[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

Thu Aug 23 18:01:07 PDT 2007

As a firm M37 opponent, I'm wondering about the people that sold their land
because of the zoning changes - do they have any recourse?  

For example, someone owned a large parcel of property they bought before
LCDC/land use (pre 1979), with the intention of building a subdivision.
Then LCDC made the land use changes and the owner was no longer able to
subdivide, therefore suffering a loss.  So finally after a number of years,
the owner sold the property at this 'substantial loss'.  Even though they
suffered the loss pre M37, shouldn't they also be able to recover the losses
they incurred due to zoning changes?  How many previous Oregon land owners
would fall into this category.  

Just my 2 cents worth,
Marian

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:23 AM
To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

I agree, but I think you're overstating the impact of M37. Only a limited
amount of development is being requested, and that can be prevented by
compensating the owners for the loss in value the experienced under the law
in those situations where the limited growth would be damaging to the
community. 

Only certain people who bought land before the land use laws were
implemented bought rights that were later taken away a the owner's expense
and so qualify for consideration under M37. 

Let's look at a hypothetical case. A person buys a nice lot in Forest Grove
on which they plan to build a house. Because buildable lots are scarce in
Forest Grove, they pay $200,000 for the land. After they complete the
purchase, the county/state changes the law to say that no building can be
erected on the lot. Suddenly the lot is worth, at most, $50,000 on the
market. 

The individual no longer has the right to build and cannot recover the
$150,000 the state took away by taking away his right to build the house. 

The voters of Oregon agreed, twice, that taking away that right and creating
the subsequent loss was tantamount to a "taking" of his property, which is
not allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Certainly that is a point that can
be debated but it went to a vote and the people of Oregon decided it was a
"taking". 

Once those people who were injured in that manner when the land use laws
were implemented have been dealt with - either allowing them to build or
providing "just compensation" as the Constitution requires for their loss -
the land use laws remain as strict as ever. As long as the law isn't changed
again, people buying land today aren't faced with the state taking away
rights they had when they purchased it. That hypothetical lot would sell for
$50,000 today and the person buying it suffers no loss because he can't
build on it. 

How many legitimate claims are there? How many legitimate claims need to be
handled with cash instead of permission to build? I see no figures. I see
lots of claims filed for review. I see lots of claims denied or withdrawn. I
see lots of hysterical cries that "big corporations" will get a huge
"payday". It's those emotional cries I find most onerous. They ignore the
many hardworking individual land owners who were injured. 

Your observations about Forest Grove agree with my experience. It is a
bedroom community for the Portland Metro area and, as such, has very limited
resources. I live next to an even smaller town here: Newport. Newport has
less than 10,000 people compared to Forest Grove's almost 20,000. Yet, I can
find everything I need right in town, usually in several places. Lumber,
hardware, computers, office supplies, clothing of all kinds, dozens of
restaurants, several grocery stores and much, much more are all right at my
fingertips in Newport. 

I also ran across an interesting bit of data about Newport. Here more people
drive to work than anywhere else in Oregon, yet the total auto miles driven
and the average commute time (about 10 minutes I think it was) are the
lowest in Oregon. People who live here work here. 

Is it the fault of M37 that Cornelius' and Hillsboro's business districts
have grown substantially over the past few years while Forest Grove has
continued to languish, or has Forest Grove failed to attract jobs and
businesses and so allowed itself to become more and more just a "bedroom
community" for Portland? 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:26 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

Ron,

I think that I have understood your perspective since you made it  
before the M37 vote.

There is less than total acceptance of the land use process in  
Oregon.  There are flaws.  Those who have the legislative control  
over the land use process have ignored or denied the flaws.  Those  
who object to the flaws got a constitutional amendment passed to  
address the lack of payment for lost land use.  The judicial  
department overturned the constitutional amendment.  Those who have  
legislative control failed to head the "wake up call" and did nothing  
for four years.  Those who object to the flaws got a regulatory  
amendment passed.  Those who have legislative control are ignoring  
the flaws and trying to overturn the the regulatory amendment with a  
new measure.  You are concerned that a failure to address the issues  
of compensation for lost land use may result in a third measure that  
removes land use planning in Oregon.

You wish to see some compromise.

This process has been going on for three decades and you may have  
missed some of the compromises.

  Cities and districts must plan for infrastructure and service  
expansion to accept new development.  Cities and districts cannot  
refuse new developments.  Cities must increase density.  Cities must  
keep a rolling 10 year supply of build able land inventory.  Cities  
and districts must accept their assigned portion of the expected new  
populations.  Cities are restricted in the infrastructure expansion  
costs that they may recover from new development.  School districts  
are prohibited from recovering infrastructure expansion costs from  
new development.

The compromise was that cities could decide where the new development  
would be located, and they could decide target densities for  
different areas.

M37 says that the cities (or counties) that exercise their side of  
the compromise must pay for that exercise over and above the cost of  
planning and expanding infrastructure and services.

M37 says that taxpayers must pay for expanding public services to  
serve new development, or pay to stop the development.  M37 says that  
existing residents must suffer a reduction in public services, pay  
higher rates to maintain the same level of services, or pay to stop  
the development.

M37 says that the residents of the cities (or counties) must pay for  
that exercise over and above the cost of accepting higher densities,  
more pollution, school crowding, more traffic, higher crime, and  
higher taxes or reduced services that accompany increased development.

The money all flows one way under M37, and it is the same way that it  
flows today, to benefit developers.

As the city has grown dramatically in those three decades, Forest  
Grove has lost: all but two gas stations, all but one full service  
grocery, all specialty food stores, all clothing stores, all catalog  
outlets, all but one hardware store, the full services at our local  
hospital, hours of service at the library, hours of service at the  
pool, and our local employment opportunities have fallen from a rough  
balance of jobs to workers, to a requirement that half of the work  
force leave town to find work.

David
_______________________________________________
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