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

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

It sounds to me like we've come to a common ground. 

Ha, ha! You are quite right about "indigenous land owner". Of course, that
phrase is an oxymoron: there was no such thing while our land was being
settled by Europeans. Ownership is a legal concept and we simply recognized
no law of ownership by the Indians. They were 'people' only to the extent
they could be coerced into giving Europeans what they wanted and non-people
who could be slaughtered like animals when they were in the way. 

You wrote: "Loss of value is not a "taking" unless it meets the standards
set by American common law or state law. Obviously the standard can be  
changed by the adoption of new state laws..."

It may not be a "taking" under the law, but that's not what causes
revolutions, including the one that broke us away from England. Unfair
'taking' in the minds of the people may be quite different from what the law
recognizes and, when the 'disconnect' is great enough, we get a revolution.
Hopefully it's a peaceful revolution like Measure 37, but not always.

I agree, it's scary to think about whether or not Oregon has the resources
to pay for what it has taken from its citizens under the old land use laws,
but does that make the cost less real? 

Our society recognizes the rights of ownership and we protect them. That's
what this is all about. 

Ron D'Eau Claire






-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 12:43 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 Suspension
&Hearings



On Dec 9, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> ... The whole issue of the right to own real estate and exercise
> that bundle rights is fundamental to the law in our country.

Unless, of course, you were an indigenous land owner.

> That's what really concerns me when laws interfere with those
> rights. When it comes to a contest, expect any law that improperly  
> infringes those rights to be struck down eventually. Widow Dorothy  
> English (I had to look up her story after reading the earlier  
> posts) is just one of many attacking the land use laws in various  
> ways and making progress.

Yep, and they want them gone.  They wish to change the body of common  
law that has been built since the Ambler decision.

Loss of value is not a "taking" unless it meets the standards set by  
American common law or state law.  Obviously the standard can be  
changed by the adoption of new state laws.  Measure 37 sets a new  
state standard that was not recognized by the courts prior to the  
adoption of Measure 37.

> One argument in the Legislature now is about whether it's legal to
> prevent someone who owns the rights to develop a property not to  
> sell it to another. Now that would create a real mess, but there is  
> an argument in favor of it. Even though a current owner may have  
> the right to build on his land, he may not want to do so. But,  
> under the current law, he cannot sell that right with the property,  
> so he has lost value since that right was taken away by the state.
>
Yes, I understand that we should just pay them compensation.  I say,  
"show me the money".  Because I don't believe that it is there.  And  
without the money, the only choice is exemption from land use laws.

So, we will have two classes of land.  One class that is regulated by  
land use laws.  And one class that has a chain of ownership that goes  
back to a Measure 37 qualified owner.  Other than a chaotic mess for  
regulation, I doubt that it will pass muster with the Supreme Court.   
If so, does everyone become exempt?

> Oregon has taken a huge step forward in land use planning and
> control, but what they did leave a huge hole in the law that is now  
> being addressed. I'd hate to see the whole system knocked to bits  
> eventually because "hard liners" won't budge and accept the idea  
> that the original laws formulated decades ago might have some  
> problems that must be addressed.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire

Sure there are problems.  The original laws were a compromise.  All  
subsequent changes have been compromises.  Public bodies were  
expected to plan for and accept growth.  Public bodies were expected  
to provide expanded infrastructure to meet anticipated growth.   
Public bodies were limited in their ability to charge development  
fees or prohibited from charging development fees.  Public bodies  
were limited in their ability to enact building moratoriums.  In  
exchange public bodies were allowed to direct the growth to the  
locations of their choice.

Measure 37 says that they cannot direct the location of growth  
without compensating the land owners who don't get to develop their  
land.  A series of tax initiatives have severely limited the ability  
of public bodies to meet current demands, much less, meet the  
increased demands generated by growth or pay compensation.


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