[Grovenet] Fwd: Land Use Update August 16th

[David Morelli]

On Aug 23, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> 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.

The law doesn't sunset.  Every time any agency enacts any rule or  
regulation M37 is there when the regulation is first enforced.   
Forest Grove cannot change a zoning without the potential for a M37  
claim.  Forest Grove cannot change any regulation or enact any new  
regulation without the potential for a M37 claim.
>
> 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.

Reread the law.  Everyone who owns land today can make a claim  
tomorrow for any restriction that they feel reduces the value of  
their land when the restriction is first applied to their land.  Land  
use planning cannot implement any new restrictions without payment.   
Even those restrictions that take effect when the property is sold  
qualify.
>
> 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 build- 
> able 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.

That is an example of the hysterical arguments that you have been  
railing against.  That scenario doesn't happen.  There were hundreds  
of parcels throughout the county that were smaller than the minimum  
legal lot size imposed on that land, they were all build-able.  It is  
called the "grandfather clause" and it was applied to the non- 
conforming building lots because the courts said it was required.

What did happen, was that a speculator paid $200,000 for farm land  
outside of the city and wanted to hold it until the price was right  
to make their profit subdividing it.  If they bought a build-able lot  
before the rule change it remained build-able after the rule change.   
If they subdivided it before the rule change, the new parcels  
remained build-able after the rule change.  What really happens is  
that the speculator doesn't want to pay the higher taxed on the lots  
if they can avoid it, so they delayed making the subdivision until  
after it ceased to be an option.  The purchaser didn't lose the  
ability to build their dream home, they lost the ability to subdivide  
the land to build more than one.
>
> ...
> 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 Constitutional compensation issue was dealt with by various state  
and federal court cases.  M37 goes beyond the requirements as  
determined by the Supreme Court.  M37 may be legal, but it is not  
required by the Constitution.

> ... the land use laws remain as strict as ever. As long as the law  
> isn't changed again, ...

Whether you intended or not, you have put your finger on what appears  
to be a goal of the M37 proponents.  They want land use laws to go  
away, and if the laws cannot change, they cannot adapt or deal with  
changing conditions.  The opponents will then decry land use as a  
static, stagnant relic of a past "tree hugger" generation, and  
continue to push for its removal.
>
> ... 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.

I see claims like the one filed on Iowa Hill South of town.  The land  
owner has about 1,250 acres of farm land.  It is currently 10  
different tax lots.  They propose to consolidate the parcels and then  
create a large lot rural subdivision.  But, they cannot consolidate  
the parcels without losing their M37 status.  Instead they filed a  
M37 claim for millions of damages and had the hearing on the 10  
separate parcels done as one single question.  The "dance" includes  
one parcel that is too small to subdivide, but it is needed for  
access to make the other parcels build-able.  There should be no M37  
claim for properties that have no legal access, so they combined the  
whole shooting match.  The owner already had 10 parcels, they want  
41.  And the county approved the M37 claim and allowed the  
development of the property rather than pay them the Millions requested.

BTW, they will be hitting the school district, sheriff, and fire with  
the normal expenses.  The county expects the land to be worth over  
$5.5 million before improvements.  While the owner was waiting to hit  
the county with this growth they have been paying their taxes, on  
about $631,000 of taxable valuation.

Figuring how much taxes the owner saved by delaying subdivision is  
left to the class as a homework exercise.  <smile>
>
> 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.

Yes, Newport today is like Forest Grove was thirty-forty years ago in  
both size and economy.  We had all that, and with growth it went  
away.  More growth isn't likely to bring it back, especially when our  
residential growth is running ahead of job growth.
>
> ... People who live here work here.

That was true of Forest Grove as well.  Until the housing out paced  
the job opportunities.  And as commuters shop during their commute  
through Beaverton or Hillsboro, this reduces their local purchases,  
which reduces the local sales even as the population grows.
>
> 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

One of the compromises of land use planning is that Forest Grove is  
required to accept the status of "bedroom community" as it is forced  
to accept the assigned population growth even though it isn't  
"assigned" a similar share of the business or industrial growth.  And  
it is prohibited from delaying residential growth as it tries to  
build local jobs.  Measure 37 doesn't get credit for creating this  
mess, but it does make it worse by increasing the housing stock to  
attract even more residents.

David