A few points:

• Why shouldn’t someone profit from the increase in value of their land JUST LIKE OTHER OREGONIANS?

• All of that added building will relieve some of the pressure to build more skinny houses and giant apartment buildings in our Portland neighborhoods. It will reduce traffic on Portland’s streets by putting the new people somewhere else. It will make housing more affordable as Metro’s artificial shortage of land is overcome.

• It will reduce future pollution in Portland by reducing the inflow of new people to Portland. What’ not to like about a more livable, less congested, less polluted Portland?

• BTW the people who told you that high density reduces traffic congestion were lying.

• BTW the people who told you that high density reduces pollution where you live were lying.
• BTW the people who told you that high density reduces commute times were lying.

• BTW the people who told you that high density reduces costs were lying.

• The inability of many people to use their land has resulted in a lower standard of living for all of us.

• The main people who want M37 repealed are those that don’t want the city riff-raff moving near their exclusive rural enclaves - SB100 shut the door to newcomers and they want to keep that door shut by repealing M37.

• Look at the financial opponents of M37: A rich Oregon winery owner and a large number of out of state environmental organizations who want to keep Oregon as their experiment in high density living.

• SB100 was founded on alarmism of the 1970's, all proven false by the passage of time: 1) The limits to Growth which predicted we would run out of raw materials by now, and 2) The Population Bomb which predicted that we would run out of food. Instead the government is still paying farmers to NOT grow food. It was a fraud form the beginning - its time to get rid of SB100, not M37.

Here is a review of a new book that touches on this: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1377918.php

Thanks JK

Kari Chisholm Rather, Measure 37 sets up situations where there are different sets of rules for neighboring properties. I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue that it makes sense for two properties side by side to live under different laws. JK: Excellent argument against urban growth boundaries (where adjacent properties are worth millions per acre inside vs. thousands per acre outside) and zoning in general.

BTW, I support zoning that is bottom up - with approval of all affected, not the top down, dictatorial zoning that Portland has.

Thanks JK

Jim, this isn't just about Portland. It is also about Willamette Valley farmers worried about subdivisions on prime farmland, people who thought they would have a view from their house now see nothing but other houses, keeping natural landmarks pristine (isn't that what the Prineville case is about?).

If you have problems with what Portland is doing, say so. But Measure 37 is a STATE measure, and this blog is Blue OREGON. Those of us who thought 37 was sneaky (if they wanted transferability, why didn't they write it into the measure?) are not going to be convinced that density is wrong just because you say so. BTW, I didn't spend my childhood in Oregon, I spent it in a midwestern city where there was a lot more density than I've seen in Portland.

One of the unintended consequences of M37 with respect to private commercial timberland is that residential development and intensive forestry are incompatible. More people living in or adjacent to private forest land will create a significant burden to the management of adjacent private forests. Which in turn will pressure the private forestland owner to consider changing their land use from forests to housing. Those lands that are converted from industrial forest land to "hobby forests" with a house will no longer be managed to produce wood products. Given the choice between having managed forestland and subdivisions in the woods I suspect most people would choose managed forestland. The interesting thing is that the enviro groups in Oregon chose to put their efforts behind supporting the (failed) Tillamook State Forest 50/50 ballot initiative, instead of focussing on M37, which as we are beginning to see will have dramatic effects on the forest environment.

LT: Jim, this isn't just about Portland. It is also about Willamette Valley farmers worried about subdivisions on prime farmland, people who thought they would have a view from their house now see nothing but other houses, JK: Blocking views? Oh, you mean like the condo towers springing up in the Sowhat after Portland, not the neighbors, changed the zoning and made multiple variances to the well connected developers. Oregon zoning has been perverted. It was originated to protect the neighborhoods. Now it is used to destroy neighborhoods by forcing high density development in most areas of most cities. The control of zoning belongs with the people in the neighborhood, not the planners . The whole SB100 thing is about taking zoning control away from those affected and allow top down planning and forcing people live in ways they would not freely choose..

Thanks JK

Blocking views? Oh, you mean like the condo towers springing up in the Sowhat after Portland, not the neighbors, changed the zoning and made multiple variances to the well connected developers.

The difference between those condo towers and M37 claims is huge..

The towers are going up in a neighborhood adjacent to an urbanized downtown. People who live adjacent to city centers should not be surprised by the gradual expansion of those centers. The zoning was changed by a public process with everyone who voted for it on-the-record and although the neighbors may not like the outcome, they did win some compromises out of the process.

M37 claims, however, pit one neighbor against another regardless of zoning, based SOLELY on who bought their property when. There is no public hearing, neighbors cannot voice their grievances or win compromises, and one property owner on an identically zoned parcel may develop their land in a way another neighbor cannot, again, based solely on when the property was purchased.

Further, the theoretical changes in market value are bogus. Ever since the dawn of zoning many decades ago, market prices of real estate HAVE REFLECTED the built-in risk that a future governmental decision might change the allowed use on a property. Just as the value of a telecommunications stock is determined, in part, on the fact that telecommunications is a government-regulated industry and future FCC decisions could have an affect on the profitability of that company.

M37 could have been written in an even-handed way: Government could tax properties where land use decisions caused the value to go up for the full increase in that value (100% taxation on the increase in value) in order to pay claims where the land use decision caused the value to go down. M37 requires the government, meaning all of us taxpayers, to pay out 100% of a person's theoretical loss, making the government therefore 100% responsible. Then why can't the government be 100% the beneficiary of the gains for which it is responsible?

But, of course, the truth is the public wouldn't stand for something like that, so M37 was written to be unfair, vague and confusing.

• Bob R.

From 1000 Friends of Oregon on Measure 37 reform:

1.Temporarily suspend Measure 37, and development resulting from already-approved land use waivers, to allow the Legislative Assembly time to craft even-handed fairness legislation; and 2. Schedule hearings throughout Oregon so that citizens can voice their concerns about Measure 37 and help develop a comprehensive reform effort.

Hey,

Not all Libertarians like M37. I am a libertarian who lives in urban central Portland, and I think JK sounds like a troll.

I voted against M37 and I would vote against it again. M37 was written to make wealthy people even wealthier. That is it. Nothing else.

The main beneficiaries of M37 are owners of large properties outside of urban growth boundaries who want to cash out by building 100 McMansions...

The sad fact is that once you pave it, the farm-land and the forest is gone forever.

We have to eat. What do we do when all the farm land is subdivided so people can have 4000 square foot homes and an acre with a swingset that their kids won't play on?

And unless you build jobs, schools, stores, and shopping centers in all of those new developments, those people will have to drive somewhere JK - and that will not reduce congestion, it will increase it. Because the new developments are built in such a way that REQUIRE car use. Even REQUIRING families to have MULTIPLE cars because everything is so far away you can't walk or ride a bike, and transit can't serve it because it is too spread out.

As population increases the only solution is density. Density works. It works in New York City. It works in Tokyo. It works in London. It even works in smaller cities like Vancouver BC.

Oh, and density has actually RAISED my standard of living, thank you very much. Speak for yourself - don't say "ALL OF US" because you are not me... I much prefer condos, skinny houses, and urban development than large plots with shoddy built McMansions that all look the same with 3 car garages and their CCRs...

One M37 claim has resulted in an offer of compensation.

The scenic rimrock formations that surround Prineville have had a 200 foot set-back rule since the 1970's so to not harm the view with roof tops. The fellow who owned his property since before then made his claim to built his "dream house". But, when offered what he considered a low amount of money, he came back with a new plan. He withdrew his original claim, and made a claim for a resort hotel and restaurant on that rimrock property - saying that this made his property worth more than a million.

The people of Prineville were willing to pay a fair price to keep the rimrock free of a view stopping roof line, but can they afford to stop a "resort"?

In other words, it appears this fellow is out to make a buck from the people of Prineville.

Now, generally this is a conservative place where people believe that you ought to be able to do what you want with your land. But this claim, which appears to be an attempt to dip into the public funds, has got people pretty much upset. While Prineville voted something like 70% in favor of M37, if asked today, I doubt it would hit 40% approval.

M37 has been revealed to be a scam, or at least used as a scam. Nobody likes to be tricked.

Measure 37 is just one battle in an ongoing war of values and cultures. Recall the campaign ad for M37 when the little old lady was on TV complaining about her lost retirement due to land use restrictions. Opponents of M37 unsuccessfully tried to counter that very effective advertisement by denying the underlying factual basis. The more honest response would have been to come right out and admit that her financial security needed to be sacrificed for the good of greater Oregon. I don't agree with everything that 1000 Friends does or says, but at least they are honest and admit that they believe that "the rights of the few must be sacrificed for the rights of the many", at least when it comes to land use decisions.

At the risk of veering off topic here, my concern is this. When we endorse the sacrifice of individual property rights for the greater good (which is a well accepted political doctrine), where do we draw the line with regard to other aspects of life and liberty? Should I ask my neighbor to sacrifice his legitimate desire to get married to his lifetime same sex partner "for the greater good"? Should I ask my asthmatic daughter-in-law to sacrifice her health "for the greater good" of the Oregon grass seed economy?

Who determines which freedoms should be sacrificed for the greater good, and which freedoms are to be retained at the individual level?

Russell Sadler:

Mr. Karlock you seem to delight in hijacking threads.

You have just restated the tired Libertarian talking points without addressing the issues I raised. No one has been free to do whatever they wanted with their land regardless of the neighbors since the Supreme Court handed down Ambler v Euclid in the 1920s.

Bob T:

Some of us see Ambler v. Euclid as the Plessy v. Fergusson of property rights. We need another Brown v. Board of Education to set things right again.

Bob Tiernan

Adding some tags here to turn off the italics which were mistakenly left on above by a different Bob...

Now, on to BlueNote's comments:

Should I ask my neighbor to sacrifice his legitimate desire to get married to his lifetime same sex partner "for the greater good"?

If a true "greater good" to denying same-sex marriage could be logically argued, it would be a good question to discuss. As of yet, same-sex marriage opponents have yet to demonstrate a tangible harm caused to opposite-sex couples by the mere existence of married same-sex couples, while same-sex couples have been able to demonstrate clear benefits to their own families.

Should I ask my asthmatic daughter-in-law to sacrifice her health "for the greater good" of the Oregon grass seed economy?

To debate this would require a number of answers to related questions:

1. What practices could be changed by the grass seed industry, what would those changes cost, and what benefits would really accrue to asthmatics and allergy sufferers?
2. Would it be less expensive for the grass seed industry to just fund medical care for those affected, rather than change practices? Would this be an ethical or acceptable solution, even though some would continue to suffer.
3. Should this be looked upon as a larger environmental issue affecting all industries which have externalized consequences?

Italics off

My father was one of the people involved in the land rush. Supposedly his case is one that meets the intent of the law.

My parents bought the property in 1967.

My brother had been working this property (25 total acres, 20 arable) for some years until it didn't make any sense economically. They lost their asses on sugar beet seed, corn, pole beans, corn again and Christmas trees. They just couldn't compete against the bigger growers. Now they lease the land to a grass seed grower, essentially for the cost of the property taxes. No profit at all, either for us or the grower.

Both my dad and brother were forced to take outside jobs. Because the land is zoned EFU (exclusive farm use) there is no possibility of selling some of the land for housing.

But now my brother has suffered massive heart failure and received a heart transplant along with crushing medical bills and an uncertain future. Even an outside job is not an option yet. My dad has retired. The family has been able to keep my brother afloat but sooner or later we're going to run out of capital.

We only have two options. Sell it all and move. Or apply for a Measure 37 variance and try to sell some lots.

Measure 37 could be a huge boon to us.

Caleefornea killed Prop 90 thanks in large part to the nightmare that Prop 37 has become in Oregon. Those of us that campaigned to kill 90 only had to say "you know, Prop 37" and immediately, people were against 90.

What Prop 37 and like measures are is extortion. Legal extortion. I propose this insane development and if I can't build it, you have to pay me off with public tax dollars. What could be more obscene? This is all it is. Greed unleashed onto a finite resource we are all connected to and live on but screw that. Me me me me me me...It is capitalism's orgasm and the result will be the consummation and birth of more greed.

Caleefornea saw through it for what it was thanks in large part to the on-coming rape of Oregon.

So from Caleefornia, we say thanks folks and no worries, you don't need us to Caleefornicate you anymore. You are doing to yourselves! How smart was that?

What Prop 37 and like measures are is extortion. Legal extortion. I propose this insane development and if I can't build it, you have to pay me off with public tax dollars. What could be more obscene? This is all it is.

JK: So the local planners aren't smart enough to say: Take a hike - build it, if it makes sense - but, either way, you won't get any money out of us?

Yeah, planners probably aren't that smart, after all they think that people like high density.

thanks JK

I believe that there are extreemly valid arguments on both sides of this debate. As the new land use laws were implemented in the '70s, it soon became evident that they were a tool for some insider fat cats to get rich. A lot of little people got screwed. Now, measure 37 passes to finally rectify the harm done, and IT becomes a tool for some fat cats to get richer.

I, personally don't believe it's a positive to live or raise children in high density areas. I don't understand how people can learn to know or understand the natural (real) world unless they live in it. I think we'd all be better off if everyone had their own big garden and patch of woods and we all lived in little communities. I certainly believe that people who want to live that way should have the opportunity. It's amazing what some people can do to make a living on small acerages, especially now that there is a viable organic market. It's also amazing how greedy some people can get and how gross some mcmansions can be.

I voted to pass the original LCDC planning commisions and later regretted it. I voted for 37 and I'm beginning to regret that too. It seems that greed usually wins no matter what you do.

I voted to pass the original LCDC planning commisions and later regretted it. I voted for 37 and I'm beginning to regret that too. It seems that greed usually wins no matter what you do. JKL Maybe we should just let people be free unless they harm others.

Thanks JK

italics off

Measure 37 passed for one reason - the rural land use laws in Oregon went too far. The original administraitve rules promulgated by the State in the 1970's allowed some residences on farm and forest land. But that wasn't good enough for land use purists, both at the state and at interest groups such as Thousand Friends of Oregon. So in the early 1990's the state adopted new administrative rules that made further residential development on farm and forest lands even more difficult, if not impossible, with the "template test" for forest dwellings and the "farm income test" for farm dwellings.

I think if the state had left well enough alone, enough of a safety valve would have been left open to give long time rural land owners at least some of the value they used to have.

I would suggest repeal of Measure 37, but also new administrative rules that allow a single-family dwelling on any legally created lot in a rural area, and unlimited new individual rural residential dwellings on plots of 40 acres or more, maybe 80 acres in the farther reaches of the state. This isn't ideal for either farm and forest land protection nor private property rights, but true compromises make everyone unhappy.

And, by the way JK, if you don't like Portland's density, move to any one of the hundreds of U.S. cities that glorify in your favorite type of development. Or maybe you are afraid that if it works in Portland, other cities might see the light too?

www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

And, by the way JK, if you don't like Portland's density, move to any one of the hundreds of U.S. cities that glorify in your favorite type of development.

You'd be hard pressed to find one point where JK and I agree on anything, but I'm not fond of "if you don't like it, please move" arguments... it reminds me too much of the "America, love it or leave it" refrain used by right wingers against progressives.

If JK wants to advocate for policy changes where he lives, that's fine with me. I just don't agree with the guy most of the time. :-)

• Bob R.

VR:

Not all Libertarians like M37. I am a libertarian who lives in urban central Portland, and I think JK sounds like a troll.

Bob T:

Take it from me -- he's not.

VR:

I voted against M37 and I would vote against it again. M37 was written to make wealthy people even wealthier. That is it. Nothing else.

Bob T:

That is absolute nonsense. I thought a common bumper sticker statement was the one about how an attack on one person's rights was an attack on the rights of all. Therefore, when M37 passed you also regained rights that had been lost over time. Your issue here is no different from one in an authoritarian nation that starts to crack itself from the top, and decides to allow a free press only to have some people complain that this will only benefit wealthy people who are among the few who'll be able to get a newspaper going.

Wealthy people, or some people who are land rich and cash poor, will obviously have a chance to make out better than you will. That's the way it goes. The alternative is to deny their rights further, out of spite it seems. I'm not into that.

VR: The main beneficiaries of M37 are owners of large properties outside of urban growth boundaries who want to cash out by building 100 McMansions...

Bob T:

Again, so what. You also have the same right to that opportunity. That you don't have land (I'm assuming you don't) is no fault of theirs. In fact, you might have been able to obtain some over the past 30 years or so had we not had the land use laws we've had all that time. Yes, someone with 100 acres might have wanted to sell you 10 acres to get some cash, but was forbidden to divide his 100 acres.

VR:

The sad fact is that once you pave it, the farm-land and the forest is gone forever. We have to eat.

Bob T:

Well, that's not true. For example, look at photos of what it once looked like near NE Williams just south of the hospital. There's a park-like field there now, when the photos will show it all built up years ago.

Besides, if you care so much about farmland, why is it that farmland inside the UGB that was actually growing food is being pressured out of existance while farmland outside the UGB, growing grass seed that we won't eat, is protected as if it's gold?

You say it's about the wealthy people. I say that land use laws we'v had up until we've had these reforms was all about the power of government to pick winners and losers, to decide which landowners can become millionaires. Like "New Urbanist" Metro councilor Rod Park who could sell a number of acres while people he knows down the street are out of luck.

In fact, I say that all of the land use laws we've had that led up to M37 being passed are what made loads of property owners wealthy by making their lots within UGBs quadruple in value in short periods, at the expense of using legislation to keep the supply low by excluding almost all land outside of the UGBs from being considered. Ever think of that? And then there are people like Bill Naito, alleged visionary of 1980s Portland who had lots of downtown property that he wanted to go up in value by steering things like MAX past his properties to get even more money.

What you and others were doing and still do is to use your vote to exclude from the market land that is not yours so that (whether you know it or not) a number of people in the city have become incredibly wealthy by seeing their lots and parcels (often with structures already on them) increase in value at a rapid rate. I see no difference between that and in picking which writers are allowed to publish books in a given year. No difference.

VR:

What do we do when all the farm land is subdivided so people can have 4000 square foot homes and an acre with a swingset that their kids won't play on?

Bob T:

Want to save real farmland? Then advocate the repeal if rules, codes and laws that have added many square miles of unfarmable land to the list, making a mockery of what real farmland is. By trying to protect all of it and more by playing these definition games, some development gets steered to some real farmland once in a while instead of to lesser quality land.

VR:

And unless you build jobs, schools, stores, and shopping centers in all of those new developments, those people will have to drive somewhere JK - and that will not reduce congestion, it will increase it.

Bob T:

You mean politically correct stores, don't you? And politically correct fast food places. Anyway, when it comes to congestion, I think a lot of people still don't know what it is. Some people think it's a commute of over a half hour or 30 miles, more or less, even if the driver can maintain over 40 mph for most of the trip. That's not congestion. Not that you were satying it was, but I'd like a clarification, and also your view on whether or not Wal-Mart is allowed to be one of the stores and job sources in these newly developed areas.

VR:

Because the new developments are built in such a way that REQUIRE car use.

Bob T:

Is that any different from saying that small town America of the 1800s required buckboard use? What are you trying to say? And would you approve of a new small town with homes only being sold to people who work at home by telecommuting?

VR:

As population increases the only solution is density. Density works. It works in New York City. It works in Tokyo. It works in London. It even works in smaller cities like Vancouver BC.

Bob T:

I wouldn't want to live in New York City, and I've been there many times. I like Vancouver, however, or at least the older part on the island-like part of the city. I actually think the skyscraper apartment buildings look pretty good, too. I love staying at the Sylvia in the West End so I could roam up and down Denman and Davies looking for a new restaurant to check out. But it doesn't work for everybody. The people I've talked to there complain that it's too expensive. How'd that happen? Such people will seek lower cost places to live, if allowed to. By denying them that choice, they are treated like subjects.

VR:

Oh, and density has actually RAISED my standard of living, thank you very much.

Bob T:

Well good for you! Now if someone else doesn't want to live in higher density, you have no business using your vote to stop him. And I really doubt that you're a libertarian. In fact, I know you're not. No libertarian would have such views on a key issue such as land use and property rights.

VR:

Speak for yourself - don't say "ALL OF US" because you are not me... I much prefer condos, skinny houses, and urban development than large plots with shoddy built McMansions that all look the same with 3 car garages and their CCRs...

Bob T:

So, it's aesthetics after all. A great example of the camel getting into the tent. People will say that we can't let people do what they want with their land for we might wind up with a nuclear waste dump on NW 24th and Davis, and the result is giving the government (the group right) the power to stomp on someone because of aesthetics. Help, help, I'm being harmed by a snout house!

Bob Tiernan

SB 100 was a process to zone rural land in Oregon. It was a process; no one's property was arbitrarily zoned without due process. We have had zoning in this country for over two hundred years. All land comes from the government (with the possible exception of tribal lands) and it comes with restrictions.

The proponents of Measure 37 created a situation in which zoning and eminent domain became intertwined. SB 100 did not take away anything from the propety owner, anymore than anything is taken away from me because I cannot put up a cell phone tower on my property on my suburban property (though considering how long I've owned the property, I probably could under Measure 37 - and that would chagrin my neighbors, decrease the value of their property, and otherwise illustrate the underside of Measure 37).

In Agins v. Tiburon, the Court found, in part, the following, which appears to apply to the principles implicit in Oregon's land use laws: "c) Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of appellants' land nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership. Since at this juncture appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan to the city, it cannot be said that the impact of the ordinances has denied them the "justice and fairness" guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

Russell writes, "Measure 37 is deliberately drafted to be vague and was dishonestly sold under false pretenses." These personal conceptions on Mr. Sadler's part are open to debate. What is not arguable is that a great deal of public information was made available for voters to consider. Those who preferred to see M37 as dishonest were free to make that claim. Citizens could learn from newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, university studies, experts of numerous points of view, statements by politicians, special interest group advisories, and purported analyses. Attacks and cross-attacks ensured that no point of view was ignored. Mr. Sadler may recall that he had an excellent opportunity to voice his opinion, as he did. Those who now hope that Oregonians want to turn back the clock are free to launch an initiative drive to explore current thinking.

My own understanding benefited from attending land use meetings, various land use appeals, and talking to some of the individuals directly affected by then-existing laws.

Bob T. - you make some valid points about the problems with Oregon's land use system.

But I have some questions for you about where the outer limit of private property rights is.

1. Does the Peterkort family have the right to develop 70 acres with all sorts of traffic generating uses at the interchange of Highways 26 and 217 in Washington County while ignoring the traffic gridlock that would be created by the full exercise of their private property rights?

2. Does the property owner at the Allen Road/Hhighway 217 interchange have the right to put a big obnoxious billboard with cigarette ads that all of us commuters imprisoned on that roadway have to look at every day?

3. Does a property owner in the Stafford Basin south of Lake Oswego have the right to put up 50 one-acre lot McMansions on septic systems that will result in a bunch more crap flowing into the Tualatin and Willamette Rivers? And what about the neighboring vineyard owner, who suddenly have 50 suburbanites next door complaining about the noise and smells associated with farming activities?

4. Does that same owner have the right to plop 30 more school kids into the West Linn/Wilsonville school system, resulting in the need for a new school to be paid for by taxpayers?

5. Does a coastal timber company have the right to put up hundreds of new vacation homes, where the runoff from the roof drains and yards will kill anadromous fish and hurt marine life off of the coast?

6. Does a property owner in Prineville have the right to ruin views of a ridgeline above the city - and when the city actually offers him money instead of waiving Measure 37, he goes into a snit and demands the right to build a resort motel on the site?

7. Does a property owner next to Newberrry Crater's two lakes have the right to start mining lava?

To me, these are all examples where the unfettered exercise of private property rights has negative impacts on the rights of the rest of us, in some cases on our own private property rights.

I acknowledge that the State Land Use Planinng restrictions on rural lands led to Measure 37 (see above post). But Measure 37 goes way too far.

www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

1. Does the Peterkort family have the right to develop 70 acres

yes

1. Does the property owner at the Allen Road/Hhighway 217 interchange have the right to put a big obnoxious billboard

Yes - look the other way if you don’t like it.

1. Does a property owner in the Stafford Basin south of Lake Oswego have the right to put up 50 one-acre lot McMansions on septic systems that will result in a bunch more crap flowing into the Tualatin and Willamette Rivers?

Properly functioning septic systems are a health and safety matter and can be regulated under M37

1. Does that same owner have the right to plop 30 more school kids into the West Linn/Wilsonville school system

They’ll be paying lots of property taxes

1. Does a coastal timber company have the right to put up hundreds of new vacation homes, where the runoff from the roof drains and yards will kill anadromous fish and hurt marine life off of the coast?

Make him fix the drains on his new vacation homes. Health and safety.

1. Does a property owner in Prineville have the right to ruin views of a ridgeline above the city -

How is that different than the KOIN tower ruining the Mt Hood view for West hill people? Or the new Pearl towers blocking the views of the not so new Pearl condos?

1. Does a property owner next to Newberrry Crater's two lakes have the right to start mining lava?

Yes, as long a no actual harm is done to neighbors.

But Measure 37 goes way too far.

All it does is limit regulation to safety. What is wrong with that? When you go further, you get into arguments about what looks good and where and how people should live.

"7. Does a property owner next to Newberrry Crater's two lakes have the right to start mining lava?

"Yes, as long a no actual harm is done to neighbors.

"But Measure 37 goes way too far.

"All it does is limit regulation to safety. What is wrong with that? When you go further, you get into arguments about what looks good and where and how people should live."

"Harm" is far too subjective a term. The term may have meaning if you veiw land as chattel. Property ownership is a geographical manifestation of community. Measure 37 acknowledges the existence of legislation that regulates use; it just says that it doesn't apply to me. Can you imagine a noise abatement regulation that applies only to new owners (after all, I don't have to listen).

You can't have your cake and eat it too! Many rural families in this state have owned their property for several generations. The government starting in the 1970's started to put undue hardship on them and placed draconian restrictions on how they can use their own property! Even though Willamette Valley farmland is very fertile many farmers are barely scraping by! Should it come as a surprise they want to subdivide and build on their own property? Building houses on the land is a more profitable venture than growing crops. Many of these elected officials who instituted the land use laws weren't even originally from Oregon but yet they think they "know best" for the people of the state. If the environmentalists in the city want to mandate their crazy philosophy on rural landowners then they need to come up with the money to buy out the farmers, and then utilize the land how they see fit. Until they are willing to do that, then they need to simply shut up! It will be interesting to see how measure 37 unfolds. They will probably put a kibosh on it, forther fomenting rural landowners' animosity of Portland politicians. Who knows -- maybe then they will have to make Portland into a separate state. Maybe that WOULD be a good idea, then the crazies can live in their cramped urbal "livable" environment and the farmers can live how they want to.

Somehow I don't think farmers like Jim Gilbert and Hector Macpherson were " If the environmentalists in the city want to mandate their crazy philosophy ".

My state senator was also involved in the original SB100 as I recall, and I think the district back then was a mixture of urban and rural.

Sure the land use laws need a tuneup, but claiming land use law supporters are all urban misses the point.