« West Point dean condemns “24” torture scenes | Main | Salem’s Paragon Construction lives up to its name »

February 22, 2007


I just linked to the letter. You didn't read the next line, which says "In exchange, the bill would give some claimants the right to build one house, but only if the claimant waived all their rights under Measure 37!"

So it appears to me that you're the one being misleading.

Anonymous, you're wrong. I'm being straightforward and Hunnicutt is being misleading. Just read SB 505:

Section 2, which suspends some claims, doesn't apply at all to those described in Section 1. Namely, people who want to put a single-family home on their property.

There's no "in exchange" involved here. They simply get to do what they wanted. The governor points out that this amounts to about 1000 claims, 15% of the total. See:

Pretty straightforward. If OIA would criticize SB 505 truthfully, that wouldn't bother me. But they're using their usual deceptive tactics to try, once again, to fool Oregonians.

That does bother me.

your summations seem to be equally over reaching.

Most oregonians who voted for measure 37 did not vote for anything resembling measure 505. They voted by in large for those moms and pops who have owned their land for many years be given repparations for real changes in their land value or the opportunity to use their land as prior to land use changes. Their hearts for these land owners out weighed the comparative few who might in worst case senarios build dumps and mini malls in the countryside.

505 does threaten those who are already in the 37 proccess with the uncertainty of what will be the new legal reality of an adjusted measure 37 after the "temporary" hold. It is like a DA offerring a lesser charge under the threat of a worse charge if the bait is not taken. 505 "offers" land owners the "opprtunity" to take the one house deal in "exchange" for the waiving of all other 37 rights.

you mention "they get what they want", if this is what they wanted all along there would hardley be an issue would there?

505 does not distinguish if an owner is dividing 1000 acres into 100 acre lots each with one home or creating apartment complexes surrounded by strawberry fields.

you say measure 37 was an unfair law...how is that so? any one who purchased land after particular land use law(s) were enacted never had the expectation that their land could otherwise be used and equally have no 37 standing. yet some how it is fair to change the value of someones land with sweeping reforms without compensation. if the state seized your land for a freeway or water shed you would want to be paid for it and would be justified in the expectation would you not? or do you contend that you would say here....take it...no problem...se ya?

505 should have reflected the intent of the voters and maintained the claims for the mom and pops and perhaps their families of more than one child and pursued ameliorating the worst feared claims that are a small pecentage of what is out there. then our worst fears would be addressed while the voters hopes would be maintained.

Stephen, the fatal flaw with Measure 37 is that there is no reason why those who invest in property for commercial reasons should be guaranteed that they get rich. See:

This is why there needs to be a distinction between those who want to live on their land (or have a family member live on it) versus those who bought property just to make money.

Government actions affect the value of investments all of the time. This isn't a "taking." It's reality. Bond prices rise and fall with changes in interest rates and federal deficits.

When government awards, or denies, a large contract to a company, it's stock price will rise or fall. That's how free enterprise works. Sometimes you make money on an investment, sometimes you lose money.

Oregonians didn't expect that real estate investors would have their investment guaranteed on the backs of the state's citizens. That's a big reason why voters now reject Measure 37.

It's a disaster. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

there is not fatal flaw in the logic of why land should not reapppropriated without compensation. there is a flaw when your argument is that the distinction has to do with wealth. by your statement then anyone who is going to pay for a vast medical debt should be allowed to measure 37 to their hearts content as they will not end up being rich.

comparing 37 to the stock or bond market is apples to oranges. companies which face new regulations which affect their industry or product can write off the new costs on their taxes, they often get tax incentives to comply, or are given grace periods of years or decades inorder to make adjustments to their involvement in an area of investment.

if a developer bought land designated as high density living and had it revoked or later siezed for a green belt there would be compensation based on the value of the land as it was valued at the time of alterration of it's redesignation.

you also cannot jump back and forth between examples of free masrket forces as being relavent in this issue and then utilize motivation for wealth (or senior security) as being a critical element in the value of someones intent. Lets stop persons from owning rental property that is not taken care of to the standard of their neighbors wishes (ie. manacured lawns) as theyare in it for the money.

plain and simple to be critical of the intent or financial status of persons you do not know is a sweeping generalization without merit and demonstrates an attempt by you to fortify a position you are willing to defend at all costs to logic and reason. There are many good arguments for and against in this issue...as always most persons are not able to put them forward in a sound and cohesive way. a few months in a high school debate team would be advised, right or wrong on the issue is subjective, and perhaps only god knows, but for heavens sake make a sound argument that does not include leaps of logic and unsupported asertions. and if you have a moral dislike for 37 that you are reaching to defend without stating then find a way to satisfy the populace rather than draw arbitary moral boundries that are different for everyone into the disscussion as proof or givens.

ask most voters if they are for seniors dividing their land and you will hear a resounding yes. that is why they voted for 37 in the first place. any issue those who voted for it are with the worst case kind of massive developements....505 does not put any reasonable distinction between these two classes. but i dont hear you sugesting means testing or anything with the flexability that would address what wer the intents of the voters. your motivations are thusly exposed.
and lastly if you wish to call even the seniors who are filing to mitigate poverty developers then fine. they did not ask the state to redesignate their land for the populaces' bennifit at a cost to themselves.
where was the populace for them?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.