor corporation, after bankrupcy, for example?
<h2>If so, it's an advantage to the worst of the mega developments, as well.</h2>