[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

People don't need to "come in" and downgrade your community. Communities
grow as families grow. At least healthy ones do. Managing what happens as
the population grows is the big challenge. Land use laws are key part of
that. 

Much of the demand for more shops, more housing, more businesses come from
and are promoted by multi-generational Oregonians. 

Since Oregon is a part of the United States, there is no impediment to the
migration of people into and out of the state, so that plays a role too. As
a community become successful at creating an attractive place to live,
others want to join in. That can lead to the problems suffered by California
- particularly Southern California - after WWII. Oregon's land use laws can
avoid that happening here. 

M37 did not remove the ability of the state to control what happens to land,
even private land. It only requires that if the state chooses to take away
part of the "bundle of rights" one obtains when they buy property, that
person be compensated for the loss, just as those who lose their property
altogether for the public good are compensated under the law. 

People don't have crystal balls. How can the farmer looking at his children
playing in the yard say, "I know exactly how many of you will grow up  here,
and how many of you will want to work the farm with me, and how many of you
will have my grandchildren who want to live here, so I can subdivide my farm
today to protect my right to provide you homes." It can't happen. People
can't tell what the future will bring, nor should any law demand that they
do so.  That's a removal of a basic right that comes with land ownership. 

>From the beginning of this thread, my only objection was that some groups
are using half-truths to make emotional appeals to the population to get
behind this or that proposed change to the land use laws. I believe that
endangers the future of those laws. 

Having been raised in Southern California and having experienced runaway
urban growth first hand, the land use laws are a special interest of mine:
I'd hate to seem them weakened or destroyed. 

Ron D'Eau Claire  





-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:27 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th



On Aug 19, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> 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".
>

As a realtor you really should be better informed about land use  
laws.  They were created to protect property values for the people  
who lived and worked in a community from those who would come in and  
down grade it.  The whole rationale for land use law was to protect  
the wealth and investments of existing residents.  While you advocate  
the removal of those protections to benefit the few who would become  
wealthy at the expense of the remaining citizens.

What about your claim that the land use laws "take" wealth?  You  
choose to ignore that the rules consistently allow for grandfathering  
of existing uses.  The rules allow that those who elected to divide  
their property before the rules were enacted to sell the parcels.   
Those who chose not to exercise their option, lost their option.   
That was a choice with financial consequences, but it was a choice.

David.


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