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

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

You bring up a lot of good points. And now you know why I voted for Measure
37 when I normally vote "NO" on all such measures and why I still support
it. It's too late to come up with a formula to offset the losses of property
owners that's right for everyone. You list a lot of good reasons why that
can't be done. Perhaps it never could have been done, but it's surely true
now. So we have to negotiate with each case independently and try to come to
an accommodation to either allow the use that the owner wants or to
negotiate an acceptable compensation. 

That's exactly what Measure 37 provided that didn't exist before; along with
the recognition that some people were unfairly penalized by the land use
laws.

I'm equally certain that Measure 37 won't be the end of the issue. There
will be other questions that we must deal with as best we can.  

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 3:56 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 Suspension
&Hearings



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