Oregonians in Action spreads lies about Measure 37

An acquaintance of ours just got a phone call from someone who tried to get her hysterical about SB 505, the reasonable bill that would temporarily put Measure 37 subdivisions on hold while fast-tracking claims for single-family homes.

She was told that SB 505 is going to stop all development under Measure 37, forever! You can bet that Oregonians in Action (OIA) is behind these lies, because the Land Use Watch blog has called them on their falsities. Which are still being spread.

The SB 505 summary tells the bill like it is:

Except for written demands for compensation for land use regulations seeking to build one single-family dwelling or divide land for purpose of building one single-family dwelling, temporarily stops time periods relating to written demands for compensation until June 30, 2007, or adjournment sine die, whichever occurs first. Preserves rights of claimants who die during time period temporarily stopped.

A Measure 37 claimant can still have a single-family dwelling on his or her previously homeless property, so all development isn't being stopped. And see that word, "temporarily"? Oregonians in Action should consult a dictionary. It doesn't mean "forever."

Given the deceptive way Measure 37 was sold to Oregonians, glossing over the many subdivisions that would be sprouting on farmland, it isn't surprising that OIA president Dave Hunnicutt is still pumping out untruths.

His letter to Measure 37 claimants says, "Right now, the Oregon legislature is considering Senate Bill 505, a proposal by Measure 37 opponents that would suspend all Measure 37 claims, including those that have been filed and those that have been approved."

Not true, as I just noted. You can find SB 505 right on the OIA website. Hunnicutt either didn't read it closely or, more likely, consciously chose to inflame his troops with a false description of the bill.

This week my wife testified in favor of SB 505 at a Land Use Fairness Committee hearing. She said that legislators had to tell the rabid anti-SB 505'ers that the bill doesn't do what they were complaining about: suspend Measure 37 indefinitely and stop all development by claimants.

More than likely, a lot of people at the hearing got all their information about SB 505 from Hunnicutt's misleading letter.

Well, what would you expect from an organization that pays lip service to land use fairness, yet is responsible for bringing Oregon a law that has brought massive unfairness? Watch the video, "And fairness for none: The impact of Measure 37 on Oregonians and Oregon's landscape."

The truth is there, and here. If you want lies about Measure 37, you'll have to talk to Oregonians in Action.

Comments

[Anonymous]

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.

[Brian]

Anonymous, you're wrong. I'm being straightforward and Hunnicutt is being misleading. Just read SB 505:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/sb0500.dir/sb0505.intro.pdf

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:
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/docs/Meas37.pdf

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.

[stephen]

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.

[Brian]

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:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/measure_37_shou.html

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.

[stephen]

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?