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

Sat Dec 9 10:59:11 PST 2006

David wrote:

The "widow" was the poster girl for the Portland metro ad campaign  
for Measure 37.  She had a home and property that she could sell to  
move into a retirement home.  The land use process wasn't attaching  
her bank account or reducing the current use of her land.  The land  
use process was restricting the expanded use of her land.

-----------------------------------

Not so. Nothing was "expanded". The use of the land was exactly what the
person purchased. The land use process then took away some of the use of the
land, reducing its value. 

None of the claims filed are saying, "When we purchased this land, we knew
we couldn't build a home (or whatever) in it but now we want to." They are
not asking for "expanded" use. They are saying, "When we purchased this land
a home (or whatever) was allowed on it under the law, and now you're saying
we can no longer use this land to build a home (or whatever) on it." 

That's quite different.

Let me use a different analogy. A person owns a car. He/she is free to drive
that car anywhere in the USA or even take it into many other countries. Now
a law is passed saying that particular car can only be driven in, say, the
state of Oregon. It cannot leave the state. The owner complains. It's not a
valid argument to say to the owner "You hadn't driven the car outside of
Oregon before, so you haven't lost anything because of this law; we're just
restricting any 'expanded' use of the car". 

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 10:18 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 Suspension
&Hearings

On Dec 9, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> 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.
>

Yes and part of that short fall was seen here in Forest Grove where  
School District 15 came up sort of the money to subsidize development  
with the expansion of school facilities to accommodate growth.   
Instead, the existing district patrons can expect to see the  
facilities that they did pay for overcrowded as the development  
continue to add students to the district.  Those who favor subsidized  
development want to continue to dilute the existing public services  
rather than bill development for their full impact.  I see that as a  
"takings" from me and the other long term tax payers.

> 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.

The "widow" was the poster girl for the Portland metro ad campaign  
for Measure 37.  She had a home and property that she could sell to  
move into a retirement home.  The land use process wasn't attaching  
her bank account or reducing the current use of her land.  The land  
use process was restricting the expanded use of her land.

Land value is related to supply and demand ( no duh ).  The Urban  
Growth Boundary (UGB) and the land use planning process is  
artificially restricting the supply of developable lane (no duh ).   
This is pushing the price of land higher than it would be in a truly  
free market.  So, the increased land value that the "widow" seeks to  
capture is due in some measure to the UGB.  She had nothing to do  
with that.

If the UGB were removed today, as the land supply increased land  
prices and housing prices would decline, the investment that most of  
us hold in our current homes would decline as well.  Are you  
interested in protecting that wealth from seizure as well?

Some years back the school district couldn't pass an operating levy  
for several years.  This caused the school to cut major programs and  
close the school year days short.  People left the city looking for  
better schools elsewhere.   Land values declined, people lost  
wealth.  Shall we repeat that as with voters refusing to expand or  
fund operation of our schools due to overcrowding due to  
development?  Of course that is not a "takings" because the money is  
going to the developer's pockets instead of a public agency.
>
>
> 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.

The Measure 37 package didn't include a provision to pay for the  
compensation.  It didn't include a provision to collect the "givings"  
that fall to developers when they upzone land.   It didn't include a  
provision to collect full costs of growth from those who initiate the  
growth.   It doesn't include a provision to restrict access to public  
services and goods to those who have paid for them or obligated to  
pay for them.
>
> 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.

I am often in the minority.  That doesn't make me wrong.  I didn't  
vote for Bush.
>
> 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.
>
Yes.  I am interested in preservation of quality of life in Forest  
Grove.  I am working in opposition to those who are trying to  
subdivide and sell off Forest Grove to maintain their quality of life  
elsewhere.

> Ron D'Eau Claire

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