[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

David wrote, "...Every year for the last several  
decades Stimpson has filed a claim with the assessment department  
that their land holdings have been under valued and under taxed."

What does that have to do with M37? It's only been around a few years! 

Yes, misstatements to excite people into doing what the person making those
statements wants them to do are a fact of life in everything from choosing
what to eat for dinner to who we elect President. There are those who do
that believing that it's okay to be less than truthful. 

Under M37, those who were injured by the original land use laws are entitled
to be made whole again only to the extent they can prove their loss. Nothing
more. 

No doubt there are those who will make false claims. That's why every claim
goes through intense scrutiny at several levels by our elected officials and
government agencies. Your comments about Stimson Lumber reassure me that
system works quite well. 

Your analogy to buying Apple Computer stock is a good one, but I think you
have it backwards. Years ago people bought land on which they could build.
They paid a price appropriate for the land based on the fact that they could
lawfully build on it. Some of them had specific plans to build. Others
bought it to hold as an investment planning to sell it later at a profit,
like one might Apple stock. 

Then the people of Oregon said through the land use laws, "Sorry, we decided
you can't build on that land. It's in the public interest if you don't." 

With that law, those people were holding land lost large amounts of money.
Not only could they not do what they had planned, they could not sell the
land for what it would have been worth either. Because one could no longer
build in it, it no longer had the value it did when they purchased it.

It's the same as if the people of Oregon passed a law today saying that
anyone owning Apple Computer stock today must sell it and keep only $2.00 of
the proceeds; the rest of the money goes to the state! 

Repealing M37 or changing it to return to the system of taking people's
wealth arbitrarily and capriciously may be convenient. 

That doesn't make it right. 

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, August 19, 2007 12:13 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th



On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Ever since Measure 37 was twice approved by a majority of the people 
> of Oregon, I've been seeing misstatements like this:
...

I know the feeling, ever since Bush was put into office twice by the  
American voters, I've been seeing misstatements too.

> ...
> I find it disappointing that the writer of that bit failed to note 
> that Stimson would NOT see a "spectacular payday" unless they are
> able to make a case that they had previously suffered an equal  
> "spectacular loss" at the hands of the state that M37 is now  
> correcting. The purpose of M37 is to make people who suffered a  
> previous loss whole again by restoring what was taken away from them.

We go around and around on this.  Every year for the last several  
decades Stimpson has filed a claim with the assessment department  
that their land holdings have been under valued and under taxed.   
They have told the county that their timber holdings weren't really  
timber land subject to tax deferral, rather it was large lot  
residential land waiting for the right market.  The have pleaded to  
have their assessed value raised so that they could pay their fair  
share of property taxes to reflect the full value of their land.   
But, no, the county assessor in league with the county officials has  
refused to increase their taxes to a level commensurate with the true  
value of their land.

Huh?

I don't think so.  Every year Stimpson files their property taxes and  
agrees to the assessed value of the land, or they argue to have it  
reduced.  And that has been happening since before the introduction  
of land use planning in Oregon.  If, way back in the 1960's, Stimpson  
really was planning to develop the land as small lot residential,  
then they could have subdivided the land when they got their first  
notice that land use planning and zoning was coming into Washington  
County, before the restrictive rules were enacted.  The law was  
discussed in public and the decision was made in public after a long  
process.  When it was first proposed to zone the land as GFU-38 or  
what ever, they could have locked in their large lot residential  
plans by creating the subdivisions prior to the adoption of the law.   
Some land owners did.  Stimpson didn't.  Near as I can tell, they  
didn't even try.

Of course, if they had locked in the subdivisions, they would have  
paid the taxes all these years.  They didn't divide the land when  
they could, they didn't pay the taxes on the divided land, and they  
didn't make any claims all of these years that their assessed value  
was too low.  And they are not offering to pay the taxes on the  
undervalued assessment for all of these years either.  Their loss  
comes from not subdividing their land when they had the chance, i.e.  
before the law was enacted.

I know how they feel.  I have suffered a spectacular financial loss  
as well.  In my case, I am not able to buy Apple Computer stock at $2  
per share any more.  I could have bought it for that price before it  
went up, but I didn't buy it then, and now I can't sell it because I  
don't have it.  The chance to buy Apple stock at $2 has been taken  
away from me.

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