Voter Alert: Bogus Anti-49 Mailer
Across Oregon, ballots started arriving in the mail today. Along with the ballots, a mailer from the No on 49 campaign also landed - with lots of bogus information in it.
Over at YesOn49.com, they've got the Truth Squad on it. Here's a taste:
CLAIM: The Netters say: "If Measure 49 passes, we'll lose the value of our property. We want to see the tradition go on... we want to farm."WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: The statement is patently false. The Netters filed a Measure 37 claim for a 60-lot housing subdivision on their 98 acres of exclusive farm use land. The state denied the subdivision because the land was already protected farmland when Fred Netter acquired in 1977. Under Measure 37 they area allowed up to 3 houses—Measure 49 would preserve these rights. ...
CLAIM: The Bitzes say in the brochure "We told our kids we would give our property to them...We'd like to keep our farm for future generations."
WHAT THEY’RE NOT TELLING YOU: Measure 49 will allow property rights to transfer to an owner’s children, which Measure 37 does not. But the Bitzes don’t need it: under current zoning (without Measure 37), Jerald Bitz can divide his property into seven lots.
Meanwhile, there are lots and lots of opportunities to phone bank and canvass this weekend. Turn off your computer, and hit somd doors. Here's a list of places around the state where you can go to help.
Discuss.
|
Oct. 19, 2007
Posted in elsewhere. |
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
5:55 p.m.
Oct 19, '07
I was thankful that at least at the same time we received a nice brochure from the Yes on 49 crowd.
Oct 19, '07
Someone is also blasting out anti-M49 text messages on throwaway cell phones if you can believe it...
Oct 19, '07
Anyone get their ballot today? I didn't in NE PDX, though I got the pro-M49 flier.
I'm curious to know how well the arrival of the fliers, both pro- and anti-49, with the ballots actually is.
8:04 p.m.
Oct 19, '07
I got my ballot today and no propaganda.
Actually I am not sure that M49 does preserve the novel "property rights" (claims) invented by M37 for children, i.e. the "right" to exemption or compensation from regulations passed after acquisition.
I see clear language that inheritance by a surviving spouse not on the original acquisition transaction does not count as a new acquisition. But I don't see such clear language about children or other heirs. The contrast suggests at least the possibility that in fact intergenerational inheritance will count as a new acquisition, with heirs being subject to those regulations in place at the time of inheritance.
The YesOn49 claim that M37 does not<+i> protect intergenerational inheritance of "regulatory status" seems as if it must be wrong. A great many M37 claims were filed not on the basis of regulations as the stood at the time a current owner inherited, but at the time of acquisition by some ancestor. Anyone know what justifies this claim?
From a policy perspective I am not fussed about any of this, as I think the whole premise of M37 is wrong. The potential for regulatory change is something one knows or should know when one acquires property. Also, as the M49 campaign is effectively communicating, government granting special regulatory privileges to some (M37) often creates loss of value to other property owners that is just as real as that from direct regulation.
But from a political point of view, if M49 covertly makes intergenerationally transferred property subject to the regulations at time of inheritance rather than ancestral acquisition, I don't think this is clearly understood, and could come back to bite us. Can someone show me where status is preserved at inheritance besides for spouses?
(It won't affect my vote, just my confidence that my side is not also being misleading.)
The neat trick the antis are using is saying "property rights will be taken away" referring to the novel rights created by M37.
Oct 19, '07
I didn't get a ballot or the anti-49 brochure, but I did get the pro-49 brochure (yesterday I think). Nicely produced. Sweet maps.
Anybody have the latest polling data on 49?
Oct 19, '07
We got the anti-49 mailer and it went straight to recycle.
9:29 p.m.
Oct 19, '07
Lots of phone banking and canvassing going on over at the Washco Dems website see the right sidebar for dates and contact info.
9:32 p.m.
Oct 19, '07
Someday I will learn to make these links work. Kari can't you please add a links button to make it easier? Anyway: M49 phone banking at www.washcodems.org
Oct 19, '07
Statesman Journal came out against M49. Ugh.
Oct 19, '07
I hope the Yes on 49 campaign is right about this, because M37 proceeding unmodified, to me, seems like poison for Oregon.
Also, on a little different issue, I hate to bring up the detestable David Reinhard's opinion, but his 10/07/07 column about M49 and the implication of conditions in M49 related to 'restricts' and 'prohibits' has me wondering if the conditions they create might be a significant flaw in the writing of M49.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1191894942188570.xml&coll=7
Oct 19, '07
Newspaper endorsements are rolling in... and it is not pretty for Measure 49. This sucks. Albany Herald, Statesman Journal, Hood River News. Anyone have any ideason Register Guard or The Little O?
Oct 20, '07
At least the Mail Tribune in Medford is on our side. There are quite a few claims in that neck of the woods.
Oct 20, '07
Remember 2002 when we voted to limit density? Won by 65-35%.
Has anyone noticed that we are still getting more density in our neighborhoods?
The reason is simple: Metro lied to us.
And the same bunch is lying to us again.
The fact is M37 promises to allow new neighborhoods to be created, outside of Portland, where people could have a real back yard for the kids and at an affordable price, but if measure 49 passes, there will be no new neighborhoods and we will get more density in our existing neighborhoods. In fact, Metro is expecting 300,000 more people in Portland alone (a 50% increase.) That is one new skinny house for every two houses we now have. Or it is mile upon mile of giant apartments lining every main street, causing more congestion, run off and pollution.
The choice is simple: Pass M49 and continue the destruction of our neighborhoods. OR Stop 49 and allow brand new neighborhoods and preserve our existing neighborhood’s livability.
PS: Metro cheated in 2002 by putting a confusing, do nothing, measure on the ballot in response to a real density limit by the people. The same crew is cheating again by preventing the usual court review of M49's ballot title and description. It is only by lying and cheating that the developers and their lackeys are fooling us again. (By developers, I mean the Portland ones that give millions to local politicians to get the privilege of building tax exempt condo towers in Portland, get Portland to foot the cost of their roads, parks, trams, water and sewers and pave over every square inch of land. Not those that want to build (and fully pay for), outside of Portland, brand new, livable neighborhoods with real living space for real families on lots with lots of grass and little pavement.
Thanks JK
Oct 20, '07
Uh, yeah, whatever.
In other news, Daily Astorian, Register Guard, Capital Press have endorsed M49.
Statesman Journal, Albany News Herald, and some smaller weeklies have opposed.
2:07 a.m.
Oct 20, '07
I one of those text messages, from 971-388-9933 this morning. Here's what it said:
2/2. ECONOMY! DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE YOUR PEROPERTY (sic) REPLY "YES', "NO" OR "STOP".
I called the number back, and got a message saying that the Cricket customer I had dialed is unavailable either because the phone is off or has moved out of the coverage area. Message 20 PDX.
I can't reach a live person at Cricket, either locally or at their 800 number.
Oct 20, '07
[Repeated identical comment removed. - editor.]
Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator www.getenergized.com/vote.html
Oct 22, '07
Yes, the good old Medford Mail Trombone endorse every new tax and gimmick that comes down the pike. Bob Hunter is as out of touch with southern Oregon as most of the progressives up in Multnomah County.
<h2>That he would endorse M49 is no surprise.</h2>