[Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 Suspension &Hearings

[David Morelli]

On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Vickie asked:
>
> Can anyone speak to what the actual intent of Measure 37 was?
>
>   not how it appears to be turning out, but what was the intent of it?
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ...
> I've yet to see a credible report that the law isn't working  
> exactly as planned. Sure there are lots of "scare stories" about  
> people applying for this or that exemption or payment, but applying  
> for it and getting it are two different things.
>
> Personally, I see the impact of Measure 37 as dramatically  
> strengthening the land use laws. Without it there would continue to  
> be a huge inequity in the treatment of owners that could result in  
> the laws being stuck down altogether if it wasn't addressed.  
> Already it's very expensive because so many people have lost so  
> much money because it wasn't addressed sooner.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire

We agree, the law is working exactly as planned.  It is removing the  
land use planning enacted by Senate Bill 100 and subsequent  
legislation in the state of Oregon for the corporate landowners of  
record prior to S100.  It was written to allow any individual land  
owner to build upon their property under any regulation that occurred  
at any time of their tenure.   And for corporate owners, the  
corporation is the individual and they can live for centuries.

Measure 37 will strengthen land use laws?  Yes, like invading Iraq  
strengthened the position of America in the Middle East.  The bill  
was not a one time event, every time any land use regulation is  
passed by any public entity, if that regulation restricts a use and  
has the effect of lowering property values the owner has a potential  
Measure 37 claim.

<quote>
(1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation  
or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date  
of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or  
any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market  
value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the  
property shall be paid just compensation.
</quote>

So if a public entity wants to have any new land use laws they must  
track the owners of property and determine when it changes ownership  
for purposes of applying the new law.  Now here is the tricky part.   
Just because they wait to enforce the law until a new owner, who is  
aware of the law, takes possession, they are not off of the hook.   
The seller can still claim that the selling price was depressed  
because new buyer was aware of the pending enforcement of the law and  
reduced their offer,  which makes a claim for Measure 37  
compensation.  The agency might be off of the hook if they agree to  
wait for the second owner to sell the property before enforcement of  
the law, or maybe not, depending upon the second owner's lawyer's  
opinion.

The only way for an agency to truly be free of Measure 37 claims for  
future land use restrictions is to purchase the affected land, change  
the rules while they own the land, and then sell the land.  Or they  
can get out of the land use regulation business entirely and  
residents can go back to the Code of the West ( the one Bush applied  
to Iraq).  BTW, Washington County has history that includes land use  
issues being settled by one party bushwacking the other land owner.

One short term solution was not enacted, and I still believe that it  
should have been used.  Make a legal determination that the right  
granted by this law is not transferable.  Yes, the land owner can  
build 100 houses on their 25 acres, people may even occupy the  
houses, but the houses have to be removed prior to any transfer of  
title to anyone who is not Measure 37 qualified on that original parcel.

I think that a second step is also appropriate.  The difference  
between what was available in public services then and now is part of  
the increased market value of the land, and it should be taken out of  
the compensation.  When calculating value for the parcel, the value  
must be based upon public services as they existed at the time of the  
original zoning.  Original condition on all access roads.  Same  
number of seats in the district school and same bus routes.   
Volunteers with pulaskiies, pickup trucks with water tanks and hand  
pumps, and a bulldozer and blade for fire service.  No medical  
response from public providers.  Same frequency and duration for  
sheriff coverage.  No public water or sewer connections.

One of the agreements hammered out in Senate Bill 100 was that in  
exchange for accepting public land use restrictions, developers were  
guaranteed a rolling twenty year supply of developable land and  
public bodies were required to plan and provide sufficient public  
services.  If the ability to place restrictions is gone, the public  
bodies should again be allowed to place unregulated moratoriums on  
new connections to public services.  And in the spirit of the free  
market, they should be allowed to "charge what the market will bear"  
as connection fees for those service expansions that they offer.

This won't happen of course, because the proponents of a free market  
don't want public bodies acting like Enron or Halliburton as they  
worked to maximize their return on investment.

David