[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

The key elements of M37, providing  relief to existing property owners whose
rights had been taken away by land  use laws, were presented to the voters
in 2000 as Measure 7. It passed by a 53% majority.

The Oregon Supreme Court subsequently overturned M7 on a technicality not
associated with those provisions. Specifically M7 accomplished its goals by
modifying the state's constitution in two places which, I understand, is not
allowed. 

Four years later M37 was presented to the voters. It did not change the
constitution. It also addressed other issues to better accommodate the
critics. Specifically, it allowed the state to avoid paying landowners
losses in cash by waiving the restrictions imposed by the land use laws on a
case-by-case basis, if the state so chooses. Measure 37 passed by a 61%
majority in 2004. 

So, when I say voters approved M37 twice, I mean that they voted in favor of
enforcing the protections provided by the US constitution under the fifth
amendment on which both measures were based which says, "...nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The
voters clearly agreed that removing certain rights appurtenant to a property
that diminish its value constitute such a "taking". Of course, it only
affects those whose property rights were affected and who had purchased the
property before the land use laws went into effect: that is, those who
negotiated a purchase price based on being able to do things with the
property that the law subsequently disallowed, and so suffered a real loss. 

After passage, M37 was debated in the courts finally reaching the Oregon
Supreme Court which ruled in its favor. 

I found it significant that two years later, in 2006, the voters approved
yet another measure: Measure 39. M39 further restricts the government's
right to take possession of private property through eminent domain. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 





-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Bob Browning
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:31 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th


Odd, I don't recall voting on M37 twice!?!? Please explain!!

bob "memory going??" browning

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: 
Here's the bottom line: The folks who decide whether the land use laws will
survive are the voters of Oregon as a combined force - those very people who
approved M37, twice! And the second time they approved M37 was after the
opponents of M37 had four years to explain why it was a bad idea. They
failed.  

The voters who approved M37 have put everyone on notice that least some
aspects of the laws are unacceptable and the measure ordered specific
changes. If their opponents demand more changes, it opens the question of
exactly what changes next. It may not be what their opponents want. The only
thing certain is that the way it was is now history. Our world, our country
and our laws change over time.  

I see movements to throw M37 out after the voters have made their point
twice as courting total disaster for our land use laws. The next voter
reaction may be to rebel against the idea of the land use laws entirely.
It's what people do when they are not taken seriously, not listened to, or
brow beaten with endless rhetoric after they have cast their ballots. 

Instead, if we feel it's important to change what the voters approved I
think we should be talking to those people to see where the compromise
should lay, even if we have to pay more taxes, even if we end up with some
new subdivisions that we hadn't planned or a few more shopping centers here
and there, even if some dishonest people (or corporations) manage to cash in
a bit on the program. 

Failure to compromise is guaranteed failure. 

Ron D'Eau Claire