[Grovenet] Measure 37

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

I find your definition of "speculative profits" a hoot, but I fail to see
how that has anything to do with this issue. Surely you're not suggesting
that people bought land decades ago anticipating that land use laws would
some day be enacted and then, decades later, another law would allow them to
be compensated for their real losses created by the law. 

Even if so, where's the "profit"? The law makes injured land owners whole
again. That's all. 

That said, I'm sure there are those who will poke at the system to see if
they can gain an advantage that wasn't anticipated. We live with that
because this is a free country. Anyone is free to do anything that is within
the law. If there's a lack in Measure 37, or any law, that gives a person an
unanticipated advantage, they're free to take advantage of it. 

That's basic to every law in our country. If you figure out a way to avoid
that happening, short of suspending the Bill of Rights, you will be a hero.
In the meantime, we live with the knowledge that no set of regulations and
laws are perfect. We simply do the best we can.


Ron D'Eau Claire



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Meredith Bliss
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 10:14 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Measure 37


On Friday 08 December 2006 20:48, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> Meredith Bliss wrote:
>
> Right, M37 was approved so a little old lady could put a retirement
> home on her property, now she wants to put a housing development there 
> so she can build her retirement home in Florida. Most likely she paid 
> a price for the property in line with nearby land prices at the time, 
> probably agricultural land. Now she wants to be compensated at the 
> full price of prime developable
>
> land. Pure speculative profit, not just compensation.
>
> ============================
>
> That might have been YOUR assumption, but I've never seen one word in
> the measure that suggested such a thing!

I guess you didn't see any of the advertising promoting M37 at the time.

> The measure 37 I read and voted for didn't specify anyone by age,
> gender or financial status. It simply said that if you lost value 
> because of the change in laws, you could now ask for redress: either 
> you get to do what the changes in the law denied you or you get paid 
> in cash for the loss.

As they say, the devil is in the details. It's not so easy to determine what

the "cash for the loss" should be. Is it the original purchase price of the 
land plus interest or the current market value?

> It certainly did not try to deny anyone 'speculative profits'. Surely
> you know that America was built and runs on "speculative profits" 
> resulting from investments.

Seems a bit strange that you want to deny that M37 is about speculative 
profits, then turn around and make speculative profits the bedrock of 
American society. But yes, I agree, materialism and greed are great 
characteristics of our society.

> Without "speculative profits" you would not have:
>
> 1) Food in the grocery store.
>
> 2) A grocery store to go to.
>
> 3) A car to go there in.
>
> 4) A job to pay you money so you could buy groceries.
>
> 5) A house to leave to go to the store (okay you might have hovel you
> made yourself without tools).
>
> 6) Electricity, water, sewer service, or heat for your hovel.
>
> That's just for openers. There's hardly a thing in our world from the
> computer in front of you to the clothes on your back that wasn't 
> created using speculative investments.

There's a big difference between return on investment and speculative 
investment -- one anticipates a reasonable return based on informed
judgment, 
the other is more like gambling, sometimes it brings rewards, sometimes it 
results in the Great Depression. Sometimes it's just a windfall. If M37 
payouts had been funded by windfall profits resulting from directed 
development, there would have been some justice to it.

> Not all economies work that way. Castro's Cuba is one example. Or the
> Soviet Union....but they went bankrupt.

Going a bit overboard, aren't we?

> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
 
----------------------------------------
Just happy to be here, but speaking 
only for myself!
Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss
----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet