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

Fri Dec 8 15:54:50 PST 2006

Those are good points Katie. You wrote: Mathematically this measure has
worked out to a guarantee for a select number of land owners that they can
reap the rewards of land speculation without the risk.

I don't know the specifics, but I won't disagree. Every law on our books is
attacked that way. It's the nature of our free society. In a toleration
state we'd not have the problem. The "boss" would tell us what we can do: no
questions allowed. 

In our society one is encouraged to do anything that provides benefit that
is not against the law. People study the limits of the law looking for what
legal actions they can choose that provides the greatest benefit for them.
It's as "American as Apple Pie" as the saying goes. It's the normal process
in a free society, just like declaring the legitimate deductions on your
income tax that you are entitled to take. It's exercising our freedom and
protecting our wealth.

We accept that our laws are never perfect: some people find ways to gain an
advantage we didn't anticipate. Our response is to first figure out if what
they are doing is legal. Sometimes that takes a lot of haranguing in court
before a judge at the right level slams the gavel the last time, for better
or worse. If what is deemed legal isn't workable, we change the law to stop
it happening in the future.

Indeed, Measure 37 is a response to an unworkable part of the current land
use laws. And the voters agreed and approved it, twice! 

If there are holes in the law now, we need to address them if they provide
unacceptable benefits to a "select few", but the idea of wiping Measure 37
off the books makes no more sense than wiping off the land use laws
themselves. Yet that's exactly what I think will eventually happen if
Measure 37, or some other law to protect Americans who own land in Oregon,
didn't exist. 

>From my point of view, Measure 37 is not an attack on the valuable
forward-thinking in Oregon that produce the land use laws. Measure 37 is
simply a part of that same unique, forward-thinking process that will
protect Oregon for years to come. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of allnutt
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:47 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37
Suspension&Hearings

I see it as the pendulum swinging back the other way.
Measure 37 'fixed' some of the hardships that vexed individuals who just 
wanted to put a house on their land but opened up a pandora's box for the 
corporate land owners who are now working the system.
Hmm.  Forest land that could have a subdivision on it 50 years ago, but 
never would have a subdivision on it, can now be stripped of the trees and 
the company files a measure 37 claim whining that the restriction cut the 
value of their land.  It is happening right now.  Instead of replanting 
trees it is more lucrative to try to subdivide it and put 1 house per 10 
acres and if the state will 'pay the diference' between what they could have

done but were never going to do so much the better.  The state pays, then 
they can replant trees.
It is a good game of chicken.  If the state waives the laws and calls their 
bluff, then they can develop a portion of it and sell it developed and leave

the infrastructure headaches to the neighborhood.

Mathematically this measure has worked out to a guarantee for a select 
number of land owners that they can reap the rewards of land speculation 
without the risk.
If a land use law went into effect 20 years ago and cut the value of your 
plot from $10K to $5K  you had a loss of a half indeed.
But now the difference between a small developable plot and one that is not 
developable can be huge.  And the land owner is not asking for repayment of 
their $5K loss (plus a reasonable amount of interest, which would be fair.) 
They want the difference between a 2006 developable vs not developable lot, 
locking in the highest return on land that could be gained from the 
develpment that did occur in a controlled fashion.   And they don't want to 
consider the difference in property taxes they didn't have to pay over the 
20 years either.

You and David are both somewhat right but the end result will be a bigger 
loss of land use laws than the voters anticipated. The voteres where wanting

granny to build her house but they opened the door for big developers to 
take advantage of the system and let the tax payers boost their bottom 
lines.
David's views are not the greatest dangers to land use laws.  It is the 
profit motive that can be gained by those who are now 'entitled' to have the

state repay  $ for land speculation where the risk has been eliminated by 
making it retroactive to an earlier time.  The payment is not based on the 
loss of property value at the time of the regulation  - it is based on 
today's property values.   That is the problem.

Katie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 
Suspension&Hearings

> David wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> That's utter nonsense, David! It does *not*.
>
> The state is free to enact laws to limit what you can do with your
> property,
> even of that law reduces the value of your property.
>
> All Measure 37 did was to say that if the state changes the law so 
> that
> the
> value of your property is reduced, the state must reimburse your loss.
>
> But that doesn't even mean the property owners who have been hurt by a 
> change in the laws can demand payment. No one gets any "windfall" 
> profit. The state has the right (and the obligation) to consider each 
> case on an individual basis and, if the state determines that to allow 
> the original use is not a significant compromise of the purpose of the 
> law, they can refuse payment and instead grant permission for the 
> property to be used as intended.
>
> That's no different than all the property that was "grandfathered" in 
> when the land use laws were passed in the first place.
>
> I'd hate to see our land use laws destroyed, and with all respect I 
> see absurd extremist views such as yours as one of the greatest 
> dangers to our land use laws.
>
> There's a reason why voters approved Measure 37 *twice*. The first 
> time folks like you got it knocked down on a technicality. It gave you 
> four years to come up with an alternative that protected individual 
> property rights in
> Oregon. You came up with *nothing*. So, four years later the measure
> appeared on the ballot again with the objection fixed and it was again
> approved by the voters.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> 

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet