« Post-election Measure 49 kudos and calumny | Main | Deer on LSD would be even worse »

November 10, 2007

Comments

You will know them by their deeds (there may be a pun there).

We knew that the real face of 37 was one of greed, using the good will Oregonians felt toward property owners who wanted to build just one home on their property.

So even now, the likes of the Laacks seek to cock a snoot and grab what they can. But then, are we not the state of Georgia-Pacific, known to us as "cut and run"?

Stall, delay and lie. The mantra of the dirt grabbers.

I believe measure 49 is filled with the above mantra. The people of Oregon know what they wanted and the first little guy/gal that doesn't get their one little house up because of the lies is going to create a huge stink here.

I think that those who favored 37, voted for 49. (Brian, stop patting yourself on the back...it really was a no brainer.) They just are mostly urban people and don't understand the tangled web of our land use rules. They do however, understand that people like myself got the shaft. My hubby wants to believe that the building permit I have sitting at the county will be able to be picked up once 49 goes into effect.

I don't. I'd love to be wrong but I know how the dirt grabbers think, there's lies in 49. You currently are looking to Bloemer for a way to begin twisting those lies to your benefit.

Bloemers' memo is just a memo.

The 'real face' of 37 was never greed. Only a fool would have thought there would be no one who would try to gain by developing a large division. We do have farmers out there with land they can't farm productivly and God forbid they should be able to do something else with that land. I find it interesting how those noble farmers turn into greedy developers at the twist of your keyboard.

37 was always about the little person who got beat to death in Oregon's land use. People here DON'T like the land use policy, that's why the ballot title was manipulated and that's why 49 passed.

Brian, you continue to be all about "I got mine, you can't have yours." You just are fooling yourself that you're concern is about the 'community'. Which is typical of the elitist, it's probably the only way you can look in the mirror.

Debbie, I also live in the country, raise cattle and sheep. You are not correct that every country living person was against 49. I also talked to some Eastern Oregon big ranchers, before 49 was put into place, about what they saw 37 doing and they wanted to keep ranching their land and weren't excited to have homes or worse ritzy resorts next door to their operations. City people move into those subdivisions and immediately start complaining about farming/ranching practices.

If 49 operates as it should, putting on one home or three for those of you who bought your land before uniform zoning went into Oregon to protect agricultural land, will be no problem. If you want a lot of houses, then what makes you able to do it when someone who moved on their land in 1980 cannot? Or do you want zero land use planning. Check out California for how well that works. Even Montana has had to slow down some development realizing it will ruin agricultural land as well as put uneven demands for services out there.

Land use planning can go too far but its purpose is for the benefit of the majority which is what all laws are about. It won't hurt anybody else for someone to drive 100 mph when nobody else is on the road. The more people on the road, the more we need rules.

What they should have done with 37 to start was only allow those development overrides on land that someone was trying to develop right before land use planning protected such land. Not that let them develop land that they bought thinking someday they might or maybe they wouldn't.

I still come back to all the dollars that rural agricultural land has benefited by tax reductions-- and still is. Did would-be developers demand they be back-taxed at fair market value when they take it out of production-- for those 30 some years?

Nobody is guaranteed a profit in life at any business and the unfairness of 37 in creating a special class of land owners exempt from any land use rules was never 'fair'... if fair is what someone cares about

The measure 37 nightmare did leave Oregonians with one big plus.
Measure 37 awakened and educated tens of thousands of Oregonians on our wonderful land use planning.
Scores of voters that never heard of SB-100 or LCDC, now have earned their 3 credits and appreciate what we have here in Oregon.
Since 49, I have heard a couple of knuckleheads state that if this or that doesn;'t happen, we will likely have another measure 37.
WRONG!!!
2/3 of Oregon voters are all the wiser thanks to good 'ol M-37.
NEVER AGAIN!

Do we know for sure if the Association of Oregon Counties conference will be discussing Ralph Bloemers of the Crag Law Center released memorandum?
BUT the AOC agenda item for Measure 49 states that "The law firm of Davis Wright Termaine LLP has studied the legal implications and published a white paper on the subject"
http://www.aocweb.org/aoc/default.aspx

Elaine, I just looked on the AOC website for the dates of next week's meeting (13th to 16th) and noted the DWT LLP paper, which I'd seen before on the DWT web site.

It was written several months ago and doesn't address vesting questions in the common law detail that Bloemers' memo does. I also sense that DWT is more pro-development that the Crag Law Center is, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I don't know that Bloemers' memo will be discussed at the AOC conference. I just suspect that it will be, given that it went to every county so recently, and its subject is so timely.

There is a good discussion of who voted for Measure 37 to be found at BlueOregon:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/11/measure-49-the-.html

If you subtract the urban vote entirely, Measure 49 still passes.

But why it passed may be harder to determine. The Yes campaign very carefully targeted its resources. It did not target Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Douglas counties, for example, reasoning that no amount of spending would alter the vote in those counties. What we do see, though, is that even without door-to-door work, house parties, or media coverage, the vote for 49 was greater than the vote for 37.

We cannot sit on our laurels. As much as partisanship is derided, the Legislature did craft a compromise, even though R's failed to participate. As a partisan issue, that is something R's will have to address next year.

We can and should be cognizant that we will never have perfect land use laws. We are stuck between farmers who claim they cannot farm while other farmers say they can; we are caught between non-farmers seeking simplistic solutions (e.g. using a soil "quality" test.

The fundamental principle of urban growth boundaries sticks in the craw of developers, real estate types, and property owners with land adjacent to UGBs. But, it works, and it has made Oregon better, and that message got through.

We also succeeded with the message that zoning is about use, not investment. We were not persuaded that buying land for its future value entitles one to compensation when landowner expectations with respect to speculation are not met.

49 gives landowners what they asked for with 37. If they want what they did not say they wanted during the 37 campaign, then they have to be suspect on the grounds of disingenuous advocacy. Their credibility is damaged by their campaign of telling voters that there were no hearings, that 49 allows taking of 95% of property without compensation, and on, and on, and on.

By their tactics, the property "rights" folk lost their credibility. We will no longer be confused by assertions that regulation equates to eminent domain - as different to the concept of property ownership as arteries are from veins.

One of the Measure 37 claimants/owner (Bowerman), for the Tumwater Estates subdivision on Pete's Mountain is a part-time judge for Clackamas County. The developer is the front man and he takes all the heat from the neighbours and news. Their Final Plat Approval is the next step for them and as soon as possible I'm sure. There has been no direction from the county to stop the process.

Elaine, I'm curious about the term "developer" as applied to the Pete's Mountain development. In news stories, Gordon Root (correct?) is called the developer.

But legally, he can't be. The owners of the Measure 37 claim can't transfer the development rights to someone else. They have to be the developer. Root is just the contractor who's being paid to carry out the construction work.

In Bloemers' other memo on issuing permits (link is on this post), he speaks about this. I'd be interested to learn your take on the relationship between the "developer" and the "owners."

And regardless of who is the developer, under Measure 37 bare land lots can't be sold to someone who then would build a house on them. To build, you need a development right. Courts have ruled that this stays with the Measure 37 claimant and can't be transferred (under Measure 49, that right can be transferred).

To me, it sounds entirely possible that there's a relationship between the owners of the Measure 37 property and the so-called "developer" which isn't allowed under Measure 37. Hopefully someone is looking into this.

What happens if someone proceeds illegally; if they proceed in bad faith? Other than the damage to the land, who is liable? Is it a criminal act? Can the neighbors sue?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...