I love it when trust fund babies spend their parents' money telling me that since they've gotten theirs, that my property rights don't matter.

It's also quite funny that in the 30-plus years since Oregon's land use laws were passed, approximately ZERO of the other 49 states have passed anything similar. Shouldn't that tell you something?

“It's also quite funny that in the 30-plus years since Oregon's land use laws were passed, approximately ZERO of the other 49 states have passed anything similar. Shouldn't that tell you something?”

Yes – it tells me that Oregonians have been concerned about the common good and avoiding the kind of soul-deadening, unsustainable, urban sprawl so adored by people like you who see no other value rather than your own selfish economic gain. You’re not the only one living in this state.

It’s called enlightenment, pal.

Enlightenment is then the process of putting all land ownership in the hands of the government? Anyone who doesn't want all the land to belong to the government and the wealthy elite is them labeled as selfish? Is me wanting to buy an affordable house for my family selfish? Really? I thought you so-called progressives tried to portray yourselves as champions of the poor. Why is it, then, that the policies you champion have the opposite effect?

"It's also quite funny that in the 30-plus years since Oregon's land use laws were passed, approximately ZERO of the other 49 states have passed anything similar. Shouldn't that tell you something?"

Just to clarify: many states, such as Washington, Florida, New Jersey, Minnesota, etc., have adopted strong land use laws since Oregon, not to mention Hawaii and Vermont, whose laws predate Oregon's.

"Is me wanting to buy an affordable house for my family selfish? Really? I thought you so-called progressives tried to portray yourselves as champions of the poor. Why is it, then, that the policies you champion have the opposite effect?"

No, wanting affordable housing is not selfish, which is why you can deduct the interest payments on your mortgage from your federal taxes. If you are an average homeowner paying off your mortgage, the federal government is giving you more money to pay for your house than it will ever give to the poor for rent subsidies.

What is selfish is building a sub-development where there is little groundwater and wells are already drying up. Developers that build sub-developments where farmers are already struggling to find adequate water resources are selfish. Developers which build sub-developments, knowing that people already living there will run out of groundwater and the nearby city will have to pay to pipe water out to the middle of nowhere, are selfish. The entire United States has an affordable housing crisis, which has very little to do with Oregon's excellent land-use planning laws.

"Enlightenment is then the process of putting all land ownership in the hands of the government?"

Spare us the strawman arguments, and engage in rational debate please, S. J.

Land conservation is the legal recognition that buying property does not allow one to secede from the state and set up a private fiefdom. We in Oregon have long fought to defend that principle; M37 is just the latest skirmish in a long campaign.

What concerns me is the atrocious, sloppy reporting masquerading as journalism in this article.

First, the intro sentence: "Those who passionately disagree whether Measure 49 would steal property rights from Oregonians..." Objective? Give e a break, that's OIA framing. Why not, "Those who passionately disagree about whether voters intended gravel pits and billboards under Measure 37.."

What disgraceful, yellow journalism!

As for sloppy...In one section of the article, Mortenson identifies Aaron Jones as CEO of Seneca Jones Lumber and later states, "the company has not filed a Measure 37 claim and doesn't intend to.." Which completely ignores the fact that Jones himself has filed a claim and proudly stated so in a full page ad recently. (see, for example, http://oia.org/JonesLetter.pdf )

Gosh, Mr. Mortenson, how sloppy and lazy can you get? This little fact is out there for the world to see. Don't you think it might be worth pointing out instead of misleading your readers and giving them the impression that Seneca has only altruistic motives at heart?

And what's with the numbers? I went to the Secretary of State's web site this morning and OIA's PAC shows contributions of over $1 million dollars, not the $340,000 Mortenson reported. The Yes on 49 figures are accurate.

Eric Mortenson should be covering something he can get right...he's clearly in over his head!

There isn't a strong correlation between land availability and housing prices:

The study found that:

    * it is the size, type and quality of homes built that has the greatest influence on local house prices;
    * house prices are heavily influenced by the quality of the environment: new homes which improve an area create value, but homes which damage an attractive location can bring down prices [7];
    * if local house prices fall following development this may reflect damage to local amenity and a decline in the quality of the neighbourhood, rather than a response to a greater supply of new homes;
    * even with much higher building rates, the impact on house prices would be very small, delayed and hard to detect. Any reduction in price resulting from increasing housing supply would be swamped by other factors;
    * house prices are controlled not by land supply but primarily by ability to pay;
    * rising house prices reflect, notably, an era of rising incomes, greater wealth available to many buyers as deposits, and mortgage lenders offering much higher loans than was considered prudent only a few years ago;
    * affordability as measured by the ratio of house prices to incomes has worsened. However, the proportion of income which first time buyers spend on mortgage repayments remains less than it was for most of the 1980s. Serious affordability problems are concentrated among those with lower incomes and little wealth.

Paul G:

I'm also crazy enough to believe that we need to attract more businesses which provide good working class jobs to to Portland, even if these businesses might be a bit less "green" than we want. We need to celebrate entrepeneurship, capitalism

Bob T:

Too many people on the New Urbanist side forget about this. David Bragdon is one of the few who's said that a good job is a part if quality of life. The latter is more than just scenery.

Paul G:

We need to celebrate entrepeneurship, capitalism

Bob T:

No, we just need to do it, like Michael Moore and Oprah do, and even Ralph Nader. They're doing very well.

Bob Tiernan

As for Eric Mortenson, he is an incredibly poor journalist. I posted about Eric Mortenson last night. Besides the points that you make, is it really true that "Lemelson's and The Nature Conservancy's contributions have attracted the most scrutiny"?

I wish the grapes would catch some disease and wither up and die and Intel would relocate to China. That would do a lot to disperse these Californians who have come up here and ruined our beautiful state!

Peter Bra There isn't a strong correlation between land availability and housing prices: JK: Give us a break. No one repealed the law of supply and demand. You guys have stopped the supply (with restrictions) as demand continues.

Do you really think that ONE MILLION an acre vs $15,000 an acre will not affect house prices? (ONE MILLION an acre is $125,000 just for a typical city lot.) A brand new house, in low regulatin areas like Houston, costs just a few thousand more than the raw land in this area.

ewoc: Are you aware that Yamhill County vineyard land (i.e. raw land, sans vines) sells currently for $15,000/acre or more? JK: Now lets build affordable homes on that cheap land instead of on ONE MILLION an acre land inside the UGB.

Also Every home built in wine country is one less skinny house, row house, tiny lot or crappy condo in our Portland neighborhoods

Thanks JK

Besides being unenlightened, Scott's also lying. But we already knew that he loves to bait him some progressives over here.

Twelve other states have growth management acts similar to Oregon, including such hotbeds of progressive politics as Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Iowa...

ZERO of the other 49 states have passed anything similar to Measure 37's attack on zoning -- notably Washington, which soundly crushed I933 after our NW neighbors saw the true colors of M37.

The Oregonian's Dave Hogan is usually not sloppy with SOS numbers. I'm surprised but won't hold my breath for a correction.

"Now lets build affordable homes on that cheap land instead of on ONE MILLION an acre land inside the UGB."

JK, but the 1000 enviroNAZIs from California don't want you to encroach on their vineyards! You're forgetting density is good and more pollution, crime, people and congestion is the plan for the future of L.A. (I meant Portland).

Wrong John.

Arizona passed Prop 207 in 2006 (by a landslide).

It provides Arizonans with the same protections against regulatory takings as M37.

Wrong PanchoPdx.

Proposition 207 is not retroactive, as Measure 37 is, but only impacts future regulations.

Hey Portland! Incase you didn't already know....the rest of us call you ..."Little Los Angeles"... Oregon's land use doesn't work and Portland is a prime example.

Although when you consider that several of the top land use people in LCDC came from LA it's easy to see why things are this way.

Pack in the rats and they'll begin to eat each other...bon appitite!

Wow, it's great how "little Los Angeles" is nothing like the actual Los Angeles! After all, "little Los Angeles" is consistently rated one of the most livable cities in the world...

Bray,

The point was that the very same protections in M37 (regulatory takings) were adopted in Arizona's Prop 207 - by an overwhelming majority. They adopted the same standard for measuring lost property value due to regulatory taking that Oregon adopted in M37 (and which M49 would gut).

There is no dispute of that.

The difference between Arizona and Oregon is that Arizona apparently did not have Oregon's long history of stealing property through regulatory takings.

Just because they didn't need to make their measure retroactive to undo thousands of past wrongs (like Oregon), doesn't mean that they didn't recognize the value of protecting their property rights.

Maybe they saw where states like Oregon have gone and realized it was time to draw a line in the sand.

If Oregonians had been given the opportunity to pass M37 in alongside SB 100, there is no doubt that they would have.

M49 supporters seem to believe that if the government holds onto stolen property for long enough that it is unfair to release it to the rightful owners.

What? You say you had investment-backed expectations?

Welcome to the club.

Lestatdelc:

Name who's land has been "stolen" because of land-use zoning. You anti-49/pro-37 wingnuts can't help but lie can you?

Bob T:

Don't you think it has been crappy and dishonest of government to get the same results it wants (as in an example of preventing a landowner from developing a nice pasture people like to see when they drive by) w/o actually taking the land? That's like letting you keep a TV but preventing you from watching it, saying that since you still own it there's no violation of rights.

Fortunately the USSC stopped government from doing that sort of thing, partially.

Bob Tiernan

Time to pay attention to the other NO-49 funders like Adec Inc and owners'the Austins long-term support of far right causes. Jeld-Wen of K-falls will show up in the reports soon as well. You see the same companies over and over sponsoring/fighting initiatives to the detriment of all Oregonians.

If you purchase goods or services, know who you're spending it with.

Mt Hood Meadows also gives money to Oregonians In Action.

If you purchase goods or services, know who you're spending it with.

Good point. That's why I stopped buying Oregon wines six months ago. I'd rather buy French wines.

If I'm going to buy products from neo-commies, I'd just as soon they weren't my neighbors.

Pancho, Just a few months ago, you were boycotting French wines and French fries. The world must be a confusing place for you, eh? Try Bud lite.

Prop 207 was sold as anti-eminent domain (Kelo case) to prevent government from condemning land in order to sell it to private developers. Yes, they slipped in future land-use laws. Very clever.

It's not surprising that nowhere in the pro-207 arguments is there ANY mention of Measure 37, or how wonderful it is.

What's with Eric Mortenson's selective amnesia??

Today (10/6) he filed a story saying the largest donation to No on 49 was $150,000 from Newberg-based A-dec, after just filing a story on 10/2 reporting that Stimson Lumber gave $200,000.

I never boycotted any French (wines, cheese or "fries") because I never bought into the neo-con "with us or against us" line. Regardless, it seemed silly to penalize French companies for foreign policy decisions made by their country's leaders.

In the current case, the Oregon wine industry is largely culpable through donations and the lobbying that put M49 on the ballot.

I'm conflicted because I grew up in Oregon wine country. Over the years, I've toured many local wineries and have bought cases of their products. But I just abhor the way the wineries are investing in a naked attempt to reduce their neighbors' land values.

It may not be much in the scheme of things, but I'm not buying local wines anymore.

Reading through these posts you can just see which ones are the greedbag republicans. The soullessness, the ignorance. The ferret-like focus on money above all else.