[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

Sun Aug 19 13:16:17 PDT 2007

I know we disagree about whether small farmers, individual homeowners,
retired people on fixed incomes and others deserved to be protected from
having their wealth taken away when the land use laws were put into effect.
I've often said it's wrong to take their wealth away. You've often said its
necessary to serve the "public good". 

Now, I must apologize. I referred to "small farmers, individual homeowners,
retired people, etc." on purpose. One of the strategies of those who want to
justify rolling back M37 is to constantly make a case referring to large
corporations like Stimson Lumber, so I thought I'd use the same tactic to
put the picture in balance. It really doesn't matter, but it does inflame
emotions, depending upon whether you're a farmer who had counted on building
homes on your farm for your children when they grew up or a major
stockholder in a corporation affected by the law. I'm equally concerned
about protecting both: the small owner because that's a huge part of his/her
wealth, the corporations because without them there aren't any jobs for
people to go to. 

I agree that, in my view, Americans often do the wrong thing but that's how
America works. It's how a democratic republic behaves: inefficient, chaotic
at times and often injures people. I never thought that because our
government isn't a dictatorship that we'd avoid all the problems of a
dictatorship. We avoid some of them because we can, over time, shift the
focus of our country and our actions as people become aware of what's
happening to others. 

We're caught up in a great national rethinking of our international actions
of the past 7 years and we Oregonians have been caught up in a rethinking of
the land use laws for just about the same length of time. 

Just as the people of our nation voted for President Bush (at least once and
possibly twice) I may or may not agree with that choice, but it's the choice
made by the people.

One thing the President has demonstrated is that the American people don't
take kindly to being mislead, whether or not he legally "lied". We tend to
react with a rather broad brush: "Throw the bums out!" The good goes with
the bad.  

Since you are so concerned about the future of the land use laws here, do
you want to embark on the same sort of "spin campaign" the President used to
win the last election? At least he knew that it'd be all over in four years.
As the spin regarding M37 continues I'm concerned that an angry, aroused
citizenry in Oregon sees through it and "Throws the bums out!" Indeed, I
suspect that's what launched both successful campaigns to enact the reform
we call M37. 

Some people and some corporations will cash in inappropriately. You point to
O.J. That's what happens in a democratic society like ours. Our position, as
a society, is that we'd rather see a likely murderer walk free than imprison
an innocent man. I like that. And I'd rather see a crook cash in a bit on
M37 than see the good people (and corporations) penalized.

If too many people can cheat the system we need to look at better ways to
enforce the law rather than throw the law out entirely.  

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 10:53 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

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

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