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

Sat Dec 9 09:06:24 PST 2006

It seems you're saying that a major consideration is that the state lacks
the funds to pay for what it takes from citizens under the current land use
laws. 

Considering the sorry state of education, and other state-supported
activities in Oregon, I certainly won't argue with that.

But does that make it right to take away the funds, to use Bud's example,
the little widow had set aside to build a home for her retirement home? 

Does the fact that some folks will try to figure out how they might benefit
from the law make it okay for the state to take the widow's money? 

I think not. Of course, most people aren't widows trying to build a
retirement home. But they are all have the right to expect that their
property, including their wealth, is protected from seizure by the state. 

I used "you" speaking, of course, of you the person and all the people who
have spoken out against Measure 37. You - everyone who didn't like it - had
years to craft an alternative for the voters to consider. It didn't happen.
The voters of Oregon approved Measure 37. They approved it twice. 

You, David, speak of 'our land use laws'. That's right. They are Oregon's
land use laws enacted and supported by Oregon's voters. And they include
Measure 37 every bit as much as any other provision in the law. I happen to
see Measure 37 as an integral part of the overall program. Without its
provisions that guarantee certain basic rights to those who own property, I
believe that the entire package of land use laws is in jeopardy. 

I know that you and others don't agree. That's fine. I'm not here to change
your minds. My purpose is to show you there are other viewpoints. Looking at
the past elections that approved Measure 37, it seems that your viewpoint is
in the minority. 

It seems that while some folks are trying to figure out a way to use the law
to gain a windfall profit from Measure 37, others are equally busy trying to
figure out a way to use to law to rescind what the voters have approved two
times at the polls. Those seeking windfall profits and those seeking to
rescind Measure 37 are behaving very much the same as far as I can see; they
are both looking for ways to use the law to gain an advantage they think is
important. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:12 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 Suspension
&Hearings

On Dec 8, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> 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*.

It is funny that we read English in such a different manner.  Measure  
37 says that the claim arises when a land use regulation is enacted  
OR enforced.  No one is currently "enforcing" the county land use  
regulations on most of the timber land in Washington county, because  
no one is asking for the land to be developed.  When a timber company  
decides to request a permit for development on some piece of their  
property, if they are denied, I fully expect their corporate lawyers  
to claim that the rule was "enforced" at that time.  And since they  
have held the property since before Senate Bill 100, they have  
potential claim for any of the current land use regulations that they  
feel has reduced their value.
>
> 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.
>
Perhaps we live in different states.  With the various tax  
limitations that have been passed, the last time I looked, every  
regulatory body in the state was short of discretionary money.  That  
would be the money to oppose the frivolous applications in court, and  
the money to pay the claimed damages for the rest.  If the public  
body doesn't have the option to pay the claim the only option left is  
to grant the permission.

> That's no different than all the property that was "grandfathered" in 
> when the land use laws were passed in the first place.

It is different.  The public bodies could actually see how the  
property was used and allow it to continue in that use, perhaps for a  
limited time.  This measure makes no limit on the uses for property  
that was owned before Senate Bill 100, because there generally were  
no limits on rural land uses back then.
>
> 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.

Absurd and extreme?  Why?  Because I would like to see development  
pay for the public services that it requires just as it pays for the  
private services?  Because I would like to see development pay for  
the expansion of public infrastructure that they require just as they  
pay for the material that they get from private sources?  Because I  
think that the market will respond to the economic signals better  
than political ones?  Because I am tired of taxes and bonds to  
subsidize the costs of development?   Because I can do enough  
arithmetic to see that most development reduces the available  
services while increasing the required taxes?
>
> 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.

Pretty personal with all the "you" in there.  I campaigned against  
both measures because both were bad law.  I was amazed that the first  
one was overturned.  I am well aware that the land use planning  
professionals did nothing in four years, even though I advocated  
changes.  I happen to believe that planning is appropriate and  
essential to preservation of a quality communal life.  I do not agree  
with all of the premises that guide the current program, but no one  
does.  However in the final analysis, Measure 37 would have come a  
second time under most conditions no matter what planners did.   
Follow the money.  It was pushed by economic interests who owned land  
from before Senate Bill 100 who have been working to dismantle the  
Oregon Land Use program.   Not modify, not correct, not compromise,  
dismantle.  Measure 37 is just one skirmish.

Our current land use program is organic, it grows and changes over  
time, and it is required to be reviewed and modified on a regular  
basis.  Every time a change is made to a regulation, Measure 37 is a  
potential issue.  And there is no funding mechanism to pay claims.   
So regulations will become suggestions.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire

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