The M37 clock is ticking. Extend it, while we debate it.
Russell Sadler
Most Oregonians are aware of the potentially adverse effects of Measure 37 claims on agricultural land in the Willamette Valley if affected landowners proceed with developments incompatible with the neighbors’ agricultural use. Most Oregonians have heard the story of Oregon’s wine grape industry in Yamhill County, for example.
In the 1960s, Yamhill County commissioners declared the “death of agriculture” and rezoned much of the county’s best agricultural land into five-acre “ranchettes.” New state land use laws in the early 1970s rezoned the land for exclusive agricultural use. Once future winegrowers were confident that incompatible uses would not interfere with the growing of wine grapes, vineyards were planted in record numbers -- in Yamhill County and other parts of the state -- and a new Oregon industry grew and prospered.
Now Measure 37 threatens this industry by demanding “compensation” for a select group of landowners who must get taxpayer cash -- and we all know there is none for this purpose -- or be permitted the incompatible use, usually subdivisions, that was prohibited decades ago.
The Portland-centered nature of Oregon’s news media, however, has limited Oregonians’ awareness of some rather astounding Measure 37 claims by timber companies and other corporate land owners along the Oregon coast.
Plum Creek Timber’s claim to waive restrictions on houses or condominiums on 32,000 acres of their timberlands scattered through Lincoln and Coos counties is just the tip of the iceberg. According to the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, corporate land owners are using Measure 37 claims to waive restrictions and open the way for condominium resorts or subdivisions on land zoned for other uses at Sand Lake in Tillamook County, on the bluffs adjoining Seal Rock State Park in Lincoln County, at Indian Point next to the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve in Coos County, on the Sweet Ranch at the mouth of the Sixes River and the U.S. Borax property in Curry County.
The clock is ticking on the 180 days in which these claims must be paid -- and there is no money for that purpose. Otherwise decades-old restrictions must be waived and the right to develop becomes vested for the present owner, regardless of future action on Measure 37 by the legislature or the voters.
The latest development in Measure 37 claims is the argument by some beachfront property owners that Measure 37 requires that they be “compensated” for property they “lost” when the legislature passed the Beach Bill in 1967. The Beach Bill guaranteed public access to Oregon beaches up to the vegetation line. Beachfront property owners argued some of their deeds claimed title down to the tide line.
The Oregon Supreme Court held that even if titles extended to the tide mark, the Oregon public had a “prescriptive right” to access the dry sand portions of the state’s ocean beaches because they had been used as public highways since aboriginal times and by European-American settlers before there were roads.
There is a dirty little secret about nearly all these Measure 37 claims. It is hard to find anyone who has lost any real money. When the legislature passed the Beach Bill in 1967, it ordered county assessors to eliminate taxes on beach front property from the mean tide line to the vegetation line where the public had access. The value of the remaining beach front property continued to rise. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when land was rezoned for exclusive agriculture use or timber production, the legislature required county assessors to reduce assessments to reflect the restricted uses. Owners of that rezoned land -- regardless of what they dreamed they might do in the future -- paid taxes only on the restricted land use, not its speculative value. Protected from incompatible uses, the value of agricultural land grew steadily over the last three decades. Original owners who sold almost always got more than they paid for it. Timber land owners had an even better deal.
Property taxes on timber land are lower than on farm land and the severance tax on timber is not paid until the trees are cut. Almost no one has lost any real cash.
Measure 37’s key provision -- that landowners must be compensated for the loss of speculative value of land at the time they buy it if the original use is restricted -- is simply not required by either the state or federal constitutions. It is the ideological fiction invented by the lawyers who wrote the deliberately vague Measure 37.
The legislature needs to extend or suspend the arbitrary deadline for considering Measure 37 claims. Then it should refer the original Measure 37 to the voters for their reconsideration now that its real purpose -- returning Oregon to the hodge-podge of conflicting land uses of the 1960s -- has been unmasked.
 |
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
May 6, '07
As much as I would wish Measure 37 would go away, the initiative process in Oregon gives voters a sense of power that the Constitutional provisions do not justify. The initiative process can do good; it can also be an exercise in collective hubris. Returning the original initiative would be an exercise in hubris on our part.
HB 3540 gives a lot, but it also requires justification for those who seek to maximize their opportunities. You want twenty home sites. Prove it. Say you owned the land in 1970 and the land use goal you object to went into effect in 1975. Did your property value drop 10% in the year that followed? If not, you are s.o.l. If it did, how much value did it lose brought to the present day? Certainly not enough to justify the wildly exorbitant claims that have been submitted. The poison pill for us is the gratis provision of up to three homes; the poison pill for them is the loss of value. If they want to fight HB 3540, they have to argue that Oregonians wanted subdivisions, malls, and industry on the farmland – not a very good position to be in.
May 6, '07
The title of this post is wrong. It should have been: "The Measure 37 clock is ticking. Suspend it, while we debate it."
A big flaw of the ballot referral, as it stands now, is that claimants have a free pass to proceed with their developments between now and whenever HB 3540 goes into effect late in 2007--assuming the voters approve it.
If a Measure 37 claim is "vested" (basically, has a building permit and some significant construction has taken place) it won't fall under the reform legislation. A subdivision could consist of hundreds or even thousands of houses, not the limit of ten in HB 3540.
My wife and I can't understand why a hold hasn't been included on all Measure 37 claims--or at least subdivisions. It won't matter much what voters decide in the fall if claimants rush ahead with their development and get vested between now and then.
1000 Friends of Oregon says it is pushing for a "time-out" on subdivision, commercial, and industrial land use waivers. See: http://www.friends.org/issues/M37/index.html
But I wonder how hard they're pushing. Peter Bray has blogged about the giveaways to timber companies and corporate agriculture via closed-door amendments to HB 3540. See: http://www.landusewatch.com/2007/05/06/reject-hb-3540-its-a-giveaway-to-logging-and-corporate-ag/
This is disturbing. And not a positive sign that 1000 Friends either is keeping a close watch on this supposed Measure 37 fix, or has any influence on the Democratic legislators who are in the driver's seat on the bill.
Bray, a strong opponent of Measure 37, is inclined to vote "no" on the ballot referral. I understand how he feels. I'm undecided right now. If a hold is put on Measure 37 claims, that would tilt me into the "yes" column.
But right now this is wishy-washy legislation that gives away the farm (literally). Oregon deserves a lot better.
May 6, '07
"resorts" around the State? Great! I'll go to all of them and spend lots of money. So will tourists. Oh the horror.
May 6, '07
“Most Oregonians are aware of the potentially adverse effects of Measure 37 claims on agricultural land in the Willamette Valley if affected landowners proceed with developments incompatible with the neighbors’ agricultural use. Most Oregonians have heard the story of Oregon’s wine grape industry in Yamhill County, for example.” This quote is bunk, who do you think most Oregonians are anyway, most Oregonians think what the legislature just did with M37 is cop out. Do you really think most Oregonians have heard about he grape industry in Yamhill county, I think not, heck, most people are new to this state and the ones that have been here a long time don’t care. I find it strange that you seam to think you know how most Oregonians think and feel. Think again, and by the way, the only thing that grows well out here in Yamhill County other then grapes is grass seed, its about 80% of what people are growing and it goes to China.
“There is a dirty little secret about nearly all these Measure 37 claims. It is hard to find anyone who has lost any real money.” More lies, its not your land, you don’t own it or pay taxes on it, let the people who own it do with it what they want to do with it.
10:21 p.m.
May 6, '07
actualy, YCMitch, when it comes down to what Oregonians might or might not think, Russell Sadler's opinion is one i would trust. he's got the track record to back up his words.
and second, all land belongs to the people. private rights are contingent upon the people's ultimate right to rescind those private rights. that's why protections are needed, to ensure that any taking is indeed in the public interest. the state of Oregon can take back every damn square inch of non-federal land -- under the proper circumstances.
and we all pay for all the land, one way or another. private land owners are the beneficiaries of public resources, including quite frequently their original purchase -- usually which was under market price. and as Russell pointed out, private landowners can have severe and negative impacts on their neighbors -- another cost born by the non-landowners.
May 6, '07
I am appalled at the Democrats in Oregon. Many of us drove to and fro to the land use fairness committee meetings... well, the committee eventually arrived at the "framework"... and despite serious misgivings, it was "okay".
But it became far less "okay" when they chickened out and referred it to the voters.
And it became pretty much unacceptable when, essentially in the dead of night, the Ways and Means committee radically revised HB 3540 to include not just "land use regulations", but regulations relating to farm and forest practice. This goes above and beyond Measure 37. It means that pretty much anything that happens on a farm or forest cannot be regulated in the future.
Are you against, say, veal cages, or manure lagoons, or habitat loss due to clear cutting, or pesticide use? HB 3540 EXPANDS Measure 37 so that any regulations impacting these practices, or pretty much anything else (say, limitations on planting of genetically modified strains) that happens on a farm or forest lot cannot be regulated.
Just imagine if they did this for, say, commercial fisheries. Just imagine if Measure 37-like waivers could be used by commercial fishermen to nullify, say, regulations restricting bottom trawling, or catch limits, or by-catch handling requirements.
Any why are farmers and foresters singled out for protection from future regulations? What about mechanics? Why should they have to face burdens of motor oil recycling or non-porous work surfaces? What about any other profession that has to deal with the "unfair burdens" of regulations?
I'm perhaps a bit unique in that my concern, first and foremost, isn't about more houses or less farmland. I'm an environmentalist, and my concern -- while of course including things like loss of open space, loss of local farm production, and the slow drain of suburbs -- is chiefly about habitat, primary forests, and watersheds.
HB 3540 MAY satisfy 1000 Friends of Oregon and their main concerns, re: farmland. But the expansion of claims to include farm/forest ACTIVITY is pretty pernicious, and pretty devious given its last minute inclusion by a separate committee.
The Democrats have revealed their true colors. They sold our "reform" of Measure 37 by strictly curtailing house development by, more or less, "little guys", yet expanded the rights of big corporate farmers and timber companies (those that funded the pro-37 drive in the first place).
It's tempting to vote Yes on HB 3540... after all, it does somewhat curtail what threatens Oregon immediately: more houses. But when it does so at the expense of ANY ability to pass laws and regulate farm/forest ACTIVITIES, or to even enforce federal mandates... that's bad, bad news.
Right now, Oregon Democrats need to understand that WE (progressives, that is) are AGAINST HB 3540. Maybe then, and only then, will they offer up true reform of Measure 37 without massive giveaways to corporate farms and forests.
11:19 p.m.
May 6, '07
Think again, and by the way, the only thing that grows well out here in Yamhill County other then grapes is grass seed, its about 80% of what people are growing and it goes to China.
Sorry, Mitch. I'm gonna have to call b.s. on that one.
It's true that Yamhill County, particularly the southern part of the county, is one of North America's largest exporters of grass seed.
It's also true that Yamhill County is home to some of the world's best microclimates for growing grapes -- especially Pinot Noir and Pinot Gris -- and is the heart of Oregon's $1.4 billion wine industry.
But you're dead wrong if you believe that grapes and grass are all that grows in this part of the valley.
Yamhill County's 4th or 5th largest employer is Monrovia nursery, which is one of the largest nurseries in north America. Filberts, apples, pears, cherries, strawberries, blueberries, most vegetable crops, and (unfortunately) blackberries grow fantastic here.
May 7, '07
You all must read Peter Bray's great research on these new amendments:
Land Use Watch
These last minute amendments were put in after the public went home as a huge giveaway to corporate farmers and timber companies.
May 7, '07
If the above is true, my questions are:
Who on Ways and Means made the last minute deal and why did they make it?
Who did they make it with and what did they get in return?
12:44 a.m.
May 7, '07
Brian wrote:
I'm not fully educated on all the intricate details of this stuff, but isn't that what this means? From the news story we posted earlier:
May 7, '07
The House of Representatives also approved House Bill 3546, which gives governments an extra year to process Measure 37 claims that arrived in large batches last fall.
Yes, but this doesn't affect claims already approved (about 50% of extant claims have already been approved). Nor does it really impact those counties that take an average of 90 seconds to approve a claim (save for state approval requirements).
f the above is true, my questions are:
Who on Ways and Means made the last minute deal and why did they make it?
Who did they make it with and what did they get in return?
Check out my blog for more details.
The Democrats made the last minute deal, apparently, to "defund" OIA. That is, timber was the main backer of M37. If they give MORE RIGHTS to timber in HB 3540, well, they are assuming that there will be less money in opposition. Also, MOST Democrats, including Prozanski, Clem, Macpherson (and presumably all on Ways and Means), have timber somewhere in their top 5 campaign donors. I rub your back, you rub mine. They ain't that different from Repubs after all!
May 7, '07
"Just imagine"? That's the favorite game of M37 opponents. Dream up anything to distort M37.
Russell has a "track record"? "Read Peter Bray"?
Yeah, that's who people should get there M37 perspective from. Hard core opponents who have been demagogueing the issue the whole way. Opponents who praised, right here on Blue, the Judge James rulings as brilliant and well thought out. Yeah this is credibility central all right.
In reality this where one can find the most thorough political hackery on M37. The littany of deceit, fabrications, distortions and outright falsehoods that have been paraded across this blog is unequalled. Thread after thread.
If anything the Saddlers, the Breys and BlueOregon are the perfect demonstration of Oregon's conniving left wing hell bent on controlling as much as possible, through any means and at any cost.
In the upcoming heated battle, there is no doubt this will be the campaign central proving ground for every concocted piece of propaganda the left can "just imagine". After all, you have a "track record".
May 7, '07
Good points, Sal, in response to Mitch. For the benefit of other readers, here is some more information about Yamhill County,
41% of the land consists of farmland. Harvested cropland as a percentage of all farmland is 51%. Only 11% of the farmland requires irrigation. The average size of a farm is 103 acres.
In the Willamette Valley, farmland in Yamhill county has the fourth highest value of all valley counties.
What about hazelnuts, and christmas trees.
9:10 a.m.
May 7, '07
Also, MOST Democrats, including Prozanski, Clem, Macpherson (and presumably all on Ways and Means), have timber somewhere in their top 5 campaign donors.
Sorry, Peter. That simply isn't true at all. The timber industry's pac, OFICPAC, and the major timber donors (Seneca Jones, Freres Lumber, Lone Rock, et al) don't give a dime to most Democrats.
OFICPAC gave $2500 to Prozanski -- this is nowhere near one of his top 5 donors -- and I can't see where any timber concern gave a dime to Clem or MacPherson in the 2006 campaign.
May 7, '07
One correction to Russell Sadler's post - regarding the claims against the Oregon Beach Law.
In 1967 the Oregon Supreme Court did not rely on the law of "prescription" to guarantee access to Oregon's beaches. It relied on the law of "custom," another old English property concept hauled into the modern era. The law of Custom states that, if a property has been used by the public in a customary manner for "time immemorial," the public has rights to continue to use that land. By using the Law of Custom instead of a prescriptive easement rationale, the Court was able to make a sweeping declaration that the public had rights to all of Oregon's beaches, instead of litigating prescriptive easement issues on each property along the Oregon Coast.
The decision has, of course, infuriated private property zealots since it was made. A challenge to Oregon's beach law went to the Supreme Court in the early 1990's, where it was denied a writ of certiorari (thus not heard by the Court) - but the denial included a very unusual and blistering dissent from none other than Justice Antonin Scalia, who wanted to hear the case (so as to overturn Oregon'a law, presumably).
And, as for Measure 37, because the Supreme Court found public rights through the law of Custom estending back to "time immemorial", all those private property owners never had the rights they claim were taken away to begin with. You can't get compensation or a waiver for something you never lost in the first place.
10:22 a.m.
May 7, '07
The truth on financing is somewhere in between Peter and Sal, I think. I found these contributions from Forest Industries Council:
Schrader--$10,000 (5K primary and general); looks like his #1 contributor by far
Schaufler--$4500
Courtney--$2500
Hunt--$2000
Roblan--$2000
May 7, '07
If what Peter Bray says about what the Ways and Means commttee did is true, and the case he makes against HB 3540 is valid, Oregon is in big trouble. I know I didn't elect these people to goof around like this, and most Oregonians probably didn't either.
The ins and outs, conditions and implications of HB 3540 seem to be so complicated that I seriously doubt Oregonians are really going to be able to vote on this "fix" credibly come fall. Really, I think the best thing that could happen would be to completely reverse M37 and start over. Dorothy English has her own personal house bill allowing to go ahead and build her houses...release her from any further restrictions presently holding her up... heck, I'll volunteer to help build the suckers just to satisfy and silence her.
As for the rest of the so called claimants and property owners supposedly damaged by land use protection, I'd say that they, as Oregonians, would be wiser to wait until Oregon figures out a little more definitely what we all want to allow in the way of individual property rights that can be compatible with land protection for all residents.
11:30 a.m.
May 7, '07
Not sure how your data contradicts anything I've said, TJ. OFICPAC does not give to most Dems, and neither OFICPAC nor the major timber company donors gave money to Clem or MacPherson in 2006.
11:34 a.m.
May 7, '07
Well, I didn't say it did contradict anything--what I said was that the truth is between you and Peter. If you want me to handicap what part of that spectrum, it lies closer to your analysis than his...but they're certainly not without influence among Democrats, particularly the leadership as I indicated. It also likely wouldn't have been clear to them that Mac and Floyd would be the point people on reform, it should be said. But truth, they are certainly WAY more giving to the GOP.
1:02 p.m.
May 7, '07
I guess I disagree with both of you then.
Peter said that Big Timber was a top 5 contributor to MacPherson and Clem, and that they contribute to "most Democrats".
None of that is true.
The overwhelming majority of money spent by big timber in Oregon legislative races went to republicans in comeptitive races or to GOP leadership.
They also spent close to a million trying to elect a Republican Governor.
I have a great deal of respect for Peter Bray, and I don't begrudge him his disagreement with the framework that has emerged from this legislative session, but he has no basis for attacking Clem or MacPherson on the grounds that they are somehow in the pocket of Big Timber.
None.
May 7, '07
Yeah, I was a bit over-enthusiastic about claiming large timber monies for Macpherson and Clem.
[Unless I am mistaken, however, the top two Dems on Ways and Means both have timber as their top donors.]
May 7, '07
This whole process reeks of sausage-making from the new improved Oregon legislature. Why can't people just leave M37 alone and see if there are some real issues. People voted it in and should live with the consequences of it - good or bad. Why "fixing" this when we havent seen damages (not the imagined ones) is necessary still mistifies me. When you have most voters irked at land-use planning enough to vote this in, maybe govt should live with the consequences.
As far as polls, the only one that counts is the vote. I am sure there are many Repubs who can gin up pro-life and anti-gay marriage polls forever. I think the M37 polls are in the same class.
May 7, '07
So in the spirit of Kari's post about Portland Charter Reform, I guess I'd like to ask for other perspectives on what happened in Way and Means other than Peter Bray's (no offense intended Peter). It seems strange to me that not one person has come to the defense of what (seems to have) happened there. Sal, I've respected your posts greatly in the past, but you are just nibbling around the edges by quibbling about special interest support instead of dealing with the real issue.
So, I ask. Is there any defense for what happened in Ways and Means? Was it truly "under the cover of night" or is that just a bunch of rhetoric?
10:06 p.m.
May 7, '07
Sal, I've respected your posts greatly in the past, but you are just nibbling around the edges by quibbling about special interest support instead of dealing with the real issue.
That's a fair point.
First, a general observation:
Peter has raised some concerns about Measure 37 that may have been missed by many environmentalists -- namely, that it includes environmental and forestry regulations in its definitions of land-use regulations and to the extent that those regulations "unfairly lower" the "fair market value" of a property, may result in the de facto voiding of several important administrative rules and laws that are currently on the books in this state.
So far as I can tell, Peter probably made a mistake by not just saying how the bill changed in Ways and Means, and he certainly made a mistake painting Clem and MacPherson with the same brush that he painted some others with.
In any case, before HB3540 went into Ways and Means it read:
(1) A person may file a claim for just compensation under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and ORS 197.352 if:
... some conditions exist -- or --
(2) The enactment of one or more land use regulations has the effect of unfairly reducing the fair market value of property if the regulation or regulations cause:
(a) A reduction of 10 percent or more in the fair market value of the property by reason of the enactment of one land use regulation; or
(b)A reduction of 25 percent or more in the fair market value of the property by reason of the enactment of more than one land use regulation during any five-year period.
Now it reads:
(2) The enactment of one or more land use regulations has the effect of unfairly reducing the fair market value of property if the regulation or regulations cause:
(a)Any reduction in the fair market value of the property by reason of the enactment of a farming or forest practice regulation;
(b) A reduction of 10 percent or more in the fair market value of the property by reason of the enactment of one land use regulation, other than a farming or forest practice regulation; or
(c) A reduction of 25 percent or more in the fair market value of the property reason of the enactment of more than one land use regulation during any five-year period.
...
In other words, HB3540, as amended, carves out a lower threshhold ("any reduction") for what constitutes an "unfair" reduction in fair market value for owners of farmland and forest land seeking "just compensation" provided that the regulation involved specifically pertains to "farming or forestry practises", subject to certain exclusions, as defined under Oregon law.
May 7, '07
Sal,
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I am still a bit perplexed, though.
This site has plenty of "insider" readers. I don't find anyone, even you, coming to any conclusions about the nature of the adjustments and the efficacy of the final bill.
Why the silence? In the void, I guess that perhaps Peter's view is the correct one.
May 8, '07
I am one who thinks that HB 3540 is a whole heck of a lot better than leaving measure 37 as is. (And with onlyh 20% of Oregonians currently saying they'd repeal, I worry that the wait-and-vote-again strategy would leave is with 37 as is.)
Instead of unlimited development rights, M37 claimants would get: NO commercial or industrial development No more than 3 houses on high-value farm or forest land No more than 3 houses without going through extensive appraisal processes that aren't currently required now No more than 10 houses on a lot under any circumstance
In addition, people who haven't filed a claim by May 15 lose their rights to file.
Also, one quick clarification:
On the forests and farm practices changes that happened in Ways and Means, HB 3540 already included those in the definition of land use regulation. So forests and farm practices regulations could already be subject to measure 37 claims -- the changes in Ways and Means were to reduce the threshold so that they have a lower threshold than other land use regulations for proving loss of value. Also not a good policy choice, and one OSPIRG objected to, but not as bad as if the whole forest practices piece had been added under dark of night.
Also, I might be mis-remembering, but I think the timber lobby testified early on that M37 did already give them the ability to file claims if future forest practices regulations were enacted. So I'm not sure it's true this provides new development rights M37 didn't provide.
May 8, '07
OK, I just looked it up.
Measure 37 clearly included forest and farm practices regulations already.
In its definitions, "Land use regulation" includes both: "any statue regulating the use of land or any interest therein" (which could be read to include forest practices) -and- "statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and forest practices."
So HB 3540 is not the big give-away that removes the option of future forest protections. Measure 37 already did that. HB 3540 limits the damage. Not by as much as I'd love to see it limited, but by enough that I'm willing to take it over the M37 currently on the books.
May 8, '07
TA Barnhart had the audacity to type:
"...and second, all land belongs to the people. private rights are contingent upon the people's ultimate right to rescind those private rights."
OMFG! This is the United States, not Cuba!
I say we rescind the rights of anyone who abbreviates their first name.
11:47 a.m.
May 8, '07
What does this have to do with the truth represented in the polling? Three polls, three different times over 6 months or so, and the same result each time: fix it or end it.
As for this not being Cuba, it should be clear from the Constitution itself that the state retains ultimate property rights, otherwise the takings clause of the 5th Amendment would not be necessary--since the offering of compensation assumes the right of the state to enforce eminent domain in the first place. Eminent domain was the rule of the land in Colonial America, and the 5th Amendment sought only to protect compensation, not the private owner's ultimate right to the property--a concept grounded in the "natural philosophy" that dominated at the time.
12:04 p.m.
May 8, '07
on the "change" in Ways and Means-- as Jeremiah points out, it was already there. Also, it only applies to FUTURE rules, not those already on the books as Sal apparently misstated. May 15, 2007 is the date on that.
12:16 p.m.
May 8, '07
Also, it only applies to FUTURE rules, not those already on the books as Sal apparently misstated. May 15, 2007 is the date on that.
That's correct -- a case study for why we elect people to spend all of their time for 6 months digging into these laws.
May 8, '07
"...5th Amendment sought only to protect compensation,.."
And that's exactly what M37 does. Forces government to compensate the land owner when regulations devalue the landowner's property. Either that, or allow the owner to develop their land accordingly.
Pretty simple, really.
Of course, I'm not surprised a liberal like you doesn't respect the constitution.
May 10, '07
Russell Sadler...what a shame you feel compelled to comment on something you know so little about. Measure 37 was approved by over 61% of the voters (over 1,000,000 votes) 7,000 claims have been filed. That means that .7% of the people that voted for the measure did so for self serving reasons (affected property owners) The other 99.3% that voted for the measure did so because it was the right thing to do.
Private property rights in Oregon are a joke. Our current misguided and abusive rules were half finished when they were rushed through the legislative process by special interest groups. The wanted to git 'er done before the legislature dismissed for the summer. 1000 Friends of Oregon knew that if the public and the lawmakers had a year to study the plan it didn't stand a chance. Promises were made to improve and add features that would help property owners but when the next session convened there was not enough interest or momentum to finish the job. 1000 Friends of Oregon (the name is a cruel joke) got to insert their agenda and the property owners got to pay for it.
The aspect of Measure 37 that no one seems to address is the financial lift it could give to our state. Maybe people voted for it because they would like to finally solve the school funding crisis once and for all. Maybe they would like public safety funded at reasonable levels so they don't have to fear the meth junkies. Maybe voters would like infrastructure projects that improve their quality of life. Billions of dollars of M37 projects would result in vastly expanded tax bases and diverse economic activity. Let's increase a revenue source other than the Lottery.
The fear mongering on this subject has been embarassing. Half truths and speculation of doom by elected officials and journalists. The state has not given away any taxpayer money to greedy land owners. All the projects will have to meet established standards for transportation, sanitation, safety and ultimately the market place will determine their fate.
Fortunately, the citizens of Oregon have vision and recognize positive change. Unfortunately, a great many of our "leaders" do not. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
11:32 p.m.
May 10, '07
The fear mongering on this subject has been embarassing. Half truths and speculation of doom by elected officials and journalists.
All of this is just fear-mongering, and yet already some of the large rural subdivisions are already threatening to affect groundwater needed for farming in Yamhill County:
http://www.newsregister.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=221577
8:53 a.m.
May 11, '07
"Pretty simple, really.
Of course, I'm not surprised a liberal like you doesn't respect the constitution."
Better to disrespect it than not understand it--we were referring to eminent domain, which has nothing to do with M37. In any case, the point was made in response to TA's statement.
<h2>Finally, since I'm in favor of 3540, it would appear I am not categorically opposed to special-rights compensation, since that's what it grants.</h2>