Fix Measure 37 – Time is Running Out

By Roger Kaye of Turner, Oregon. Roger is the president of Friends of Marion County (1000 Friends of Oregon affiliate).

The 73rd Oregon Legislature Assembly is in the midst of trying to resolve the Measure 37 mess that voters passed in 2004. Let’s face up to it - now’s the time to get it fixed.

Voters thought Measure 37 would allow a small number of property owners to build a house or two for their family members. Voters now know about the claims being made for hundreds of subdivisions, gravel pits, casinos, and destination resorts. Voters now know that Measure 37 basically does away with zoning; creates chaos; has negative impacts on farmers, neighbors, wildlife and does not provide for the common good.

The claims allowed under Measure 37 will destroy 750,000 acres of Oregon’s best farm and forest land. Taxpayers through their local governments are forced to allow these developments because there are not billions of tax dollars available to buy these claimants off.

Several Oregon Senators and Representatives are proposing changes we think we can live with. We hope to know more details after the April 12 meeting of the Joint Special Committee on Land Use Fairness.

Let’s fast track the mom and pop requests to give claimants the ability to build the homes for their family members, but put a halt to the other outrageous claims that have been made.

A “Rally for Oregon” will be held Saturday, April 14th from 10:00am-2:00pm on the Capitol steps in Salem. The event is organized by Jim Gilbert of Molalla. All who care about preserving our much needed land use system are urged to join us to express your concern about getting Measure 37 finally fixed. We’re getting tired of the debate and the Legislature needs to hear that from everyone who reads this column. People are welcome to bring a sack lunch and a homemade sign that says, “Fix Measure 37”.

We hope you will also contact the members of the Joint Special Committee on Land Use Fairness [listed after the jump - editor.] and your own senator and representative to urge them to take action to fix Measure 37.


Senator Floyd Prozanski, Co-Chair
[email protected]
503-986-1704

Representative Greg Macpherson, Co-Chair
[email protected]
503-986-1438

Senator Larry George, Co-Vice Chair
[email protected]
503-986-1713

Representative Bill Garrard, Co-Vice Chair
[email protected]
503-986-1456

Representative Patti Smith
[email protected]
503-986-1452

Representative Brian Clem
[email protected]
503-986-1421

Representative Arnie Roblan
[email protected]
503-986-1409

Senator Roger Beyer
[email protected]
503-986-1709

Senator Betsy Johnson
[email protected]
503-986-1716

Senator Kurt Schrader
[email protected]
503-986-1720

Comments

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The statement that "the claims allowed under M37 will destroy 750,000 acres" is largely false. Two claims I have been involved with are contrary. One involved land in central Portland surrounded by 100 condo units to the south six rowhouses across the street, and six apartment complex adjacent to the north. It took M37 to build nine rowhouses on the claim land. Did this destroy farmland and the whole ecosystem of the state? No. The other claim involves open acreage surrounded by houses on lots from 1/4 acres to two acres. The adjacent number of houses to subject property is over 20 houses. M37 claim granted by the state and county is trying to build seven additional houses on two acre parcels. How is that destroying the state when over twenty years ago next door property owners built homes on 1/4 acre lots?

    I can easily add, and other claimants can help add numerous examples like the above. But, of course the media would never report claims like these with the whole context of the claims examined.

    Gross generalizations like this post is doing a disservice in understanding the real facts behind M37. Look at all the claims statewide, analyse the real benefits, contexts of the claims, the quality of the soils, water availability, existing road services before claiming "M37 will destroy 750,000 acres".

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's be fair here. 1000 Friends have, not so much, credibility on M37. This further demonstrates their problem. 1000 friends lost at the balot box, lost again at the Oregon Supreme Court and now are attempting to use whatever they can cook up to have the Democrat controlled legislature undo M37. Now, while 1000 friends can't point to any M37 disaster at all, and avoid specifics on the bulk of M37 claims they are: mispeaking for voters; misrepresenting by highlighting "hundreds of subdivisions" when many of them are harmless small particians; misleading by suggesting there will be widespread "gravel pits" and "casinos"; tarnishing what could be highly beneficial destination resorts; Falsly claiming Measure 37 "basically does away with zoning"; wildly claiming "chaos" is imminent; manipulating with hypothetical fabrications about negative impacts on farmers, neighbors, wildlife; trumpeting a "common good" versus bad M37 song; and, using falsehoods about 750,000 acres of Oregon’s best farm and forest land being destroyed.

  • Richard van Pelt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Today I saw supporters of M37 with buttons in orange and black (hmmm. . . . must be Beavs) reading "leave it alone/the law works."

    For whom does it work? It works for individuals at the expense of the neighbors, community, and state. There is no way around such a conclusion. All property purchases in the future must take into account, not the property being purchased, but the purchase date of neighboring properties. There is no way around the conclusion that Measure 37 provides that land use decisions by any jurisdiction in Oregon now will apply only to future owners of the property. And yes, I know what the Supreme Court said, but the effect is that if you own (metaphorically) a '57 Chev, you can travel faster on the freeway that if you own an '07 Maseratti. If, for sake of metaphorical argument, we find it necessary to reduce the speed limit to 50 mph, such law would only apply to autos purchased after the regulation went into effect.

    What did it fix? 37 fixed all zoning in amber. We can't change any zoning anywhere, because it would create a new class of claimants.

    Who gets fixed? We are fixed in a sense because we can't change without having to pay people who perceive that such a change would cause their property to lose value - value being a number you pick out of your hat. The nasty truth is that I've seen no proof proferred that any property declined in value at the time the zoning requirements were put into place. Furthermore, they don't even want to refer to such changes as "zoning" changes. Why: because the Court has consistently held that changes in zoning are not takings unless the zone change effectively eliminates any use the owner could do with the property.

    What does it hold for our future? We have a groundwater problem. Of course, 37 claimants consistently deny this (the way we seem to want to deny global warming). We can't impose water conservation regulations because that would create 37-type exceptions. Imagine buying a piece of property and not being able to use the amount of water your neighbor is sucking out of the common glass.

    You shall know them by their acts. Why does Mesure 37 make homebuilders salivate? What interest of a public nature do they have - only that it fosters their industry.

    I have no use for hypocricy. Why don't they introduce legislation, Section 1 of which would repeal ALL land use laws in Oregon. Then let Section 2 restate the major policy goal of the old SB 100. Let Section 3 codify the land use goals. Let's start with a new slate. Let all the language be new language; let's engage in the debate that resulted in Oregon's land use system. Let's not have what we have now; fine words emasculated by a measure the supporters of which do not want to examine in terms of the whole fabric.

    Let's just start over; let's find out what Oregonians really want. Let them find out what 37 supporters really mean by "property rights." Do we really want land use anarchy?

  • Brian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Becky, you're wrong. Richard, you're right. The harm being done by Measure 37 claims is present and real. I know, because I live almost next door to one--a 217 acre proposed subdivision on what is now farmland.

    We and our neighbors have spent almost $20,000 fighting this threat to our groundwater. Marion County never envisioned that farmland would become subdivisions, so this development in a groundwater limited zone never would have been allowed if it weren't for Measure 37.

    The claimant, Leroy Laack, hasn't reached out to the people who already live in the area, many of whom already have declining wells, because he has no intention of living here. He and his co-owners want to take their money and run.

    Many of our neighbors voted for Measure 37. I don't know a single person who says they would vote for it again. They're seeing first hand the damage that it's doing both to the environment and to the social fabric. Measure 37 pits neighbor against neighbor (in the case, neighbor against absentee owner).

    It elevates the supposed property rights of the few over the rights of the many. It's horribly unfair, since it creates a privileged class of property owners who are able to roll back the clock on their investment. Stock owners can't do that. Owners of commodities can't do that.

    But for some reason in Oregon owners of investment property can do that. It's crazy, but that's Measure 37. It's got to be fixed. Soon.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, here is proof to your "the nasty truth is that I have seen no proof proffered that any property declined in value at the time zoning requirements were put into place". In the second case that I posted above the M37 property claim had no zoning at time of purchase of the property in the 50's and had no zoning until 1976. In the meantime the adjacent properties built the 1/4 acre homesites (plus). Up until 1976 subject property could build and many houses as allowed by perk testing and the state watermaster requirements-lets say easily 15 houses. Then in 1976 by zoning that number was reduced to three home sites. I think you would agree that the difference between 15 sites to 3 sites would be a "decline in value". In this case a certified appraiser calculated this difference to accepted appraisel practices and the difference was substantial. It is not guess work. And if the state and county disagreed (which they didn't) they could have easily refuted the claim.

    One might also consider the point that homes that were built around the subject property in the intervening years from the 50s to the 70s also devalued the farming value of the subject property. That is another subject.

    But why should the numerous homesites surrounding subject property have the "right" to have their small lots enjoying the "countryside" then deny the subject property the same rights they enjoy-just like in your own circumstance?

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, Your take on zoing is all over the place and ludicrous. Of course people refer to zoning in M37 claims and get it set aside. Counties look up the old zoning when the M37 property was purchased and compare to the new zoning. If YOU haven't seen any proof of reduced value due to zoning then there's no way you'll ever understand any of this.

    Brian, Have you seen damage done? No. Because it hasn't happened. So you have a subdivision coming next to you? So what? Is Metro better suited to decide where and how subdivisions go? Hardly. They have messed up the entire region. Where is the harm by Measure 37 claims "present and real". How about an address? A 217 acre "proposed" subdivision is "proposed". By the time it gets through the preliminary plat approval process it will have addressed every conceavable impact according to the local codes and state law. I don't believe there is any threat to your groundwater. The requirements for sewer, water and runoff are extensive and M37 does NOT override those requirements.

    What do you mean "Marion County never envisioned". The land was labeled years ago like every other parcel in the state. That's the problem.
    I hope you chime in here after the subdivision goes in and your groundwater is fine. Just to appologise if nothing else. The regulations before M37, which had all sorts of marginal land mislabeled as farm land or forest, were far worse than the relatively harmless M37 claims.

    You aven't "seen first hand" any damnage yet because the subdivision is only proposed. Tell me has the application for the subdivions even been accepted as complete yet?
    Has staff reported their findings? The environment has not been touched by M37 anywhere in the State yet and and damage to the "social fabric" is result of the disingenuous anti-M37 hysteria.

    Our pre M37 land use and zoning laws "elevated the property rights of the few over the rights of the many" every day all over Oregon. That's the nature of zoning, regulations and especially the Urban Growth Boundaries. It was horrible as countless property owners were being negatively effected while their neighbors enjoyed windfall appreciation and right to develope. Our land use planning has always been about winners and losers and when municipalities get involved they pick the privileged class of property owners with their decisons all the time. There is nothing wrong with M37 except the road blocks Hardy Myers put up with regard to transferability. He has to be fixed. I suggest you get a real lesson on M37 and stroll through the Washington county website list of M37 claims. Claim after claim after claim is completely harmless and will mean people can use their land as they need to within the many remaining regulations, building codes and permits, adding millions in property taxes to basic services.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I meant to say "own circustance" as that of Brian above.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M37 will allow building real homes on vacant land in the outer areas, instead of more skinny houses towering over existing homes in our neighborhoods. Instead of 5 story apartments in our precious neighborhoods. Instead of tiny house farms in our neighborhoods.

    M37 preserves the livability of our neighborhoods - we need more M37, not less.

    Oregon needs more living space, not more condo towers

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    The regulations before M37, which had all sorts of marginal land mislabeled as farm land

    Yeah, like all that rocky hillside soil that has turned into our billion dollar wine industry. Just think...instead of grapevines we could've had suburban sprawl from here to eternity.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lee: what I am seeking is tangible evidence that the property declined in value at the time changes went into effect. I am seeking tangible evidence that what the property owner was using the land for at the time of the change was reduced in any way. I am seeking tangible evidence that anything was taken away at the time of the change.

    I am not talking about some future potential. Future potential is an investment in terms of what one might be able to do at some future time. I am not sure any voter would want a public policy that protects or guarantees such investments - that is why they are called risks. I have the sense, from the rhetoric, that investments in land are like investments in an FDIC-regulated bank.

    Oregon's land use policies protect use, thus protecting investment.

    Proponents argue that the calculation of loss on claims is deliberately exaggerated; that applicants are trying to protect their investments by going after the larges possible claim, hoping to get what they can. Tell me, is that what the people voted for? If a number is offered, why shouldn't I accept that as being valid? How can I, as a citizen, judge a claim's merits if all I'm being offered is a bluff?

    This is what I feared would happen when I voted against 37. I guess I was right.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, Get a grip. Far and away the most and biggest deliberately exaggerated claims have come from anti-M37 folks like you and 1000 friends. Judge Mary Merten James as well. Thank God for the Oregon Supreme Court. For the most part M37 claim's loss estimates are fairly simple and straight forward. Easy to calculate based upon nearby parcels which did not fall under the restricting regulation being waived. There's nothing vague or exaggerated about old zoning and new zoning either. Furthermore, what is the point of your attempt at dissecting the estimated losses and casting them as exaggerated? Suppose some estimates are exaggerated. What difference does it make if the county has no intention of paying them. I suggest the so called inflated losses serve up your camp fodder to demagogue just as you have done. I suggest you are simply trying to throw up more roads blocks. What would you have? That a bureaucrat force a claimant to undergo a lengthy and costly appraisal analysis to prove to "staff" that their $900,000 loss claim is not really $700,000? or some other number 1000 Friends or Judge James comes up with. How about requiring public hearings for each and every claim? How about charging large fees to cover the "deliberately exaggerated" staff costs? How about requiring M37 waiver recipeints to pay their neighbors? I could go on and on and on with more busy work, punitive road blocks all day.

    OOOOOOOOh, you "feared this would happen". Why don't you step away from your rhetoric and offer up a single parcel as an example of how it and it's loss estimate is something a rational person should have "feared"? Or fear now? Oregonians have more to fear from the 1000 Friends/Judge James/meddling politician/bureaucrat regime than their innocent neighbors seeking to use their land.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M37 was and is a stupid idea. But it is a stupid idea which was adopted by a huge majority of voters - kind of like when the US voters elected Ronald Reagan as president. In my opinion, my fellow Dems put themselves in a dangerous position by treating the voters who passed M37 as if they were a group of ignorant misinformed children whose error must be corrected by the all-knowing 1000 Friends and their Dem colleagues.

    I would prefer to see M37 fail on its own merits, after a few years of operation, and then have the voters reject it. Sure, a few projects will move forward, but in my opinion it is more important to protect the integrity of the democratic process than it is to protect a few hundred or even a few thousand acres of land.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK Becky

    ;

    Then there is the matter of the loss of value. The term has not been defined.

    When I read the Measure, this is how I assumed loss of value would be calculated:

    1. At the time of the change, the property has a value of X.

    2. As a result of the restriction, the property had a value of X-A.

    3. Assuming the land was held for 30 years, and assuming a compounded 7% annual increase in property value, one could calculate the diminished value in terms of today’s dollars.

    The Golden Rule of algebra requires that what one does on one side of the equation, one also does on the other side.

    There would be some subtractions that would affect the product in 3 above:

    1. You would have to calculate the benefit of property taxes changes that occurred to the property owner’s benefit.

    2. You would have to calculate the earnings from the property over the period in question.

    3. You would have to factor in the increased value of the land that occurred.

    Here is one example of the problems I have.

    Marion County Claim M06-304, filed by the Kirk Living Trust, affects 186.86 acres of land at 4797 St Paul Highway, St. Paul. The property was purchased in 1964 and the Trust seeks $33,847,180 in compensation or be permitted to subdivide the property into one acre parcels and develop.

    Could the Kirks, by any stretch of the imagination, sold that property in 1975 and created a 180 plus subdivision? How much loss of value occurred at the time?

    If you can’t answer the questions in terms of when the zoning went into effect, then Measure 37 is exposed as an ex post facto subversion of the land use goals.

    That is why I suggest junking the system and starting all over again.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I notice you don't want to address what the adjacent or nearby properties are worth. You are deliberately making this valuation thing far more complcated than it is. For obvious reasons. Comps show worth. UGBs and other zoning result in widely different values between two adjacent properites. Your endevour to muddy up the simple issue of lossed value due to new zoning regulations is demogoguery at it's finest. Wrestle all you want but M37 loss in value estimates are simple comparisons to nearby properties which did get encumbered by the same re-zoning the M37 applicant seeks to get waived. There is no mystery or confusion. Your example is perfect but you retard it by asking the wrong questions about value in 1975. There is NO question that parcel suffered a reduced value from re-zoning. I'm certain there is nearby, similar property which did not get the same treatment or resulting loss in value. M37 will allow them to utilize their property just as their neighbors can.
    One acre parcels? Oh the horror! And you did not address my point abhout the specific loss amoutn not being that important when it isn't going to be paid anyway.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Measure 37 Provides:

    “(1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation.”

    This provision applies only to people who owned property prior to the enactment of the land use regulation. Neighboring properties purchased after the effective date would be equally affected, but only some people would be entitled to compensation or waiver.

    This provision alone subverts the intent of Oregon’s land use system. That is why I suggest we scrap Chapter 197. Anyone want to take me up on that? I suggest not, because as the Brits would say, “I’ve Got Mine, Jack.”

    If you are town or city contemplating expanding your UGB, Measure 37 would encourage you to avoid expanding into areas where potential Measure 37 claims could arise. The last thing you would want would be to grow into an area that would result in unplanned expansion. Growth means gaming the system.

    As you say, no one is going to pay compensation, so it is futile to discuss lost value. The key issue is that some of you can say “I’ve got mine” and I could care less about the underlying principles of Chapter 197.

    Say what you want about what voters thought, as this plays out on the ground, it is a travesty.

    I look at 37 and I look at Chapter 197 and all I see are contradictions. And all I suggest, but get no answer to, is to repeal 197 and start all over.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, You go from one nonsensical ploy to another. You should go back and start all over. Have you no conscience or understanding of our land use regs and zoning? There HAS BEEN only "some people" enjoying the benefits of favorable zoning or changed zoning under the status quo forever. Unequal treatment of neighboring properties has been common place. You apparently are attempting to mislead people into believing only now under M37 is there this unfair environment of winners and losers. Nonsense. nothing could be further from the truth and I'll charge that you know it. You notion that "This provision alone subverts the intent of Oregon’s land use system" is as lame as Judge James' rulings which were shown to be outside the law and make no sense by our very own Oregon Supreme Court.
    Perhaps you can drag out your likely praise of Judge James' lawless rulings. You probably had similar suggestions at that juncture. I'll take you up all day. You have nothing but demagoguery, worn out falsehoods and imaginary scenarios.

    The key issue is that prior to M37 countless people and developers were saying "I’ve got mine". Often times it was handed to them with sweeping zoning changes to accommodate the "preferred" high density development which many neighbors oppose with futility. Say all you want about the stupid voters, as this plays out on the ground, it is a big win for mostly individual property owners, the State and government revenue streams. Your apparent anti-growth fanaticism and allegiance to the chaos planning arena has you incapable of recognizing either past impacts or future benefits from our M37 improved land use system.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    “You go from one nonsensical ploy to another. You should go back and start all over.
 Have you no conscience or understanding of our land use regs and zoning?”

    Thank you, let me do just that. That is what I’ve suggested we need to do all along.

    I keep going back to the very premise of our land use system:

    “ORS 197.005 Legislative findings.

    “The Legislative Assembly finds that:

    “(1) Uncoordinated use of lands within this state threatens the orderly development, the environment of this state and the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and welfare of the people of this state.

    “(2) To promote coordinated administration of land uses consistent with comprehensive plans adopted throughout the state, it is necessary to establish a process for the review of state agency, city, county and special district land conservation and development plans for compliance with goals.”

    I’ve read the 19 goals; I agree with them; I think most Oregonians do as well. Looking at Goal 3: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.

    “Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and

    “Counties may authorize farm uses and those nonfarm uses defined by commission rule that will not have significant adverse effects on accepted farm or forest practices.

    “IMPLEMENTATION

    “Zoning applied to agricultural land shall limit uses which can have significant adverse effects on agricultural and forest land, farm and forest uses or accepted farming or forest practices.”

    This gets to the heart of the matter.

    As you stated (demagogically, I might suggest): “Your apparent anti-growth fanaticism and allegiance to the chaos planning arena has you incapable of recognizing either past impacts or future benefits from our M37 improved land use system.” I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone is anti-growth (unless that is a sine quo non of Measure 37 opposition) because I would much rather see growth around a plan than to have to plan around growth.

    I’m just a poor dumb citizen, I guess – it seems to me that zoning applies to all similar land without regard to its purchase date. To read the law any other way means that public policy will always risk being prospective because it otherwise depends upon the acceptance of the affected property owners. If this puts me on the opposite side of the Supreme Court, I guess it does. I’ll just work to change the law.

    I’ll close as I ended earlier:

    I have no use for hypocricy. Why don't they introduce legislation, Section 1 of which would repeal ALL land use laws in Oregon. Then let Section 2 restate the major policy goal of the old SB 100. Let Section 3 codify the land use goals. Let's start with a new slate. Let all the language be new language; let's engage in the debate that resulted in Oregon's land use system. Let's not have what we have now; fine words emasculated by a measure the supporters of which do not want to examine in terms of the whole fabric.

    Let's just start over; let's find out what Oregonians really want. Let them find out what 37 supporters really mean by "property rights." Do we really want land use anarchy?

  • (Show?)

    Becky's being awfully misleading here, in two areas: first, by suggesting that loss is a function of CURRENT value, as opposed to the more rational value-minus-cost of restriction--which is a calculation based on values on the date of the restriction, not today's values. This is necessary, as Richard points out, to balance the increase in income from the property's rezoning.

    Secondly, to assert that the process of zoning is somehow as arbitrary and cherry-picked as M37 is rather absurd. Zoning takes place by classing land types, not locations. Everyone under the same zoning restriction faces the same regulations on land use. Those asserting M37 claims want special treatment to evade zoning--meaning that some people on a given class of land can use their property in a certain way, while people on EXACTLY THE SAME CLASS OF land cannot. It defies reason.

    The fact also remains that voters quite clearly do not want the version of M37 we have now, so to not fix things would indeed be a subversion of the will of the voters. Leaving M37 alone would be what ignores the political climate, not fixing it.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good grief Richard, aren't you skipping over a huge part of the problem. In practice, Oregon's land use laws have not been implemented and achived what was either writen into law or what was intedned. For instance, UGB expansions sit in a quagmire of bureaucrat blockage, land for growth has been tied up, land was mislabeled across the state, people have been prohibited from using their land and bad planning has resulted in all sort fo chaos. You are are narrowly reciting the legaleze and trumpetting theories as if our lsand use laws have worked marvelously. You have misrepresented what has been happening in the state over the past few decades and have concocted M37 scenarios which are equally misleading.
    You don't want to examine the whole fabric at all. You misunderstand and/or misrepresent the application of our land use laws and how their implementation morphed out of control over the years. There is no time running out and M37 has yet to spawn any of the disaster the anit-M37 hysteria clamors on about. There is plenty of time any any juncture to adapt or adjust once M37 development actually begins to unfold.

    I suspect most of the M37 opponents realize the harmless nature of most claims and strive to avoid that reality unfolding and thereby exposing their exagerations.

    It truly is an extremist's anti-sprawl, central planning fanatic's agenda at work here. Trouble is, regulated sprawl is far better than the lousy central planning thich spurred M37.

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torridjoe: Becky may have point with respect to valuation. Section (1) of 37 states:

    (1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation.

    There are two points at which loss of value occurs: (1) when the change is enacted; and (2) when the property owner attempts to invoke some right that was antecedent to the zone change.

    You are right when you state "Those asserting M37 claims want special treatment to evade zoning--meaning that some people on a given class of land can use their property in a certain way, while people on EXACTLY THE SAME CLASS OF land cannot. It defies reason." That is what I call the "I've got mine, Jack" attitude.

    I can't begin to understand Measure 37 until I understand how supporters square the measure with ORS 197.005: "Uncoordinated use of lands within this state threatens the orderly development, the environment of this state and the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and welfare of the people of this state." I can't begin to understand 37 until I understand how they read the goals and how they state the goals should be implemented, modified, or deleted.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Joe, You say, "Zoning takes place by classing land types, not locations." Oh brother are you smoking something. There are countless examples of neighboring parcels with the exact same land class with two different zoning restrictions. You couldn't be more confused, wrong headed and misguided. Sure everyone with the identical zoning restriction face the same regulations. But varying overlays result in quite a variety of restrictions. Other county and municipal ordinances have resulted in unequal treatment all over the place. In fact municipalities have turned land use and zoning ordinances into all sorts of tools for development they prefer, behavior modification and social justice at a every whim. Many times at the expense of neighborhods and communities helpless to do anything about it.
    This irrational drum beat on how equal, fair and well it was all working prior to M37 is a total fabrication and/or group ignorance. Perhaps many have been and are so naive that they can't imagine that all of the swell sounding intentions were not so well carried out. And that they cannot believe those carrying them out would mislead them. Well wake up and smell the roses. You've been duped. Blind fanaticism is not healthy.

  • (Show?)

    Richard, I disagree with your 2nd point in time. You can't determine fair market value for a sale or development that has not actually occurred. Comparatives can't be used, because by definition there ARE no comparatives--the other properties are not in the same situation, since their developments were done either in accordance with zoning regulations at the time, or refer to properties under different zoning rules currently. You can't compare land valued one way based on restrictions, to other land valued based on no restrictions, or a different set of them.

    Furthermore, waiting until one chooses to invoke their rights means risk-free investment gains for those who wait longer. In other words, the day after M37 passed would have to be the day or reckoning for figuring the new value...since every day after that was a day that the landowner was under no restrictions, and thus cannot claim injury in my view.

    In any case, you can't determine loss unless you start with the value of the property the day the use was restricted. You can't lose something you ain't never had, as they say.

  • (Show?)

    "There are countless examples of neighboring parcels with the exact same land class with two different zoning restrictions."

    This is a logical impossibility, of course--it is the zoning which DETERMINES the land classification. If two parcels have different zoning, they are by definition of different land classes.

    "In fact municipalities have turned land use and zoning ordinances into all sorts of tools for development they prefer, behavior modification and social justice at a every whim."

    This is also a curious statement, since that's exactly what zoning is for--preferred development planning based on a socially just model.

    "Perhaps many have been and are so naive that they can't imagine that all of the swell sounding intentions were not so well carried out. And that they cannot believe those carrying them out would mislead them."

    What would this have to do with the legal sense and social cost of M37? Surely you're not advocating fixing a broken system with another one?

    I've got no problem with owner-utilized development, in principle. But profiteering and speculation have no business being part of the equation.

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torridjoe: I agree with you, but the words seem to say otherwise. I think a reasonable assessment of lost value as you've indicated would make a lot of these issues go away.

    Becky: at least we're coming to some common ground. I didn't read you to reject the principles, just the perception of the implementation.

    I am trying desperately to examine the whole fabric; there are problems - Measure 37 created a whole new set of problems. Unless we are both willing to look at the consequences, we won't be able to craft any solution.

    You seem oblivious to the effect this has on neighbors; you seem oblivious to the impact this has down the road. Respectfullly, I am not denying problems exist, but I think you are.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, I'm sorry but we have a track record of outcomes from the past 30 years and it aint aligned with the wonderful theories and intentions which started it all. Unfairness reigned supreme. Mr. Joe is living in fantasy land if he thinks otherwise. He doesn't seem to grasp the mislabeling of land and abuse by governing bodies as they seek to "zone for--preferred development planning based on a socially just model" I mean come on Joe. "Socially just model" It's all good? Is that what we have been witnessing?

    M37 doesn't do nearly as much to our land use system ans the hysterioites want people to believe. It doesn't fix it. It wasn't meant to fix it. That would be a monumental task because of same demogaguery we are seeing with M37. M37 really only brings relief to part of the much broader problems which anti-M37 forces think don't exist. There is nothing broken about M37 and it doesn't represent the broad swath of destruction to our land use laws or landscape that it's oppponents trumpet. The bulk of our land use laws, zoning, environmental protections and building codes remain intact. Despite the broad swath of misinformation floated out at every opportunity such as this blog thread. The greater enormity of Oregon landscape is not even suject to any M37 effect at all. Not directly or indirectly. We need only temporarily suspend the pandamonium and permit M37 claims for construction and watch the real non-adverse effect it will have.

    But noooooo, we have to stop the paving over of the state? All is doomed? Zoning is gone? Ground water will be ruined? Hog farms and gravel pits will line our neighborhoods, on and on and on.

    Joe says "owner-utilized development" is OK, but "profiteering and speculation have no business being part of the equation".

    Huh? What "equation"? And there's nothign wrong with profiting or specualting. It goes on every day with every development we see every day and none of them have anything to do with M37. Because there is no M37 development underway yet. None. So why not shut down all development that has speculation and profit in the equation Joe? How about we only let Metro or the PDC or cities and counties develop? That would make everything fair and equal for all, right?

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "There is nothing broken about M37"

    "M37 really only brings relief to part of the much broader problems which anti-M37 forces think don't exist.

    There is nothing broken about M37 and it doesn't represent the broad swath of destruction to our land use laws or landscape that it's oppponents trumpet."

    Well, I tried, and as the Beatles sang:

    You say yes, I say no, You say stop, I say go, go, go.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard , I want to go back to your earlier post requesting "tangible evidence that the property declined in value at the time changes went into affect".

    Once again I'll use the second example that I gave above as the "tangible evidence". As noted, the M37 claim was surrounded by over 20 additional smaller home sites (1/4 acres) developed on previous farm land during the 60s and 70s. Subject property wanted to raise a family on the farm land and elected not to develop. The market to develop small lots was obviously present since adjacent lots were sold sometimes even before the partitionings. Therefore, when the M37 property which could easily have been developed with 15 to 20 lots, was zoned in 1976 to have only the ability for 3 lots the property was devalued. There is evidence in the record that those lots at that time were being sold in the $20T range. 17lots x $20T=$140,000 dollar loss in 1976.

    This is "tangible evidence" just at this point in the financial analysis.

    But rightfully add in a reasonable interest rate on that lost income. I am somewhat in the investment industry and some financial advisors can easily double your money in six years compounded, but I'll use eight years. That final value could be $1.02M. That value is very similar to the recent certified appraisel value. I know that some M37 haters have argued not to use the interest value over time in determining lost value to the claims. I disagree as most financial advisors do.

    But let's consider using only the $140T difference that you can't dispute. The county nor the state offered even that amount to satisfy the claim.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, by the way, not considering the increase in value due to inflation, value of money of then to now has been upeld in court at many levels as illegal. Why would you want to thwart the courts on that basis? I think most prudent people would agree unless they want to make a bogus argument against M37 on that basis. When you inherit your grandmothers house as she willed in 1976, we'll give you only the value of the house at that time.

  • ws (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oregonians voters were hustled by M37 proponents that were either naieve, duplicitous, or both. A law that most Oregonians would be unable to see the full damaging implications of, was put into place.

    This state, this society does not presently have a value concept sufficient to successfully address the ambitions of property owners, speculative property owners, and the needs of present and future Oregonians in the matter of Oregon's open land.

    In the context of the kind of rapid population growth Oregon sees now and is likely to into the future, neither random dispersal of population center development or land speculation should be allowed to subordinate the importance of open land in Oregon.

    Even the cumulative effect of a few houses or small developments on many relatively large parcels of land throughout the state are likely to pose significant logistical problems.

    Legislators aren't going to be able to fix M37. It should be suspended indefinitely until a more coherent statewide planning concept with questions of property rights and speculation considerations factored in, is developed. When that's done by people of greater competence than they who created the M37 initiative proposal, it should be submitted to Oregon voters.

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Proponents of Measure 37 believe, with fervor, that Oregon's land use system is "broken." People such as myself just as fervently believe that without SB 100, the Willamette Valley would be like south King County or LA.

    There is hyperbole on both sides; there are solid arguments that small parcels were unfairly lumped as EFU back in the 70's. These are valid issues that should be addressed.

    Measure 37 does not attempt to untangle the web and does not attempt to address the issues within a public policy framework (otherwise known as the basis for the ideals of what Oregon ought to look like, e.g. SB 100). The remedy built into Measure 37 is the concept of lost value. The concept, in Section (1) of the Measure is deliberately wide open. Any decline in value, however small, opens the door to a valid claim. This is how they solve the problems they see inherent in Chapter 197.

    Rather than address the concepts and the principles, proponents use this concept as THE remedy. They need not care and they need not address the concepts and the principles because diminished value gives them a platform to say one thing and do another (or to ignore the underlying policy/value/goal issues). I do not see them giving an inch on this issue as it would force them to compromise on their underlying opposition to all but the most basic of land use policies - e.g. urban zoning separating industrial, residential, and commercial zones).

    They make value judgments about usable and unusable land. They have difficulty papering over the disagreements to be found within the rural community itself (e.g. unusable land that produces hay, grass for grazing, and soil for vines).

    They are unwilling to address the underlying concepts and policies because they fervently believe that they will again become victims of demagoguery from groups such as One Thousand Friends.

    The proposed framework that will be introduced next week does not solve anything to the benefit of Oregonians. It undermines the basis for Measure 37 by possible assigning a cumulative value that would affect what a property owner could do under the Measure, but ignores the effect this would have on neighbors who would be shut out of the process because of a date on a deed and which would forever make any zoning decision at any level problematic because of the dragon's teeth of claims that the Measure sows whenever any zoning regulation is modified.

  • Jerry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ws: Our inability "to see the full damaging implications" can easily be applied to SB100. This statement goes both ways. There are "damages" in that system too, like some examples given above, like misapplication of soil types, property resources, etc. For decades there were polite, legislative, all kinds of requests for reprieve. In fact, parts of SB 100 were not even implemented as required by law that could have addressed these claims.

    Like any bill/measure there are always shortcomings because you cannot cover every situation. But there should be a process, simple and not forbiddenly expense, to address these shorcomings. The implimentation of SB100 has been just as much a "slap in the face" to many property owners as what you may claim will happen with M37.

    I agree with bloggers, who are against M37, who suggest allowing M37 to function for a few years and see what the voters of Oregon think. And please not the many legislators who are totally politicized and know little about the complexity of land use laws.

    Richard: How is the Ted's and MacPhearson's proposed limiting ALL claims to three additional homesites (with variations with stepped up processes) any more "all encompassing" than "principals of diminished value"? You would have to admit that all the M37 claims cannot be boiled down to "we'll give you two additional homesites added to your one". If you have analysed a good portion of the claims from any county, differing parts of the state, you realize that there are numerous scenarios to the claims that is not a "one size fits all". There is more than just "housing" in M37 claims.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This really is getting ridiculous. M37 is not anything remotely close to how Richard, Mr. Joe and 1000 Friends attempt to paint it. M37 effects less than 1% of Oregon and if all M37 calims were completely built out it would result in an average of no more than 1 house per 12 acres on that 1% of Oregon. THAT does NOT equal widespread destruction or paving over the Willamette Valley. It doesn't matter if some are so paranoid and misguided that they believe that it will. We need to and should be discussing and dealing with reality. If M37 destruction were imminent it would be exceedingly easy to demonstrate that outcome by simply going to one of the county's website lists of claims and assess the quantity and proportion of the most impacting claims. But, not once, from anywhere, at any time have I read anything like this. The reason is there is horror to be found. Instead we get newspapers printing these County supplied, colored in, suggestive maps. Maps which misrepresent and exaggerate the M37 impact by coloring every parcel entirely, leading viewers to get the impression all of the colored land will be "lost" to "development". This is another example of the misleading tactics M37 opponents rely upon. Of course in reality many of the parcels, as in Washington County, involve no more than 1 or two houses on 5,10 or 20 acres. This would NOT result in the "loss" of these 5,10 or 20 acre parcels at all. But this truth won't inflame people with outrage. So the maps, without explanation, are printed to deceive and muster opposition to M37.

    So goes the remainder of the M37 opposition with equally deceitful demagoguery across the board. Pretty much make-it-up-as-you-go fodder such as "many M37 claimants have already been compensated with tax waivers and abatements". What whopper that has been. One which McPherson was only too eager to repeat. Along with the relentless enamor with the visions and theories behind SB 100, the use of mental blinders to avoid acknowledgment of it's nearly immediate hijacking by the misguided evironmentalist's regime and the many detriments of zealots in control of our land use system the campaign to repeal M37 has been a lesson in anything equal to that imagined used by Karl Rove. Repulsive entirely, dishonest beyond belief and carried by those riding on high horses and pedestals of ethical pretense. But, we can still be friends, just not lovers.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Becky, and you accuse me of being a demagogue: "Repulsive entirely, dishonest beyond belief and carried by those riding on high horses and pedestals of ethical pretense."

    I just came back from a rally in Salem where 37 supporters outnumbered the rest of us. I was told that my opposition to 37 was doing a disservice to our troops who were fighting for us. We were called communists and socialists; jeered and and shouted down in good brown shirt style.

    No one can overturn a vote of the people except the people. Really.

    Restoration of property rights. What property rights.

    The sad thing was that when we let them speak out, most of us could agree with their concerns, but Becky, you all are so tightly wound that finding common ground will be hard. That's why I suggest we scrap all of Chapter 197 and start over, from a basis of common values (or is that too much from a pedistal of ethical pretense?).

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not "wound up" at all. You have a problem addressing the substance of M37 and my more important points. I suggest it is you who is wound up in the anti-M37 fabrications. Some of which I addressed above and you completely ignored. I also suggest you can't come up with any substantive evidence of any of the imminent destruction M37 will supposedly bring. Will you at least answer whether or not you have even looked at M37 claims. Here is a link to one county's claims. http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/measure37/ Take a scroll through them. An honest and ethical person would have a tough time finding the horrible and greedy speculators and profiteers amoung all the common folk wanting to build one or a few houses.
    But if you are brainwashed and can only see those maps printed in the paper you are a lost cause and an enemy of the folks.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BECKY, in respoonse to your thoughtful statement:

    "An honest and ethical person would have a tough time finding the horrible and greedy speculators and profiteers amoung all the common folk wanting to build one or a few houses. But if you are brainwashed and can only see those maps printed in the paper you are a lost cause and an enemy of the folks. "

    In front of me is a spreadsheet of 473 Marion County claims, all of which I have analyzed, responded to, and frequently testifed regarding.

    Let me give you some numbers.

    These 473 claims affect 26,781.63 acres and seek compensation of $1.172 billion. Of this acreage, 16,792 is EFU; one third of the claims are locted in sensitive groundwater areas.

    Of the 473 claims, only 52 are claims where the landowner wants to build or replace a single dwelling or to build a faminly-oriented dwelling. These 52 claims affect 817.261 acres. This is 3% of the total. The average size of the acreage is 15.4 acres; the medial is 8.2 acres.

    Contrast this with the balance where the average size is 60 acres, and the medial 23.2.

    Breaking it down further and examining the impact on three communities (Aurora, Silverton, and St. Paul) you come up with distressing numbers that impact these towns.

    Aurora: There are 21 claims alng Boones Ferry Road, Butteville Road, Donald Road, Ehlen Road, and Olmstead Road.

    Silverton: Fifteen claims along Abiqua Road, Davis Creed Road and Cascade Highway.

    Saint Paul: 10 claims along Champoeg Road and French Prairie Road.

    So, yes, Becky, I have looked at the claims. I have spent hours travelling around the county photographing the properties, overlaying the claims on Google Maps, and talking to concerned neighbors.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, Well, then why haven't you yet displayed anything truly distressful? Could it be that it only exists in your mind? In your misrepresentations? The best you can do apparently is suggest distress by pigeon holeing little pieces of nothing and distorting them.

    "473 claims affect 26,781.63 acres"

    With one of a few houses onthese parcels the "affect" willnot evenbe noticeable.

    "seek compensation of $1.172 billion"

    A meaningless number meant to inflame.

    "Of this acreage, 16,792 is EFU;"

    I love the use of "EFU" by anti-M37 demagogues. The "Exclusive Farm Use" labels affects countless acres not good for farming, have not been farmed and never will be farmed, yet the prohibition would have been endless without M37. Now your kind play this game of pretending it is all valuable farm land needed to feed the masses. Never mind the labeling of land many years ago was a haphazard and unjust rush to tie up as much land as possible without regard to it's quality of real use.

    "one third of the claims are located in sensitive groundwater areas."

    Ooooh! Distressful? Again meaningless, as the affect of 1 or a few houses is of no significance at all. Your problem is you think all of the current labels are authentic assessments. Nonsense. If any honest review were to happen, which it isn't, we would see an entirely different set of maps.

    "Of the 473 claims, only 52 are claims where the landowner wants to build or replace a single dwelling or to build a faminly-oriented dwelling."

    "Only"?? How about the 2 or 3 or 5 dwellings on large parcels? How about the claims that seek to create 5 acres parcels and allow 1 house on each? You prefer to mislead, misrepresent and demagougue. You studied the claims and selected that which you can use to inflate, embelish, exagerate, inflame, and distort.

    "These 52 claims affect 817.261 acres."

    The footprint created by one house per 52 claims does not in any way affect the entire 817 acres. This is one of the center pieces of misinformation spread by M37 opponents. The inferrence or suggestion that surrounding acreage is lost by adding a structure.

    "This is 3% of the total."

    Wow! Look how you framed that. You must be trying to tell people the remaining 97% is disaster? Of course you are. That's wrong, dishonest and unethical.

    Your response is EXACTLY what I had anticipated. You don't want people to know the bulk of the claims are barely any more than the 52 single dwelling claims. The last thing you want is for people to look for themselves.
    Instead you prefer people rely upon your Karl Rove-like distortions derived from your "analyzed, responded to, and frequently testifed" misrepresentations.

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marion County stopped providing data about SGO-zoned property in mid-2006. This was prior to the bulk of claims that came in later. So, of the data I have, there are 63 claims, affecting 3027 acres. Claimants seek a stated number of 871 dwellings. Several did not provide data, but one large claim of 270 acres would have been a high density development. These are designated SGO 5, 6, and 7. Averaging out the claims, these would be, at a maximum, three acre lots.

    I’ve never been charged with being like Karl Rove, and I accept that I’m being unethical to state that I strongly support Oregon’s land use goals and the principles set out in ORS Chapter 197.

    There can be no dialogue until both sides admit opposition concerns. As one who opposes Measure 37 for what it does (not for what many voters thought it would do), what follows are foundation principles from which I will not back down.

    1. Ownership of property in the form of land does not give the owner unrestricted rights to use the land. Land use by the owner may legitimately be subordinated to community interests.

    2. Land use zoning is not a Fifth Amendment taking unless it precludes any use of the land by the owner.

    3. The People of Oregon can legitimately set public policy goals with respect to land use.

    4. Initiatives by the People do not require a vote by the People to reverse or modify the initiative unless such initiative is a constitutional amendment.

    5. The wording of Measure 37 permanently stifles any community’s efforts to zone property because it forces communities to pay compensation or waive enforcement for current owners.

    And, no, Becky, I do not want to see Marion County or the Willamette Valley turned into five acre homesites. And as Oregonians, we have the ability to make sure that does not happen.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, You sure don't dance well. Indeed like Karl Rove.

    And you are unethical as you straw man your "support for Oregon’s land use goals and the principles" versus sticking to M37,,, which doesn't reverse all land use laws as you propagandize. You avoid authentic dialogue by neglecting the major points in favor of straw men and distortions. I fully recognize your "concerns". And they are NOT related to what Measure 37 genuinely does. That's the beef here. You don't like the realtively small amount of property rights recovered by M37 and you embelish and distort to stop it. You make it up as you go with twisted presumptions, exaggerated scenarios and blatant falshoods. M37 very much what voters voted on and not the falsehoods you and 1000 Friends propagate. I really don't care what you will or won't back down from but as usual your list contains straw man positions no one is taking and M37 has no relation to. 1. There is nothing in M37 which gives the owner unrestricted rights to use the land. You are lying about that. 2. Land use zoning is indeed a taking if the use has been reduced to a fraction of the previous opportunities and value. 3. There is a wide array of public policy goals with respect to land use fully intact in the post M37 arena. 4. Yes M37 is statutory and not constitutional. What's your point? 5. Oh what nonsense. Zoning is alive and well. You know it yet here you are really just plain lying. Lying, I guess, because you think it is OK. OK because you think you care more about the State?, because you think your end justifies the means? Contrary to whatever you think there is no excuse.

    The only thing being stifled is honest debate and policy making because you and others like you have extremist's and distorted viewpoints and are willing to accept any and all detriments to folks in order to control land use. Your previous closing remark is a perfect example of your canned dishonesty. There is not a shred of substance or truth to your notion that M37 can turn Marion County or the Willamette Valley into five acre home sites. The only way that would happen is if the whole Valley qualified for M37 claims. As you know M37 applies to a small fraction of the total land in the Valley. Oregonians voted, by way of M37, only to address the most egregious and punitive government regulations on relatively few parcels, while fully preserving the remainder of those protections you so falsely claim are threatened or reversed by M37. The State and voters should be confident in their ability to make sure it stays that way. Despite your dishonest attempts to thwart the public and their vote.

  • Red Cloud (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, you are wasting your time. This person learned to debate from Ann Coulter.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A debate you do not want.

    You want to make any baselss inflamatory claim you can dream up and not be called on it. You want legislators and newspapers to repeat it and get your way through dishonest means. That isn't debate and you are not ethical. The several blatant falsehoods I mentioned above are irrefutable which is why you stay clear of any real debate on them. One whopper after another is your brand of debate. It doesn't take a neocon or Anne Coulter to expose such dishonesty. Any decent Democrat can handle it. When we have a Democrat Legislator, McPhearson, repeating that "property owners may have already been compensated through tax waivers and abatements" and no Democrats call him on it there is something horrible wrong. The parade of other M37 lies and distortions shows there is little room for fact based M37 debate by active Democrats even when the silent majority of Democrats would prefer the truth.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Becky, I did as you suggested. I went to Washington County’s Measure 37 website, which readers can find at (http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/measure37/ ). I was impressed. You are right, absolutely right. I want to congratulate and offer my deepest apologies; I seek your forgiveness. I scrolled down as you said. They really are for single family residences. They would not pose a problem.

    That is, until you scroll down more than a few pages, or if you scroll UP from the bottom.

    And if you go here (http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/m37.shtml ) and do as she says you should not, you can see how the claims overlay Washington County in terms of location, high value farmland, groundwater restrictions, prime farmland and POU’s. Becky (are you by any chance the Becky Miller who was a prime sponsor of Measure 7 and a former assistant to Bill Sizemore?) doesn’t want us to use these maps to form judgments because they are inflammatory. I agree, they are inflammatory.

    Inasmuch as I am a dishonest, unethical, demagogue, my reading of the data has to be suspect. So, as she suggests, go there. Look at the data and look at the maps.

    Becky is right. No harm has been done. We can’t know what is really in the minds of the claimants, other than what they put down in writing. We used to get grades for style and content. Becky, I give you an “A” imagination, and an “F” for analysis.

    In the increasingly failing hope that common ground does exist, I suggested scrapping the entire system and starting over. You don’t want that because it would void Measure 37. Measure 37 is like a pathogen, its purpose is to weaken rather than destroy.

    She has never addressed (except to deny, which tell us nothing) the concerns many of us have with 37.

    1. Measure 37 never goes away. Since it never goes away, any zoning changes that occur in the future create new claim possibilities. That will have a chilling effect, hence the concern.

    2. Measure 37 creates a privileged group of people who have rights their neighbors do not have. Measure 37 raises one group above all others. This is a recipe for future problems, hence a concern.

    3. The decisions and the policy enacted by the People of Oregon 30 years ago no longer have any meaning if those goals can be selectively ignored by property owners 30 years after the fact. This is a concern that 37 effectively undermines the land use system.

    4. The formula for calculating harm under Measure 37 creates a windfall for claimants who qualify. From the perception of those of us who are ethically challenged, this is a travesty. The relief ought to be proportional to the loss. Any attempt to discuss this is rejected out of hand.

    Through the unethical and demagogic behavior of people such as us, a majority of Oregonians also see problems where Becky says none exist.

    I have no problems with allowing homes where the present rules preclude homes. Many of the rules are far more restrictive than they need to be. I agree that we need to allow development where farmland has been so encroached upon by neighboring development so as to make farming non-viable. Most of the claims on the first several pages should be allowed.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, thanks for continuing the dialogue. I'm sure you have read this posted elsewhere, but I'll repeat.

    Attorneys, planners, architects have advised M37 claimants to file their claims based on the probable increase usage that might be possible on their subject property, based on the best intrepretation of zoning, regulations still intact on the property. This means that many claims are based on increased usage beyond what the applicant hopes to achieve. In over four claims that I have been involved in, that is/was the case. I have also heard from many other claimants that they also followed this path.

    Data from all the state-wide county M37 claims are definitely misleading on the issue of intensity of potential future development. The media has not investigated and reported this fact, and has added to the anti-M37 hype.

    I do agree with you that there will be some M37 claims seeking the maximum, but I remind you that they are tempered in so many ways by the remaining regs/zoning, plus the public review processes.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you, Lee. I am aware of this. I think such adivce was bad advice and that it has added unnecessary fuel to the debate. It is sort of like bargaining. I have something to sell and offer it for ten times its worth, hoping someone will pay me twice what it is worth. As a buyer I offer 1/10th the value, hoping to get it for 9/10ths the value.

    In the end I elect to use the old "if it walks like a duck" formula. If someone puts this down in writing and certifies that this is what they want, why shouldn't I accept that at face value. If someone wants to play games, the old falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies just as well.

    From enduring Becky, a conclusion I reach is that this is intended to lull neighbors and citizens into not doing anything, because you can always come in later when the real work starts. If they are advised to go for the gold, then it effectively supports the claims of opponents - that this is not about building a house or two, but something much larger.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not done yet. Richard, You sure do work hard at avoiding real impacts in favor of specualtion and your ultra reliance on the map labels that are forever misleading and misrepresenting. Your overlay-speak "in terms of location, high value farmland, groundwater restrictions, prime farmland and POU’s" is no substitute for the specific claims and the kind of land the development footprint actually impacts. AGAIN, I mention the inaccuracy of labels and you avoid the topic with your pretense that the labels are reliable, just and needed. They are not. Countless parcels have overlays which originated from topographical maps and aerial photograhs decades ago and have served to blindly restrict property rights. So you went and looked and scrolled and came back with nothing but repeating that there are various zoning restrictions that M37 claims will override. I'm pretty sure we have already covered that. How about some forward movement and away from your 1000 Friends canned misrepresetations. Washington County claims are the perfect example for consideration. Your bottom up and obsession with labels is a narrow and skewed look at them. I advise people to look at them without your filtering and distorting allegaince to those bad labels.
    I don't know who Becky Miller is but I see you are resorting to the very typical tactic of destroy the messenger. All you want is to use the maps to misrepresent. I suggest people view the claims. And know most of the land is entirely appropriate for the claimants intentions and that plenty of protections wil remain in place with every single M37 claim.y .

    Yes I view your approach as dishonest, unethical and a demagoguery. Because you keep trying to get people to falsly believe the bureaucrat maps, that have prohibited folks from using their property, are honest and accurate. They are not. Metro recently cooked up a review of our regional farm land. What a snow job that was. "All of the farm labels were correct". "Three classes of farmland, the worst not good for farming but it should stay labeled EFU so that, if needed some day, it can be used to feed the masses nearby.
    Yes go there, look at the claims list and look at the maps. And know how distorted and punitive the maps have been for decades without any justficiation for prohibition of use. And while looking at claim after claim after claim of regular folks wanting 1, 2 or a few houses on large 5, 10 or 20 acre parcels know that Richard and his 1000 Friends call these folks greedy "profiteeers" and "speculators".

    Richard I give you an “F” for coming clean.

    The only common ground would be to indeed dump 197. But your 1000 Friends would never abandon their holy grail. They are schemers and liars and seek only repeal M37 and dump on the folks who have the bulk of claims which any honest person can see are harmless and reasonable. I laugh at your suggestion to dump 197. Have you proposed that to 1000 Friends? Have you? Be honest now. I'll address your concocted and disingenuous concerns yet again.

    1. It doesn't matter if M37 never goes away. Since it plenty of zoning and regulations remain and relatively few parcels will need M37 claims as time moves on. Your inflating of this issue is right out of the 1000 Friends plotting room. Why so vague? What exactly is the specific devestation in a "chilling effect" you are concerned about? Spit it out or drop the rhetoric.

    2. Current zoning, regulations, overlays, UGBs and emboldened minicipalities all create a privileged group of people who have rights their neighbors do not have. For you claim it is only M37 which does this is distortion and propaganda. The recipe for problems was prepared long ago. M37 is fixing some of it. Hence no concern.

    3. The decisions and the policy enacted by the People of Oregon 30 years are fully intact yet you are attempting to demagogue people into believing all is lost. That's untrue. Have you ever applied for a permit to build anything? Apparently not because you don't know the regulation hurdles that exist and remain for M37 parcels. Go apply for a permit to build anything on any M37 parcel anywhere and try and pretend there are no protections. You won't be getting a permit pal. Why not offer up one parcel that M37 has vacated all zoning and regulations? Just one. Just one.
      Your concern that "M37 effectively undermines the land use system" is a gross generalization without any merit. Chill out.

    4. It isn't the formula for calculating harm under Measure 37 that creates any windfall for claimants who qualify. Any windfall comes from the relief and ability to use their land M37 provides. In many cases the same use their neighbors were enjoying all along. Since you are ethically challenged you do find it a travesty that those folks who do qualify after many years of the punitive mess you like are going to be able to use their land for a harmless house or more on mostly spacious land. The last thing Oregon needs is at this juncture is the likes of you deciding how "relief is proportional to the loss". Yes any attempt by you and yours to do so is as "rejected out of hand" as Judge James' rulings.

    That's right there is no problem. None. You have fabricated your entire bit. However, I'll go for dumping 197 and starting over.

    And you are right that most of the claims on the first several pages should be allowed. Along with nearly every other one.

    Your problem is you have failed miserably to recognize and acknowledge that NONE of them would be "allowed" wiht the pre-M37 status quo, if 1000 Friends had their way and M37 were defeated or if it is over turned. You must also know that the legislature was NEVER going to fix any of the injustices and over reaching problems with our land use system. Never. Democrats would not allow it, period. And now they seek to repeal M37.

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Becky: You sure do work hard at avoiding real impacts in favor of specualtion and your ultra reliance on the map labels that are forever misleading and misrepresenting.

    Richard: Every claim filed has a potential impact. The impact is relative in terms of the applicant and the neighbors; it is absolute in terms of public policy. As I read through these exchanges, I’m starting to think that you seem me being inconsistent and unresponsive in much the same way that a person who thinks the earth is the center of the universe would argue that the sun revolves around the earth. My position has been stated earlier and it is anchored in the underlying benefits for the public of Oregon’s land use policies. I have never wavered from that position and I kindly ask you to cease calling such a position dishonest.

    Becky: 
Your overlay-speak "in terms of location, high value farmland, groundwater restrictions, prime farmland and POU’s" is no substitute for the specific claims and the kind of land the development footprint actually impacts. 
AGAIN, I mention the inaccuracy of labels and you avoid the topic with your pretense that the labels are reliable, just and needed. They are not. Countless parcels have overlays which originated from topographical maps and aerial photograhs decades ago and have served to blindly restrict property rights.

    Richard: I agree. They do not constitute a substitute for specific claim. The form the basis for land use policies. To designate the maps as nothing more than topographical or aerial in nature is not trivialize the maps – they are far more than that. They describe soils, water availability, and resources.

    Becky: 
So you went and looked and scrolled and came back with nothing but repeating that there are various zoning restrictions that M37 claims will override. 
I'm pretty sure we have already covered that. How about some forward movement and away from your 1000 Friends canned misrepresetations. 
Washington County claims are the perfect example for consideration. Your bottom up and obsession with labels is a narrow and skewed look at them. I advise people to look at them without your filtering and distorting allegaince to those bad labels.

    Richard: Perhaps you could explain how we could broaden our views. I find nothing dishonest or unethical in advocating for restrictions on land use, any more than I object to the entire concept of zoning within towns and communities. Zoning is a principle by which the community imposes restrictions upon its members for the benefit of the entire community.

    Becky: 
I don't know who Becky Miller is but I see you are resorting to the very typical tactic of destroy the messenger. 
All you want is to use the maps to misrepresent. I suggest people view the claims. And know most of the land is entirely appropriate for the claimants intentions and that plenty of protections wil remain in place with every single M37 claim. y .

    Richard: I agree. Look at the claims, and make your decision within the framework of how you think land should be used and how such changes will impact neighbors and communities who had made prior decisions on the basis of what existed prior to the claim. Judge then the consequences.

    Becky: Yes I view your approach as dishonest, unethical and a demagoguery. Because you keep trying to get people to falsly believe the bureaucrat maps, that have prohibited folks from using their property, are honest and accurate. They are not. Metro recently cooked up a review of our regional farm land. What a snow job that was. "All of the farm labels were correct". "Three classes of farmland, the worst not good for farming but it should stay labeled EFU so that, if needed some day, it can be used to feed the masses nearby. 
Yes go there, look at the claims list and look at the maps. And know how distorted and punitive the maps have been for decades without any justficiation for prohibition of use. And while looking at claim after claim after claim of regular folks wanting 1, 2 or a few houses on large 5, 10 or 20 acre parcels know that Richard and his 1000 Friends call these folks greedy "profiteeers" and "speculators".

    Richard I give you an “F” for coming clean.

    Richard: I have no answer except to suggest that this is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem argument.

    Becky: The only common ground would be to indeed dump 197. But your 1000 Friends would never abandon their holy grail. They are schemers and liars and seek only repeal M37 and dump on the folks who have the bulk of claims which any honest person can see are harmless and reasonable. 
I laugh at your suggestion to dump 197. Have you proposed that to 1000 Friends? Have you? Be honest now. 
I'll address your concocted and disingenuous concerns yet again.

    Richard: Laugh all you want, that is exactly what I have suggested, not only to One Thousand Friends, but to the Governor and my legislators.

    Becky: 1. It doesn't matter if M37 never goes away. Since it plenty of zoning and regulations remain and relatively few parcels will need M37 claims as time moves on. Your inflating of this issue is right out of the 1000 Friends plotting room. Why so vague? What exactly is the specific devestation in a "chilling effect" you are concerned about? Spit it out or drop the rhetoric.

    Richard: The chilling effect would be the inability to engage in any zoning discussion. This is not just my concern, it is also the concern of planners, councils, and commissions around the state. It is also a concern for real estate and finance.

    Becky: 2. Current zoning, regulations, overlays, UGBs and emboldened minicipalities all create a privileged group of people who have rights their neighbors do not have. For you claim it is only M37 which does this is distortion and propaganda. The recipe for problems was prepared long ago. M37 is fixing some of it. 
Hence no concern.

    Richard: This addresses the issue of the relationship between the individual to the civil society in which he or she is born and lives. You have not described what you think that relationship to be; we can only infer.

    Becky: 3. The decisions and the policy enacted by the People of Oregon 30 years are fully intact yet you are attempting to demagogue people into believing all is lost. That's untrue. 
Have you ever applied for a permit to build anything? Apparently not because you don't know the regulation hurdles that exist and remain for M37 parcels. Go apply for a permit to build anything on any M37 parcel anywhere and try and pretend there are no protections. You won't be getting a permit pal. 
Why not offer up one parcel that M37 has vacated all zoning and regulations? Just one. Just one. 
Your concern that "M37 effectively undermines the land use system" is a gross generalization without any merit. Chill out.

    Richard: I think chill out is an excellent way to tell people how to view Measure 37 claims. The law is on the books and will be on the books forever. So, when you think about probable issues that could rise in the future, you ought to be concerned. Focusing on a present concern without considering future consequences is how bad law happens.

    Becky: 
4. It isn't the formula for calculating harm under Measure 37 that creates any windfall for claimants who qualify. Any windfall comes from the relief and ability to use their land M37 provides. In many cases the same use their neighbors were enjoying all along. 
Since you are ethically challenged you do find it a travesty that those folks who do qualify after many years of the punitive mess you like are going to be able to use their land for a harmless house or more on mostly spacious land. 
The last thing Oregon needs is at this juncture is the likes of you deciding how "relief is proportional to the loss". Yes any attempt by you and yours to do so is as "rejected out of hand" as Judge James' rulings.

    That's right there is no problem. None. You have fabricated your entire bit. 
However, I'll go for dumping 197 and starting over.

    And you are right that most of the claims on the first several pages should be allowed. Along with nearly every other one.

    Richard: The loss formula is so wide open that any loss, even a couple of hundred dollars opens up the opportunity for the landowner to reap millions.

    Becky: Your problem is you have failed miserably to recognize and acknowledge that NONE of them would be "allowed" wiht the pre-M37 status quo, if 1000 Friends had their way and M37 were defeated or if it is over turned. You must also know that the legislature was NEVER going to fix any of the injustices and over reaching problems with our land use system. Never. Democrats would not allow it, period. And now they seek to repeal M37.

    Richard: You must not have read my last paragraph.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Becky: You sure do work hard at avoiding real impacts in favor of specualtion and your ultra reliance on the map labels that are forever misleading and misrepresenting.

    Richard: Every claim filed has a potential impact. The impact is relative in terms of the applicant and the neighbors; it is absolute in terms of public policy. As I read through these exchanges, I’m starting to think that you seem me being inconsistent and unresponsive in much the same way that a person who thinks the earth is the center of the universe would argue that the sun revolves around the earth. My position has been stated earlier and it is anchored in the underlying benefits for the public of Oregon’s land use policies. I have never wavered from that position and I kindly ask you to cease calling such a position dishonest.

    Becky: 
Your overlay-speak "in terms of location, high value farmland, groundwater restrictions, prime farmland and POU’s" is no substitute for the specific claims and the kind of land the development footprint actually impacts. 
AGAIN, I mention the inaccuracy of labels and you avoid the topic with your pretense that the labels are reliable, just and needed. They are not. Countless parcels have overlays which originated from topographical maps and aerial photograhs decades ago and have served to blindly restrict property rights.

    Richard: I agree. They do not constitute a substitute for specific claim. The form the basis for land use policies. To designate the maps as nothing more than topographical or aerial in nature is not trivialize the maps – they are far more than that. They describe soils, water availability, and resources.

    Becky: 
So you went and looked and scrolled and came back with nothing but repeating that there are various zoning restrictions that M37 claims will override. 
I'm pretty sure we have already covered that. How about some forward movement and away from your 1000 Friends canned misrepresetations. 
Washington County claims are the perfect example for consideration. Your bottom up and obsession with labels is a narrow and skewed look at them. I advise people to look at them without your filtering and distorting allegaince to those bad labels.

    Richard: Perhaps you could explain how we could broaden our views. I find nothing dishonest or unethical in advocating for restrictions on land use, any more than I object to the entire concept of zoning within towns and communities. Zoning is a principle by which the community imposes restrictions upon its members for the benefit of the entire community.

    Becky: 
I don't know who Becky Miller is but I see you are resorting to the very typical tactic of destroy the messenger. 
All you want is to use the maps to misrepresent. I suggest people view the claims. And know most of the land is entirely appropriate for the claimants intentions and that plenty of protections wil remain in place with every single M37 claim. y .

    Richard: I agree. Look at the claims, and make your decision within the framework of how you think land should be used and how such changes will impact neighbors and communities who had made prior decisions on the basis of what existed prior to the claim. Judge then the consequences.

    Becky: Yes I view your approach as dishonest, unethical and a demagoguery. Because you keep trying to get people to falsly believe the bureaucrat maps, that have prohibited folks from using their property, are honest and accurate. They are not. Metro recently cooked up a review of our regional farm land. What a snow job that was. "All of the farm labels were correct". "Three classes of farmland, the worst not good for farming but it should stay labeled EFU so that, if needed some day, it can be used to feed the masses nearby. 
Yes go there, look at the claims list and look at the maps. And know how distorted and punitive the maps have been for decades without any justficiation for prohibition of use. And while looking at claim after claim after claim of regular folks wanting 1, 2 or a few houses on large 5, 10 or 20 acre parcels know that Richard and his 1000 Friends call these folks greedy "profiteeers" and "speculators".

    Richard I give you an “F” for coming clean.

    Richard: I have no answer except to suggest that this is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem argument.

    Becky: The only common ground would be to indeed dump 197. But your 1000 Friends would never abandon their holy grail. They are schemers and liars and seek only repeal M37 and dump on the folks who have the bulk of claims which any honest person can see are harmless and reasonable. 
I laugh at your suggestion to dump 197. Have you proposed that to 1000 Friends? Have you? Be honest now. 
I'll address your concocted and disingenuous concerns yet again.

    Richard: Laugh all you want, that is exactly what I have suggested, not only to One Thousand Friends, but to the Governor and my legislators.

    Becky: 1. It doesn't matter if M37 never goes away. Since it plenty of zoning and regulations remain and relatively few parcels will need M37 claims as time moves on. Your inflating of this issue is right out of the 1000 Friends plotting room. Why so vague? What exactly is the specific devestation in a "chilling effect" you are concerned about? Spit it out or drop the rhetoric.

    Richard: The chilling effect would be the inability to engage in any zoning discussion. This is not just my concern, it is also the concern of planners, councils, and commissions around the state. It is also a concern for real estate and finance.

    Becky: 2. Current zoning, regulations, overlays, UGBs and emboldened minicipalities all create a privileged group of people who have rights their neighbors do not have. For you claim it is only M37 which does this is distortion and propaganda. The recipe for problems was prepared long ago. M37 is fixing some of it. 
Hence no concern.

    Richard: This addresses the issue of the relationship between the individual to the civil society in which he or she is born and lives. You have not described what you think that relationship to be; we can only infer.

    Becky: 3. The decisions and the policy enacted by the People of Oregon 30 years are fully intact yet you are attempting to demagogue people into believing all is lost. That's untrue. 
Have you ever applied for a permit to build anything? Apparently not because you don't know the regulation hurdles that exist and remain for M37 parcels. Go apply for a permit to build anything on any M37 parcel anywhere and try and pretend there are no protections. You won't be getting a permit pal. 
Why not offer up one parcel that M37 has vacated all zoning and regulations? Just one. Just one. 
Your concern that "M37 effectively undermines the land use system" is a gross generalization without any merit. Chill out.

    Richard: I think chill out is an excellent way to tell people how to view Measure 37 claims. The law is on the books and will be on the books forever. So, when you think about probable issues that could rise in the future, you ought to be concerned. Focusing on a present concern without considering future consequences is how bad law happens.

    Becky: 
4. It isn't the formula for calculating harm under Measure 37 that creates any windfall for claimants who qualify. Any windfall comes from the relief and ability to use their land M37 provides. In many cases the same use their neighbors were enjoying all along. 
Since you are ethically challenged you do find it a travesty that those folks who do qualify after many years of the punitive mess you like are going to be able to use their land for a harmless house or more on mostly spacious land. 
The last thing Oregon needs is at this juncture is the likes of you deciding how "relief is proportional to the loss". Yes any attempt by you and yours to do so is as "rejected out of hand" as Judge James' rulings.

    That's right there is no problem. None. You have fabricated your entire bit. 
However, I'll go for dumping 197 and starting over.

    And you are right that most of the claims on the first several pages should be allowed. Along with nearly every other one.

    Richard: The loss formula is so wide open that any loss, even a couple of hundred dollars opens up the opportunity for the landowner to reap millions.

    Becky: Your problem is you have failed miserably to recognize and acknowledge that NONE of them would be "allowed" wiht the pre-M37 status quo, if 1000 Friends had their way and M37 were defeated or if it is over turned. You must also know that the legislature was NEVER going to fix any of the injustices and over reaching problems with our land use system. Never. Democrats would not allow it, period. And now they seek to repeal M37.

    Richard: You must not have read my last paragraph.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard: Your reply to my posting that legal, etc advice was given for M37 claims to seek what may be reasonable under the previous zoning, etc.-as "bad advice" would not set well with the attorneys land planners, etc.

    You seem astute enough to know that attorney advice (especially) to seek what possibly your existing neighbors enjoy, or what the previous zoning would allow makes common sense and negotiable sense, and is common in the real world of business.

    I see your point, but in about all things dealing with government, a good negotiator starts out with what is possible and who know where it will go after that with all the gov./public processes involved. I sure hope your attorneys don't advise you to begin negotiations based on your bottom line. And I sure know that government doesn't begin at the bottom line.

    For example, in using Case 2 that I have used above, I cited that adjacent parcels were 1/4 acre and larger. The proposal to the Co./State was for 1 acre and the appraisal was based on that number. In reality the applicant may want to develop 2 acre parcels based on several reasons. Yes, on public relations it might be better to base the claim on 2 acres, but the nearby neighbors, 1000 Friends, etc. would still object just like you probably would and have.

    There is also the possibility that a means for compensation could develop during the process or in the future. Retracting a claim, starting over with a higher appraisal would have many pitfalls, and maybe not even accepted in any new M37 claim process developments. Attorneys rightfully advised to seek an appraisal that reflects what could be reasonable achieved for the claim.

  • richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My comment would be that government begins and ends with law and rule. Government has, in theory, no interest other than the application of law and rule.

    The public, in land use cases, often has to act as an advocate for the law because of the perception that County Commissioners and city councils are biased in how they interpret or apply the law. An excellent example of this is found in Measure 37.

    Measure 37 provides for exceptions. County Commissions fail to address those exceptions as threshold issues, relying instead on the ownership date.

    Measure 37 sets out five threshold issues; Counties address only one of them, and then out of order.

    The overarching issue is whether or not a policy restricts a proposed use.

    If there is no restriction, there is no claim.

    If there is a restriction on a proposed use, Measure 37 sets out the following tripwires:

    1. Is the proposed use a public nuisance?
    2. Does the proposed use affect public health and safety?
    3. Does the proposed use violate federal law?
    4. Does the proposed use involve porn or nude dancing?
    5. Does property ownership pre-date the proposed policy enforcement?

    By addressing the fifth point first, the other four slip under the wire.

    Customarily, one works one's way through the sections. I contend you cannot get to a valid claim until you have answered each and every question.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, Here you go again. Now you are inflaming by suggesting M37 vacates or overrides all "public nuisance", "public health and safety", "federal law" and "porn or nude dancing" regulations.

    It does not and you are not being truthful.

    Earlier you said "it is also the concern of planners, councils, and commissions around the state." Now that's a hoot. Big suprise, the opponents of M37 have concerns? The same people who demogogued the whole debate before and after the election and who churn out the Judge James lawlessness and mistruths in an effort to overturn the vote and measure. The concern from real estate and finance is from another M37 opponent. The disturbing and conveluted AG Hardy Meyers' OPINION on tranferability.

  • Marty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm glad this thread has explored so much of the M37 debate. It will be good to use next year, the year after, and ten years from now as none of the anti-M37 "concerns" amount to anything while the anit-M37 rhetoric continues unabated. It's amazing that Richard and company are so relentless in their drum beat at this hour.

    Heck why not start a new thread again touting the brilliance of the Judge James rulings? Never mind the OSC tossed it all.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard: "government begins and ends with rule of law". Sorry, I believe both sides of the political spectrum, as well as the M37 issue find this statement as very naive and possibly humorous. I could in my own experiences cite numerous examples where this is not true.

    One case in Portland that shows this folly is where an environmental zone was applied on both sides of a common street. The city who owned a large parcel on one side decided to sell the property. To allow it to be marketable they removed the environmental zone by calling it a "mapping error" while not removing the zoning for the property across the street. There are even notes in the record where public officials said "lets use the mapping error route to get this sale through-expediate it, do it soon as you can". I won't go into the full details, but is this "rule of law?" If you knew the full details, you would say no. But as you said, it's "theory", the application of law by government.

    I also disagree with you about the "five threshold issues" where only "property ownership" is considered first. That is false. I've seen M37 claims that have been denied on the grounds of "federal law" and "public health and safety". I am sure you know of some too, and they don't "slip under the wire" as you contend Of course, ownership has to be established as all applications for ANY kind of land use procedure requires. Applicants always have to prove ownership. So that requirement is nothing new and it makes sense to require the proof.

    From my experiences and others related to me, most counties (and the state) have actually looked for means to throw out M37 claims based on any of the thresholds, and have done so.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK. You are right. I'm coming from the perspective of Marion County, and I've seen a lot of upset claimants who thought the threshold issue of ownership guaranteed their rights. They are frustrated when issues of water and sewage limit what they can do; those ar threshold issues that come up later. If they were told up front that ownership is just one threshold issue, that might have avoided later frustration.

    It does point up that 37 does have issues. There is plenty in the concept of 37 that would create issues if the state or counties attempted to regulate and control water rights as a health and safety issues.

    If the state determined (I use past tense because I don't think this Session will address the issue) groundwater and water resources as health and safety issues and zoned accordingly, I think you'd end up with Measure 37 claims - you've changed the groundrules on me, my property declines in value as a result of these changes.

    As an example, if my property was zoned AR-5 when I bought it, and I now want to develop it at AR-5, 37 would permit it. If the legislature or county now determine that is must be a 20-acre miniumum and changes the zoning accordingly, the value of my property has declined.

    How does 37 work in this respect? I think it would have to be litigated.

    In response to Becky's diatribe about nude dancing; the Measure contains the phrase "Nothing in this subsection, however, is intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States Constitutions." If you permit a commercial development such as the mall requested in Polk County, you reasonably could find that local zoning under the waiver could permit that which you don't want/

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, You are a piece of work. Are you colaberating with some 1000 Goons of Oregon? Just because some people are familiar with the extent of land use and building permit regulations doesn't mean "that 37 does have issues". Plenty of people discover everyday, and before M37, that some particular ordinance or reg. limits their plans. It could be setback or footprint limitations or many other things. Do you make the same suggestion about our land use system having "issues" when someone find outs their plans won;t work like they wanted?

    You pile on every twisted thing you can dream up as an outcome of M37.

    There's plenty of groundwater and health and saftey zoning protections. Here, as you have done before you cook up a problem with M37 with some imaginary scenario where additional changes to the "groundrules on me" would be needed somehow and therefore it's a M37 problem.

    You twisted up your one very real scenario about your property "zoned AR-5 when I bought it, want to develop it at AR-5, 37 would permit it,,, and then a government change says it must be a 20-acre minimum,,,yes it would lower the value of your property and you would likely be required to file another M37 claim. Exactly what the bureaucracies want. But that isn't a M37 flaw. It's a problem with those changing the zoning after M37 claims were approved. It's already happened and is just another example of the efforts to block M37 claims from becoming building permits. Again it is not a problem with M37 but with the status quo cabal.

    Your ridiculous response to my "nude dancing diatribe' takes the cake. First you are the one who brings up "nude dancing", I tell you M37 doesn't allow it and you come back with jibbersih and spin to contradict me and are completely off base. This is another perfect example of your demagoguery. It is not M37 which would allow a nude dancing business. It's the Oregon Constitution just as you yourself cite. Yet you attempt to shift that blame from the Constitution to M37. That is disingenuous. Of course there is nothing in M37 that could alter "rights provided by the Oregon or United States Constitutions." It couldn't. M37 is a statute. It can't alter ANYTHING constitutional. But you managed to muddy up that clear cut reality too. It's all a bunch of shifting shell game moves with you while ignoring how your previous moves, claims and suggestions keep getting debunked.

    Bottom line is M37 doesn't create anywhere near the problems you claim, presume, suggest, imply, dream up, fabricate, and inflame about. Not in terms of zoning, building permits, ground water, runnoff, habitat, farming, hog farms, smelters, porn or nude dancing, the constituitions, public nuisance, public health and safety or federal law.

    The relatively few parcels and small amount of land M37 effects and the essentially harmless impacts of M37 construction, once it goes through the building permitting process, will not amount to any noticeable detriment to either the State or it's many communities. Quite the contrary. Opportunities for folks to use and enjoy their property while adding to the job market, housing availability and basic services revenue will be a tremendous. People complaining along the way and 1000 Goons of Oregon demagoguing it all is just that. People have complained for years about the real detriments form our planning cabal "Smart Growth", overcrowding neighborhoods, high density, UGB, unfair treatment, punitive restrictions, prohibitions of a single house on "farm land" on and on and on.
    Where were you and the Goons? Blocking ever single effort to do something about it while at the same time supporting every single tax subsidized boondoggle the planning cabal cooked up. And now YOU are to be the ones to "fix" M37 ??? I think not.

  • (Show?)

    "Joe says "owner-utilized development" is OK, but "profiteering and speculation have no business being part of the equation".

    Huh? What "equation"? And there's nothign wrong with profiting or specualting. It goes on every day with every development we see every day and none of them have anything to do with M37. Because there is no M37 development underway yet. None. So why not shut down all development that has speculation and profit in the equation Joe? How about we only let Metro or the PDC or cities and counties develop? That would make everything fair and equal for all, right?"

    The equation is of how individual use of property fits into the local and state planning models. Your rant notwithstanding, the issue is not with speculation and profit per se, but with the removal of risk that M37 creates. Development of property for personal gain is fine--but like any profit scheme, it has risks. One of those risks is that the playing field is neither stable nor necessarily predictable. And there is no responsibility on the part of Oregonians to subsidize and foster speculative investment by removing the element of risk and timeliness. I may be planning on buying a nice house and retiring, but if interest rates go up before I'm able to do it, I cannot petition the Federal Reserve to compensate me for the lost potential for profit.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Becky: your tiresome accusations get under my skin. They are not appropriate. You make value judgments you cannot support. It tires me and other who read this forum to be told I am dishonest or unethical when you have zero evidence to support that statement.

    I am dishonest when I tell a blind person it is a twenty when it is a fiver. It is dishonest to betray a friend’s confidence.

    It is not dishonest and it is not unethical to disagree over how public policy should or can be interpreted or applied. It is not unethical to suggest how a public policy would play out under various scenarios.

    It is reasonable and it is prudent to examine a policy, law, or rule and explore plausible scenarios that test the policy. Only by doing so can you achieve a level of comfort that the probably policy outcomes are the ones that you intend.

    Before the election in 2004, a group of us took the word and explored plausible outcomes. In the period since 37’s passage, we have tested the outcomes we reasoned as plausible against the claims actually filed. Our analysis was not faulty.

    I use “plausible” because that is broader than probable or actual, but includes both. As you correctly, state, the claims on the Washington County website are just that – claims. Nothing has been done yet. These claims are all plausible because they have not gone through the entire planning process, but do represent what the applicant think they can achieve.

    The nature of the claims and the nature of the compensation demanded show that the applicants themselves believe their claims are plausible under 37. To the extent that they are plausible, it is human nature to want as much as you can get.

    That returns us to the issue of honesty and ethics. Ethics are the moral principles that guide a person. It would be unethical to willfully mislead a person. If you do understand ethics, your assertions that I am unethical because I raise plausible concerns shows either a blindness to the measure or it represents an example of unethical behavior. It would be far more fruitful to explain why my concerns are unfounded rather than to attribute to me a violation of principles you cannot establish.

    This is not to deny that ethics and honesty are not issues surrounding Measure 37. Tracking the money before the election raised concerns that timber companies were behind the Measure for their own interests. That has now been shown to have been a valid observation.

    Becky: was it honest or ethical for the timber companies to hide behind Dorothy English? Would it not have been more open and honest for them to state what they hoped to achieve with the passage of Measure 37?

    Measure 37 is a mistake. The land use system in place at the time of Measure 37 had and has problems. This Legislature hopefully will address the problems and we can get on with our lives.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, I am more than familiar with this approach of yours and others. The perpetual denial that any evidence is offered. In the thread above I went over quite a specific collection of items you used to mislead and misrepresent M37. You danced around them and shifted to a new ploy. Item by item I responded and called you on your falsehoods. They are not simply different opinions. You and the 1000 Goons have spent considerable time and effort to cook up falsehoods about M37 in your attempt to overturn the voters. If you are a man if integrity, go back over the thread and try and focus on responding to my specific charges of your misrepresentations instead of shifting off into a new ploy as you did over and over again.

    If this is getting under your skin it is because you are illequipped to debate the real M37 and have significant misperceptions regarding our long disabled and punitive land use system. A system which you further mistakenly think the legislature can or will "fix".

    I am saving this thread as a prime example of the M37 opponents' dishonest efforts to repeal M37. You've pretty much covered the entire spectrum of misinformation and their tactics.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I know of no person who voted against 37 who regrets their decision. I do know of many who voted for it, but who now regret doing so. All I need to do is to use material such as this to raise reasonable doubts about the Measure.

    Keeping the dogs under the porch, as the say in the South, is going to be more of a problem for you than for me.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard, There you go hiding again from the facts and points.

    Who you know and how they would vote means nothing. But there you are trying to make yet another suggestion out out nothing. So what if no person you know who voted against 37 regrets their decision.

    I suppose you would prefer to use that worthless impression versus another vote? Your 100O Goons' propaganda can work on some people some of the time. But not enough to win a vote or the OSC. Why don't you do things straight up and go spend the time money and effor to collect signatures to put it back on the ballot? No you'd rather demagogue your way through the legislature with a parade of falsehoods.

    You don't raise "reasonable doubts" about the Measure at all. As I detailed above you fabricate, suggest, presume, imagine, distort and misinform. Right along with the 1000 Goons of Oregon who never keep their dogs under the porch. And that is a problem for all of Oregon. Because we'll never have sound policy when the process to bring it about is so hobbled by rampant dishonesty mascarading as well intended bureaucrats and citizen activism. So keep on misinforming and Oregon will eventually be shaking their finger at you for your shameless ways.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Post mortem: In the original guest column, Roger Kaye referred to “hundreds of subdivisions, gravel pits, casinos, and destination resorts . . .”

    Becky starts misleading by (to quote her) “suggesting there will be widespread gravel pits and casinos..” She forgot to include subdivisions and makes it appear that what would be widespread are gravel pits and casinos. Disingenuous. Notice how she placees the widespread AFTER they primary concern – subdivisions. A word that has a definition far narrower than Becky would have you think.

    Subdivisions are defined in law. They are as small as three or four homes. Her “small harmless partitions” are subdivisions. Destination resorts are acceptable because she says they could be “highly beneficial.” OK, if she says so, it must be true. True?

    Roger Kayes’s guest column states that 37 does away with zoning, creates chaos, negatively impacts farmers, neighbors, wildlife, and does not provide for the common good. These are statements. They are conclusions you can draw from looking at the claims and the impact they have on the locality in which they are set. Decide for yourselves.

    Becky states this is false, and that Kaye manipulates with “hypothetical fabrications: and proceeds to denigrate those who hold values about land use with her dismissingly written “trumpeting a ‘common good’ versus bad M37 song; and, using falsehoods about 750,000 acres of Oregon’s best farm and forest land being destroyed.”

    Yes, it does adversely impact zoning. The only zoning that is relevant is the current or proposed zoning – not that in effect thirty or more years ago.

    I was less interested in what she said at the start of her initial post than I was with what came as the conclusion.

    Becky will never stop. I doubt that anything will satisfy Becky other than the status quo. And I have little use for status quo seekers or those who are positive they are right. If you conclude she is right; fine by me. If not, then look at what people are seeking in their claims and measure those requests against thirty years of Oregon’s land use system. Yes, there are problems. Becky doesn’t seem interested in solving them except in whatever narrow interpretation fits her world view. If you do not agree with Becky, write to your legislator and tell her or him what your view of Oregon’s future should be. What they do ought to be for our grandchildren, not Becky herself, or myself.

  • Mike Wagner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is truly unfortunate that Oregon did little or no planning before the early 1970's. The rest of the country with the exception of Texas has been doing planning and zoning beginning in the 1880's. The Oregon Laws in the early 1970's sent the "Greatest Generation" into "Libertarian Shock". This effect will be over in just several years. After attending several hearings I agree with the Governors initial assessment that most M37 applicants are greedy. These are the same people got the GI bill, FHA, VA, Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, mortgage interest deductions, farming and forest tax breaks, etc., etc. They have been on the dole so long they truly believe that they are entitled to anything they want including the ruination of farm and forest lands of the State of Oregon for their own financial benefit. Fortunately for all of the younger people paying the bills this will not last much longer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

    <hr/>
guest column

connect with blueoregon