[Grovenet] Measure 37 map

Thu Jan 18 13:56:35 PST 2007

So whenever someone files a clearly specious claim against the county for a
million dollars you think they should settle in order to "save" court costs?

It's not as if Measure 37 is any big surprise. Any voter who has followed
politics here has known about this for nearly a decade now. They know that
the people of Oregon approved it in free elections, twice. All the while
those who opposed the idea failed to come up with a single solution for the
voters to consider instead of Measure 37. 

What makes those who still wring their hands in opposition think they their
wishes stand above those of the majority in a free election? They aren't the
patriots protecting Oregon's land. The patriots are those challenging the
claims that appear flawed, doing what our government should be doing. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of allnutt
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:07 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Measure 37 map

What should the county do when it doesn't have the money to pay for the 
defense of the claim that the law requires them to pay for? Isn't this also
a case where the law is 'working as it was intended'? If the law was written
(by those who knew exactly what they were doing) so 
that the county would be in a position of being damned if they did and 
damned if they didn't, the the authors are getting all the approvals just as

intended. All with voter approval.

Katie
What is that saying 'we don't want to eliminate government, only shrink it 
small enough to drown it in a bathtub'?    The scenario where only the 
public can rise up in protest may be just the beginning of the process if 
the public doesn't light a fire under the state legislature.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Measure 37 map

> The article I saw on-line says:
>
> "Stimson Lumber, one of Oregon's oldest timber companies, wants to 
> divide 1,110 acres of the company's land in the Iowa Hill area into 57 
> lots and put a house on each....
>
> "The commissioners' approval won't let Stimson break ground any time 
> soon. Like any Measure 37 claimant, the company would have to go 
> through a permitting process that could limit, or even nix, its 
> plans...."
>
> Stimson's claim appears to be in serious trouble. Opponents say they 
> can show that Stimson bought the land in question in 1986, which makes 
> it ineligible for development. The current laws were in force when it 
> was purchased, so there was no loss to Stimson. The hearing has been 
> continued until Jan 24, so nothing's settled.
>
> It seems to me the law is working. The article goes on...
>
> "In Washington County, for example, 874 claims have been filed but 
> only 18 property owners applied for building permits. The lack of a 
> housing boom so far, in part, stems from a legal ruling that Measure 
> 37 claims can't be transferred to anyone else, including developers."
>
> There is a problem that seems to be emerging, though. According to the 
> article, the county is inclined to approve even claims like Stimsons 
> that seem clearly troubled. They are doing it, the article notes, to 
> avoided having to defend a rejection in court. Instead they are 
> leaving it up to citizens to challenge the approval after the fact.
>
> I'm inclined to challenge the Commissioners with dereliction if that's 
> what's happening. If our own government won't enforce the laws we need 
> new government.
>
> 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, January 18, 2007 12:16 AM
> To: grovenet
> Subject: [Grovenet] Measure 37 map
>
>
> Today's News-Times had an article and map about the Measure 37 claims.
>
> Did you notice that the land intended for development is larger than 
> the current land area of Forest Grove?
>
> "Intended for development"?  Sure.  What else would qualify for a 
> Measure 37 claim?
>
> And did you see who the big winners in this lottery are?  Large land 
> owning corporations.  Oh, that sure was a surprise!
>
> They are not fools, they knew what the ballot measure stood for.
>
> With a little luck, the addition of that much developable land to the 
> inventory will kick the bottom out of selling prices for rural houses 
> and acreage and cost land owners some serious lost equity.  Maybe it 
> will even drop the prices on housing within the UGB, and everyone can 
> see the benefit of measure 37 as they lose equity in their homes.  Of 
> course, I have no idea what is the money source to pay for bussing 
> children from all that rural land or providing emergency services, but 
> who cares?
>
> 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
> 

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