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

[Meredith Bliss]

Well put, David. Property "rights" are usually a function of coercion in one 
way or another. In a democracy, we get to vote in gifts for ourselves in one 
way or another, and M37 is just another example of a property interest 
convincing the gullible to give them a special price for their property ... 
at everyone else's expense.

On Sunday 10 December 2006 15:56, David Morelli wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> > 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?
>
> The calculation of the "cost" is subject to the initial assumptions.
> Their loss ( if any ) is the difference between the current price
> under the current system and the expected price today under a system
> that does not have land use regulations.  Instead, the Measure 37
> claims presume that the current land prices should be used to
> calculate their "loss".  The current values are only as high as they
> are if the current land use rules are in place.  What is the price
> without restrictions on any properties?  Supply and demand.  A lot
> less.  How much less?  That is a difficult decision.
>
> Also, part of the current price is courtesy of investments in public
> infrastructure and programs funded by public expenditures.  That
> value is a "giving" and should not be twice counted unless the
> Measure 37 claimant actually paid an amount proportional to the
> "comparables" developed properties that have paid for the
> infrastructure.
>
> You are a realtor.  You know the difference between the value of a
> property in a failing school district and similar property in a
> vibrant school district.  You know the difference when Wilsonville
> was experiencing water supply problems and when those problems were
> addressed.  When we have a bridge washout and properties are only
> served by private dirt logging road the price declines.  I know that
> these public facilities are important, because I can read the ads,
> and schools, roads, water are advertised.  If it was trivial or
> meaningless, realtors would spend their money on other more
> marketable features of the property.
>
> So, I suggested that those real modifiers to the "cost" should be
> included in the calculation.  It would have been much easier to
> suggest that the state change the rules and allow public bodies to
> refuse connection to public road, schools, water and sewer for the
> Measure 37 properties, so that we could see the real value of the
> property rather than the value of the property + public features.
>
> > Our society recognizes the rights of ownership and we protect them.
> > That's what this is all about.
>
> Yes, we have along history of doing that for our white European
> stock.  Our history of protecting the property of our African and
> Asian stock is much shorter.  In some locations it only goes back
> forty years.  American stock is a checker board.  In Spanish Texas
> and California, American stock did have recognized title to land, the
> revolutionaries extinguished those rights when they liberated
> California and Texas.  Polynesian stock found their land rights
> diminished or extinguished in that revolution.  So, I would say that
> in general, land ownership is dependent upon the success of your army
> and navy.  And since all of the Washington county properties cannot
> be traced back to a voluntary sale by the indigenous owners, our land
> titles are a nice fiction.  Perhaps that is why real property that is
> gotten by coercion is judged as different from private property that
> people actually create.
>
> David
>
> > Ron D'Eau Claire
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

-- 
----------------------------------------
Just happy to be here, but speaking 
only for myself!
Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss
----------------------------------------