Maps Show Measure 37 Claims
The Sightline Institue, a nonprofit think tank based in Seattle, released a series of maps showing the wide extent of Measure 37 claims in Oregon. The maps focus on the Portland region, the Hood River Valley, and the Willamette Valley:
Some other statistics from the Sightline Institute:
Measure 37 claims made in the Willamette Valley could add almost 33,000 new residents in rural areas.In the Hood River Valley alone, 22 percent of protected farmland is threatened by Measure 37 claims.
The more than 250 claims in the Hood River and Wasco counties could result in nearly 6,000 new housing units, many on agricultural lands.
Claimants have filed more than 2,000 residential applications for Measure 37 waivers in the greater Portland area. Together, these claims could add nearly 34,000 new residents.
You can see the full series of maps at the Sightline Institute's website. Discuss.
|
Oct. 08, 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
Oct 8, '07
MY GOODNESS SAKES ALIVE!
Folks we MUST shut down each everyone of these damn M37 claims across the Portland area and our beloved apple orchards across Hood River.
We can NOT allow anymore residential units in the area. ESPECIALLY in Portland! There must be absolute ZERO growth in the Porltand area over the next 20 years! NO claims can go forward! VOTE YES ON MEASURE 49!
2:06 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
Are you trying to be snarky pdxskip?
Oct 8, '07
NO!....aren't we trying to kill growth, put two families in every house, wring every motive for profit out of the Portland area so that we can live the way WE want to live?
Geeeeeeez! Get with the program lesty!
Oct 8, '07
Hey, if you want to live in a state which allows rapacious development - move. Fix 37, take the greed incentive away. There are plenty of states (mostly red) where you can over-develop your property to your heart's content. Think Florida condo-lined beaches. Oregon just aint one of them, yet. Vote yes on 49 for an incremental improvement.
3:18 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
Have fun beating the crap out of your strawman pdxslip, let us know how many windmills you slay while you're at it.
Personally, I lived in Southern California for a few years and if you want uncontrolled sprawl, urban blight, strip-malls as far as the eye can see and a housing bubble collapse (exacerbated by too much inventory) you are welcome to move to California (or any of the other states that look at what we have here with envy).
3:54 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
I hear Phoenix is sunny.
Oct 8, '07
Blah, blah, blah. Big deal that there are a bunch of M37 claims in progress. Hasn't anyone read a newspaper in the last year about existing home inventory levels? Nobody is going to be building 30,000 new homes in the near future. M49 is a waste of time and a waste of political capital. All it does is upset a bunch of people who voted for property rights. I'd bet that a vast majority of those M37 claims expire eventually with nothing having been built.
4:20 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
Representative Brian Clem made the point at the Summit that the claims in Hood River shown above will impact much more than the land that will be developed by Measure 37 claims. Since the fruit growers process the crops through a co-op, if you radically reduce the number of orchards by selling off the land to developers, the co-op will collapse and the rest of the fruit growers will be driven out of business. Without Measure 49 passing, the bulk of the fruit production in Hood River will disappear in our lifetimes.
4:22 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas...unless it's sprawling hundreds of miles across the desert.
Oct 8, '07
That was a great post with some really sobering statistics. However, the most important number associated with this campaign is 29 – that’s the number of days left before Election Day. If you care about protecting Oregon's productive farmland, open spaces and livability, please give the campaign to pass Measure 49 a few hours of your time.
The OLCV downtown office will be holding phone banks for Measure 49 every weekday plus Sunday. You can sign up online through OLCV’s website or visit the Campaign's Website to find other ways to get involved.
Oct 8, '07
There is o 1 person for every 18 acres in Oregon. Washington, the ratio is 1:6, California is 1:3. What urban sprawl are you talking about. Besides Andy hit it correctly, even if approved real estate is not moving so who is going to move there without services to live on.
Let's cut the emotion and have a reasonable debate.
5:21 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
Josh, what you posted makes little sense at all. Can you try and explain what you are trying to convey?
Oct 8, '07
Josh, your stats aren't relevant to urban sprawl, they describe overall population density. Texas, for example, contains some of the most sprawling metropoles in the country in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, yet it has one human for every 8 acres.
Numbers are fun, no question, but urban planning is even more fun.
Oct 8, '07
A great site, a sobering set of maps.
An additional point about "ripple" impacts beyond the effect on co-ops: a swath of new rural residential development will impact surrounding agriculture as well, as the new martini farms start complaining about pesticide use, or hordes of swarthy farm workers (excepting the ones who do their gardening for them), or tractor noise, or God knows what else farmers do.
The rollback proposed in Measure 49 isn't the solution I would have chosen in a perfect world (I think all property is equal no matter how long someone has owned it), but in the world where Measure 37 passed on the backs of the Dorothy Englishes of the state, it's the best we will get.
And if Measure 49 passes I hope the state restarts the "Big Look" the last legislature so lamentably eviscerated. Oregon's land use system is over 30 years old, and a fundamental re-look is in order.
8:56 p.m.
Oct 8, '07
I have to agree with UPO. M-49 should not be the end of the discussion regarding planning--but it will put the brakes on the nightmare known as M37. If 49 passes, we need to have a real conversation about where we go with land use planning around here.
Oct 9, '07
"The more than 250 claims in the Hood River and Wasco counties could result in nearly 6,000 new housing units, many on agricultural lands."
OK, so what? Didnt the same thing happen in Bethany pre-M37? Now the developer only has to buy off the right commissioner. With M37, at least an owner gets compensated for a taking of his land. How do we compensate an owner who gets deprived of the use of his land?
Again, all M37 said is that if a zoning changes while someone owns property, then he is either due compensation or to regain the benefits of the original zoning.
You guys learned fear-mongering on M37 all too well from Mr Bush and how he got us into Iraq.
Oct 9, '07
Uncontrolled growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell.
Oct 9, '07
I'm still unclear on why all the hysteria around this issue. The UGB in the Portland metro area was expanded 5 years ago and the vast majority of that land is still undeveloped. So given that, why are some people so bent out of shape about some M37 claims? Nothing is really happening people, calm down. So what if Mrs. English gets to build a few houses on her property? It isn't like there aren't a bunch of houses around her already. After following this issue for a few years I've learned that the hysterical people are the ones that don't know anything and don't have any solutions. I've pretty much stopped paying attention to all the crys about paving over the whole valley and other such nonsense. I still haven't figured out the motivation behind the hysteria though. Is it just that people don't have anything better to do with their life or are they really so clueless about simple economics that they really believe this claptrap?
Oct 9, '07
Andy, let me clear it up for you. Its a question about where the growth happens. Does it happen where it is planned to happen, with access to infrastructure to support the growth, and minimize the loss of farmland, fruit production, habitat......etc? Or does the growth happen without planning - whereby we can accomodated the same growth but have sprawl, more loss of farmland and habitat, more traffic, and more expensive infrastructure buildout.
That is, Portland could sprawl out like Phoenix, or it could become among the most livable cities with one of the strongest economies by continuing with intelligent land use planning.
You see, we have more choices here because of the UGB; and I think Portland has done pretty good with its land use laws to date.
Oct 9, '07
Excellent point oregonj. Andy - this is a state law we are discussing. While Portland has a host of land use challenges complicated by population growth my neighborhood is the more agrarian environs of Southern Oregon. Since M37 was adopted based on hysteria borne of keeping grandma from building her home, I've seen far too many pear orchards uprooted to make way for housing development, strip malls, etc. Thank God for the housing bubble burst, now we need to moderate the overreaction inherent in M37. Don't jettison a fair solution just because it isn't perfect.
11:55 a.m.
Oct 9, '07
Can I pull my hair out now?
Oregon's land use planning program started in 1973 (or 1969, depending on what you count). In that sense, it's more than 30 years old.
But in every another sense, it's current. It has been changed by every single legislative session since it was adopted. It has been expanded, reduced, strengthened, weakened, by scores of bills, local decisions, and court decisions. The Land Use Board of Appeals came along in the 1980s. Goals started at 15 and have expanded to 19.
And so forth. It has been subject of various "big look" committees over the years, most of which have made minor adjustments.
We've looked at it, and worked on it, continually. Just like any other policy (health care, taxes, environmental laws), some applications aren't quite what we want. Which is why we continue to change it.
But it's not like we haven't looked at it in 30 years, and it continues to form the core of the nation's most lauded, most future-looking planning program.
Oct 9, '07
You are absolutely on target with your comment Evan. Now leave your hair alone. M 37, like other land use laws required tweaking. The legislature did that but out of respect for the initiative process has put the resulting improvement on the ballot to give we the people our due. I just hope we don't drop the ball.
Oct 11, '07