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

[David Morelli]

On Dec 9, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> 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

Thanks for the automobile analogy.

So, if someone lives in Tillamook and they moved to Forest Grove.   
They could license their car in Tillamook just fine.  But when they  
get here they find that we have DEQ and because it doesn't pass they  
cannot license or drive that car.  They could move back to Tillamook  
if they want and license the car there, but they cannot "expand" into  
Forest Grove.  Is that a real example of your analogy?

BTW  When my son bought one automobile he lived outside of the DEQ  
boundary.  Now, after the boundary has been changed, he is inside of  
the boundary and the car must pass DEQ or he cannot drive it.  It  
doesn't pass and refuses to pass.  He used to be able to license and  
drive the car, now he cannot license the car and he cannot drive the  
car.  And because it cannot be licensed in Washington county the  
value had dropped seriously.  Do the residents of Washington county  
owe him for the lost value?

Does he have an absolute right to drive that car anywhere he wishes?   
Does he have an absolute right to pollute the air of Washington  
county with that car?

I don't think so.

David