[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Well, that's a very scary issue Ed. When the government runs up a bill, we
tax payers have to foot it, whether it's blowing up Iraq or taking people's
rights to their land. In this case, it seems like the government has run up
an unknown bill under the pre-M37 rules. 

That's one of the very important things we really need to address and find a
solution for if the land use laws are to remain strong. I feel that ignoring
them may destroy the land use laws completely.  Like so many people who
supported President Bush have now gotten fed up and taken as "throw the bums
out!"  attitude, I think the same thing may well happen to our land use laws
if we don't have open and honest discussions.

Of course, the costs are only for those claims the state pays instead of
letting the land owner build. Anyone who gets permission to build doesn't
get a dime from the state.

It seems to me the first step is to understand, in each community, which
claims are valid. Experience has already shown us that a great number of
them are not, and that includes many of the large claims by large
corporations. They are dismissed without further cost or permission to
build. We just had some of the largest claims on the Oregon coast withdrawn
because the corporations holding the land decided they weren't going to win
their case. 

Of the claims that are left and found legitimate, then it's a matter of
deciding whether granting permission to build constitutes a material damage
to the community. Only if it is decided that to allow the legitimate claim
to build would be harmful to the community does the question come up of
paying the owner instead of granting permission. As I watch claims get
settled by granting permission, I can't see any way those claims create
significant harm. Sure, we end up with a few more houses in some places and
perhaps a few shops. To build them requires getting the proper permits of
course, but even if that happens, it's a very limited extension of the
communities and it's a one-time extension that won't be repeated. 

Still, I assume there will be those we agree don't deserve approval to
build. They will cost something. 

What's the bottom line? I watch closely. That's why I perked up over the
announcement here of a meeting about M37.  But I don't see any numbers so
far. 

I think that's because no one has them. We need to take it one step at a
time to find them. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Davie
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:57 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th


Ron, who pays the bill when it becomes a 
reimbursement?
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron D'Eau Claire
  To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
  Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update 
August 16th


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

  > But the Washington County numbers are truly
  > staggering.  Stimson seeks to develop 36,086 
acres
  > (7.6% of Washington County) of pristine 
forest, and
  > would see a spectacular payday if Measure 37 
stays
  > on the books, many times their $30,000 
contribution
  > to the Measure 37 campaign in 2004.

  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.

  No doubt there are those who will try to "cash 
in" inappropriately by making
  false claims. Is that the fault of the law, or 
the fault of the people
  making the claims? Have any of them succeeded? 
If so, why, since the claims
  must pass scrutiny by our county and state 
officials?

  If there are holes in M37 that need plugging to 
keep the crooks out of the
  system, I'm interested, but I've yet to see a 
single such hole documented.
  Indeed, as the writer notes, Stimson paid a 
significant amount of money to
  help with the passage of M37. If Stimson has a 
bona fide claim, that amounts
  to their having to pay a $30,000 "ransom" for 
the return of value taken by
  the people of Oregon years ago. Yet they aren't 
asking for reimbursement of
  that loss.

  It's important to remember that M37 does NOT 
require that any development be
  allowed to occur. Whether any "...large housing 
subdivisions, big-box
  stores, and strip malls..." are built remains 
totally within the control of
  the people of Oregon through our government 
representatives. M37 only
  requires that those who suffered bona fide 
losses at the hands of the state
  be reimbursed for those losses to the extent 
that they can document and
  prove them.

  Ron  D'Eau Claire






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