[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[David Morelli]

On Aug 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> ...
> 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.

Hearings for land use claims are likely less scrutinized than the OJ  
Smith trial, and yet somehow, even after that circus, I still believe  
that OJ was responsible for the deaths, even if the trial ended in a  
"not guilty" verdict.  There is a difference between what can be  
proved in court and what is right or just.
>
> ...
> 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."

Yes, and they took years to enact those laws, and each time that the  
law was discussed it was in a public forum.  Each time a law was  
passed, it had an enactment date that followed the passage date.    
And in almost all cases, it had "grandfather" clauses that preserved  
the land use rights of those individual land owners who had exercised  
their rights.  If the land use process had consolidated lawfully  
subdivided properties, I would be compelled to agree with you.  Those  
who wanted to keep their plans secret, who wanted to avoid paying  
property taxes on the increased value of their land, or those who  
hadn't actually made plans didn't act to retain their options by  
making the necessary subdivisions.  Some did!  I recall that the  
President of the Washington County Land Owners Association was quite  
busy subdividing his property so that he could maintain his options.   
At the time I recall that he was "getting around the law", when in  
fact he was simply preserving his "grandfather" rights.
>
> 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.

You speak as if the market never goes anywhere but up.  There are  
property holders who cannot sell their land today for what they have  
invested.  Within a few months there may be lots of people whose  
property will not have the value it did when they purchased it.   
There are some developers who may find that they cannot develop their  
holdings because the market for their proposed product no longer  
exists.  No action of the government made that happen.  Speculation  
has rewards and it has risks.

The land owners didn't lose large amounts of money, the lost the  
potential to make large amounts of money.  The odds are better than  
Las Vegas, but it isn't a guaranteed return.  You talk as if it is.

Manufacturers do something similar all the time.  They buy  
"futures".  They lock in a price and quantity for delivery at some  
specified later date.  It isn't automatic, they have to take specific  
actions to preserve their market position.  The land use changes were  
a similar situation.  They had the opportunity to subdivide their  
land, or develop it or loose the option.
>
> 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!

No, the state doesn't need to pass anything, the market passed that  
law.  It says that if you didn't purchase an option on $2 Apple stock  
when it was available, you cannot exercise the option now.
>
> 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