I never understood the pro-37 argument. Try as I might, I am unable to get my mind around the concept that one class of people, in this case land owners, should be compensated for following the law if the law changes. Everyone else has to follow the rules even when it costs them to do so, so why single out one group of people for compensation?

Not any wonder that "coyote" so thusly named... an animal that can survive in the harshest urban environments.

My advice to those that believe that the "market" should decide how land is used is to MOVE. Please move. Get out. Yes, you... Leave! Might I suggest LA or San Diego? It is delightfully sunny, the concrete warms quite nicely to a comfortable 130+ degrees in the summer, wild fires rain terror on lands that were once a nice buffer zone between civilization and nature and you'd be hard pressed to find anything green that is not a weed or a palm tree.

So, yes... let's meet on the next election where you will be licking up the waste of your crumbling dreams.

When Democrats craft a ballot title so stacked that they have to passs a special law telling the supreme court that it cannot review the ballot title for accuracy or fairness, you know the fix is in. And that's all this was.

Democrats cheated and they won. And now they will tell Measure 37 claimants that due to the technical language in the measure, "which was out there for everyone to read", they really can't build three houses on your property via the "fast lane" as they thought.

Measure 49 was just one battle in a long running fight against those who want government to have complete control over over the use of all private property. The fight is far from over. The next time you will not be able to rig the ballot title like you did this time and I am confident that the outcome will be quite different.

So, rejoice for a few days over your ill-gotten gains. But when you are alone, remember that you had to cheat to win and recognize that a lot of people were tricked this time and won't be next time.

If you compare how many Oregonians voted for Measure 37 when it passed in a general election and how many voted to repeal it with Measure 49 in a low turnout special election, you might see just how tenuous your little victory really was and how unlikely it is that you will be able to hang on to it.

If we can vote on this issue three times, we can vote on it four and right now we are batting two for three.

Here is another quote for your files, from somebody who was rolled over by this in Salem:

“It is a monumental failure on a systemic level for Oregon politics, and an open admission that the land use system is broken,” said Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, whose district includes Jefferson County.

Maybe the "lie and cheat" is a reference to how this was placed on the ballot, and how the ballot title was locked in with only Democratic wording, no chance for an appeal, etc.

You know what I'm loving? The fact that M49 passed and M50 failed, forcing partisans to make some absurdly contradictory arguments about the voters' will. Coyote and Sizemore are blaming M49's passage on the fact that voters were "duped" by the misleading ballot title and big money in favor of M49 -- but of course the M50 vote was a solid, rational decision. Regulars here at BO are blaming M50's loss on the fact that voters were "duped" by misleading arguments and big tobacco money -- but of course voters were totally sensible in their support of M49.

I wonder if it's occurred to any of these partisans that maybe the voters did exactly what they wanted to do? Maybe they're sophisticated enough to see through the campaign tactics and still vote aye (or nay) given their actual policy preferences? Ah yes, but the simplest explanation is never the most fun.

Now, back to your local conspiracy programming.

Always an honor to be called a "cheat" by the likes of Bill!

Miles, are the "regulars here at BO" distinguished by their intake of dietary fiber?

To give credit where credit is due, the Oregonian wrote me back in response to my earlier post (http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/11/elections-resul.html#c89047248) and it looks like we can expect them to report on the success of M49 in rural areas shortly:

"We have no interest at all in stoking an urban-rural divide. The section of the story you're referring to was written early in the evening, and should have been revised as more results became available. In the rush of deadline, however, I didn't get to it. However, I'll be taking another look at that in followup stories. Thank you for pointing it out, it's an important element of the story."

Dan

I am unable to get my mind around the concept that one class of people, in this case land owners, should be compensated for following the law if the law changes. That is a very interesting point. It started me thinking, can you think of any other rules that have been passed by a governing body that so dramatically alter the monetary value of a persons private property(not necessarily meaning land)? I cannot come up with any. Interested in your response. Thanks

Jeff

Progressives' trust has always been in the wisdom of the people Then why did they subvert their wisdom on M37(I voted for)? What about when the people of this state voted against gay marriage(a result I opposed). How long did it take the progressive legislature to subvert that wisdom. Either the will of the people matters when they vote, or it doesn't.

Progressives' trust has always been in the wisdom of the people

The "wisdom of the people" is a nice shibboleth that people like to toss around, but it is hogwash. The people only show wisdom when they agree with an advocate.

If trusting the wisdom of the people is a definition of a progressive, then it looks like I don't qualify. Some times they get it right; other times they get it wrong. Polls showed around 75% of the people approved of the war on Iraq. Was that the "wisdom of the people"?

I am disheartened this passed but not surprised.

Polls showed around 75% of the people approved of the war on Iraq. Was that the "wisdom of the people"?

Fortunately, they aren't entrusted with foreign policy decisions.

But the people do elect the deciders who are trusted with foreign policy and other matters.

The people can be trusted to make good decisions over time, even if they err on occasion. It's hard to blame them/us; we're only human.

Unfortunately, before they get around to making "good decisions over time" they make unwise decisions. However, I believe it can be said with more accuracy, the people are more likely to get it right than the politicians and the oligarchies they serve as in the case of resolving the Iraq quagmire.

And you inadvertently point out a BIG difference between the two camps--here on BlueOregon, it's the commenters complaining. All my quotes above are from bloggers or elected representatives. Big difference.

Here on Blue Oregon, you're right. But I could have pulled Governor Kulongoski's quote from last night: "The tobacco industry basically bought an election. I don't think it's a reflection of what oregonians think about health care and children."

This sounds remarkably like Dave Hunnicut on M49: "'There may be some who thinks this ends the issue, but I think they'd be in the minority.' Hunnicut said opponents never had a chance because Democratic legislators wrote the 21-page measure's ballot title and explanatory statement."

I'm mostly just amused at the mental gymnastics required to believe that voters were rational on one measure but duped on the other.

Steve Maurer

Go back to smokin' Steve. After you get done with the munchies, try find me an example not involving illegal activities.

Steve

P.S. Have you heard of any Dems talking about ending farm subsidies for Iowa farmers.............Didn't think so.

"This election will not tell us what the voters believe about Measure 37. It will only tell us that they can be duped."

Well, of course voters can be duped. That's why Measure 37 passed in the first place. The proponents of M37 held up Dorothy English as their poster girl, look, this poor little old lady just wants to build a house on her own land, and the measure didn't even help her! They persuaded a lot of people this was about "making the government pay for taking your land" without mentioning the government has to do that anyway. They pulled a major scam, duping the voters into gutting Oregon's popular land use laws with a well-crafted bait-and-switch tactic.

I haven't seen statistics, but I've met a number of people who voted for Measure 37 and regretted it afterwards once they learned what it was really about. If this election is any indication, they constitute maybe twenty percent of the voting population.

my biggest beef on the whole M37 thing is how people with M37 claims assert that land use regulations lowered their property's value - and yet they are not volunteering to send in the back taxes that would be owed if their property had been assessed at the rate associated with what they think it would/should have been worth for the last 30 years.

and that's not even touching the farm deferral issues.

it p&sses me off sideways into next week the way these people want it both ways. they want the lower taxes but then they want to be able to sell their land at a high premium.

Fortunately, they aren't entrusted with foreign policy decisions. We have a representative democracy for exactly these reasons. The people can be trusted to make good decisions over time, even if they err on occasion. It's hard to blame them/us; we're only human.

Incorrect. If anything was revealed Tuesday night, it was that Oregon does not have a representative democracy. No matter how you slice it, Measure 49 was passed with very low turnout and in nearly every county in the State with three years' accumulated new registered voters, fewer ballots approved Measure 49 than Measure 37. No one can claim that 49 represents the majority of Oregonians, period.

That would be why all of the chest-thumping on this website involves percentage approval rates rather than hard numbers and certainly no direct comparison to Measure 37 turnout and approval. And no, it wasn't a federal election so no, the election was not as politically charged. But hey - if the pro-49 case was so compelling and Measure 37 so devastating to Oregonians, why did a big slice of the electorate not bother to vote?

If this truly was a representative democracy, the issue would have been put before the legislature, debated by representatives, and voted upon by (nearly) all representatives thus legitimizing new law Statewide. And that works both ways for the pro-37 argument as well. But no, 49 was passed in an off-year with early and strong mobilization by the fringe on this argument.

So boast, criticize, snark, gloat or whatever it is you want to do. Just make sure that you save your pennies because the next pro-property rights measure will be in the pike soon enough - and they didn't waste a lot of money in this off-year election like the pro-49 group did.

Um, no I'm afraid you're mistaken on the math.

Basic multiplication indicates that a 61% majority of 59% of the electorate equals 36% of eligible voters passed measure 49. That's far from a convincing majority. That means 64% of voters didn't feel compelled to overturn 37.

And don't forget that voter turn-out is the classic case of self-selecting sample because this is the U.S. and we don't force everyone to vote. So no, voter turnout is not a true representative sample indicative of the majority of Oregonians.

In the end, at least 200,000 eligible Oregonians didn't even bother to be registered for this election compared to 2004 and not including pop growth since 2000.

41% of this year's reduced registered electorate clearly didn't consider Measure 37 a threat because they didn't bother to vote. Who would argue they supported Measure 49.. they clearly didn't bother themselves with the vote.

So if you want to talk stats, feel free. The numbers don't lie, and while I don't speak for the pro-37 players, I think it's more than a bit disingenuous and mathematically inaccurate to purport this represents the true majority of Oregon.

Screwtape can fudge around with numbers 'til he's blue in the face, but in the end he will find that Oregonians are serious about preserving our quality of life.

Well, I suppose you're right about the whole numbers thing, Ed.

And I suppose that you can fudge around with numbers 'til you're blue in the face, but in the end you'll find that Americans were serious about preserving the Bush presidential dynasty in 2000.

Are you really that nihilistic about the democratic process? At least Gore had more than 36% of the electorate on his side.

Screwtape, you are hopelessly cynical it seems.

I have every faith in the outcome of the continuing struggle to forestall the rapacious greed of developers attempting to turn Oregon into an annex of California, that the citizens will succeed in retaining the mantle of livability with which our beautiful state has been graced.

Chris Lowe

I used to buy into the idea that most Americans were not that far apart on the issues. That the media played up the extremes. I will have to say that I may have to start questioning that premise. You have opened my eyes.

I believe that if I buy 1 acre of land today with the right to build 8 houses on it, I should maintain that right as long a I own the land. Period. If a change in land use is deemed to be so important as to alter my existing rights, I should be compensated. Period.

P.S. go get a converter box for your tv. I did. It works great.

mike, where in the compensation that believe you should receive do you factor the difference in your tax burden?

Trishka

Not quite sure what you mean... please specify what "tax burden" you are referring to.

Thanks for the comment.

Mike writes: I believe that if I buy 1 acre of land today with the right to build 8 houses on it, I should maintain that right as long a I own the land. Period. If a change in land use is deemed to be so important as to alter my existing rights, I should be compensated. Period.

But Mike, why should the compensation always be to your benefit, and never to your detriment? If the government says you can only build 4 houses, you want to be compensated. But what if the government says you can now build 16 houses? Your value just went up. . . surely you're not suggesting you owe the government a share of your windfall?

Your view also doesn't take into account the grey areas. What if the government says you can still build, but you have to put in a water retention system for runoff? What if they change the setbacks from 5 feet to 15 feet? Your absolutist view doesn't seem to allow for the legitimacy of ANY government action that negatively impacts you. I think that's the kind of absolutism that lead to M49 passing.

Miles

If the government did allow 16 lots instead of 8, something I have never heard of, they would benefit. They would get twice the building permit fees, which if you have built a house recently, you know are quite substantial. Secondly, the would see, assuming townhouses on a 16/ac plat, about $72,000 per year in additional property taxes.

As per the other items you mention, the water retention would be a system development charge passed on to the buyer, as is the American way. The setbacks only alter the orientation of the structure on the lot, not the right to build.

Thanks for the comments. Have a great day.

mike, here is what i mean by your tax burdern.

in very simplistic terms, suppose in 1973 you own a piece of property that is undeveloped. oregon passes regulation that zones it as farm use only.

so, as farm land, it is appraised at value X. you then pay taxes assessed as a fraction of X.

however, as a potential subdivision, it has an appraisal value of 1.2X. but you're not paying 1.2 times as many taxes, you're only being taxed at the rate for which it is valued as farm land.

30 years later, the value of the land as farm land is still X (adjusted for inflation). and all along, you've been paying that tax rate.

the value as a potential subdivision is now 10X! and you say, well, i should get to sell my land for 10X! and i would, except the government won't let me.

except, you haven't aren't paying a tax rate that is proportional to 10X, and you haven't been paying the incremental increase all along that would have gone along with the increase in your property value, had it been appraised as potential subdivision land.

so, when the government goes to compensate you, do you agree that you should get 9X minus back taxes you would paid?

again, this is quite oversimplified, and doesn't even get into the fact that if it is farm land you own, the state has not only been taxing you at a lower rate, but GIVING you a tax subsidy. does that aggregate tax subsidy need to be deducted out of the compensation you are due as well?

Evan

My 3 acres can have 0 homes built per current zoning. It has no agricultural value. Yet my land is still valued, by the assessor, at over $25K per acre. I have had my property listed for sale for 10 years, no takers. I am still paying taxes on a property with zero economic worth. Another property less than 2 miles away, which is buildable, is selling at $340K per acre. It is essentially the same type of property. Why shouldn't I receive compensation?

Kari and Jeff:

Sorry fellas, but all the vote on Tuesday night did was demonstrate that:

-At least 200,000 voters weren't big enough fans of either 49 or 50 to bother updating registration; -Nearly 800,000 voters weren't excited enough about either 49 or 50 to bother voting; -The 61% Yes on 49 votes really only amounted to 36% of Oregonian adults that even thought it worthwhile being registered for this election.

Jeff and Kari, if you want to argue that people who supported Measure 49 decided to do so by not voting, which you are in effect, be my guest. I'm not saying all abstentions were "No" votes, but to believe that choosing not to vote for something constitutes support for that thing defies all logic that I'm familiar with.

The point here is that 36% of voters might have approved a new law, but they do not necessarily reflect the majority of Oregonians, only the 59% of voters jazzed enough about land use and/or cigarette taxes.

And there's no slippery slope here, Jeff. This was Yes/No vote on new law that applies to all of Oregon. This was not a philosophical selection between candidates for a known representative political position. They are two VERY different things.

The original comment I objected to was the statement made by Jeff that this was representative democracy. This election, and really most referendum elections, fall(s) far short of that as compared to an actual legislative process that gets representative government review and either endorsement or rejection and then an executive vote for implementation.

Would you two be equally satisfied if the Governor signed into law a Measure 37-type bill passed by the Legislature when 40% of the House and Senate didn't bothered showing up to vote? Would you really consider that legitimate legislation?

That is the point.

Trishka

I wouldn't object to a tax adjustment at all. That would be equitable, as long as the values used for the land valuation are fair.

Here's an absurd scenario that might resonate on this site. A republican governor is elected. S(he)immediately bans the use of any auto that gets OVER 10 mpg. The governor also prohibits the transfer of the auto out-of-state. Should the auto owners get compensated for the loss of value of their auto?

It seems like a bit of a push to view the passage of Measure 49 as a "mandate" for much. It took a misleading ballot title and outspending the opposition over 2:1 to pass the measure. This is a "mandate" that I doubt most supporters would be interested in testing again with a neutral ballot title and equal spending. Keep in mind that Measure 37 essentially passed twice, and I really doubt there were that many regrets. I expect that many people thought they were merely "clarifying" Measure 37. I wouldn't be surprised if another 37-type measure is placed on the next general election ballot.

Yeah I agree that M49 wasn't much of a mandate. Just wait until the LCDC gets together and they start passing rules that prevent people from using or enjoying their land. The next backlash will come. The LCDC doesn't seem to be able to act in a moderate way. As soon as they get a little power they let it go to their heads and they over reach. It won't be too long before they screw up again and we start to see another ballot measure aimed at reeling them back in.

Chris Lowe

My converter from comcast is $1 per month. At least I don't have to upgrade until I am ready to.

Just so I know from where you base your opinions, do you own a home or land?

Just to be clear, I didn't say I wanted the right to do ANYTHING with my land, only what I was legally entitled to do at the time of purchase.

You really have no responsibility to other land owners affected by your choices, or to other members of your community affected even if they don't have land? Amazing. You talk as if only one party bears any responsibility in this debate. Why do you feel that you can harm me without bearing any moral responsibility to me, but I am supposed to base all of my actions on how they might affect you. I would consider that stance the height of arrogance.

As far as removing regulation, we can debate hypothetical' s all day, but it won't get us any closer to a solution.

Re: property tax situation, are you saying that if the zoning was changed from 8 to 16 lots, when the homes were built, only 8 would be taxed?

Also, I am not demonizing land use laws. I have no trouble with that fact my land was zoned for residential 8 use when I bought it. My problem is the fact that a change to 1 per 5 acres has made my land worthless. If you believe in making sure no one in the community is harmed, send me $1,050,600.

Kari

Only if my car was allowed to fly when I bought it.

Torridjoe

Q: What is speculation A: The assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain

If I invest in land for speculation, I invest with the hope that it's future demand will exceed it's current demand. That would be how I make a profit, or in the reverse, sustain a loss. It is classic supply/demand, risk/reward economics.

What is happening here is not. The demand for the land has not abated. Government regulation has intervened. For example, if the US Gov't, tomorrow morning, declared that paper currency was no longer legal tender and could not be exchanged for coin, would those with paper currency be entitled to compensation?

torridjoe,

Please answer these questions:

Q:A republican governor is elected. S(he)immediately bans the use of any auto that gets OVER 10 mpg. The governor also prohibits the transfer of the auto out-of-state. Should the auto owners get compensated for the loss of value of their auto?

Q:If the US Gov't, tomorrow morning, declared that paper currency was no longer legal tender and could not be exchanged for coin, would those with paper currency be entitled to compensation?

Sal

Post your home address and phone number on a conservative blog and I might consider posting personally traceable information on a liberal blog.