Measure 37: Don't mend it. End it!
It is becoming clear that the bipartisan “fix” of Measure 37 crafted by the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness doesn’t have enough votes to pass in the narrowly divided Oregon House.
Backers of the original Measure 37, the so-called property rights initiative that demands payment from the public treasury for value “lost” to regulation or waiver of those regulations, insist the “fix” virtually repeals Measure 37. Opponents of the original Measure 37 claim the “fix” includes things like the transferability of the claim to new owners that were never in the measure Oregonians actually voted on.
What consensus existed in the committee virtually collapsed when the details were made public and the interest groups started picking them apart, according to Sam Lowry, a former professional planner turned reporter. Lowry is writing some of the most perceptive stories on the Measure 37 controversy for the McMinnville News-Register in Yahill County -- a hotbed of Measure 37 claims.
Lowry reports there may be enough votes, however, to refer some form of the “fix” to the voters this November.
Right process. Wrong measure. The legislature needs to refer the original Measure 37 to the voters for an up or down vote now that the claims and the hidden agenda of its backers have been unmasked.
Measure 37 is a deceitful measure approved by voters after a deceitful campaign. The very premise of the measure -- that taxpayers owe property owners cash compensation for value “lost” to regulation or they should have to waive the regulation -- is deceitful.
In all of the billions of dollars in Measure 37 claims filed so far, it is difficult to find any property owners who lost any money because of land use regulations -- that is, whose property is worth less than it was when the property owner bought it before land use regulations were changed.
A recent study by Oregon State University shows the value of farm land protected from incompatible uses by Senate Bill 100, Oregon’s 1973 landmark land use law, steadily increased over the last 30 years.
What has been “lost” is the speculative value of the incompatible land use that might have been realized had the property owner had not waited until after the regulations changed to try and develop the land. In short, apparently no Measure 37 claimant has lost any cash.
Measure 37 retroactively seeks to guarantee the speculative value of property for a select group of property owners 30 years later, at the expense of their neighbors, by requiring cash compensation or permitting the incompatible use today that was prohibited 30 years ago. Polls make it clear that is not what many voters thought they were voting for when they voted to approve Measure 37 “for fairness.”
Oregonians deserve another chance to consider Measure 37 now that it has been unmasked as a “developers rights” measure demanding blood money to obey zoning laws that have been in effect for decades.
Oregonians In Action, the sponsor of Measure 37, can spare us the tired rhetoric about the legislature “ignoring the will of the voters” or “what part of 60 percent don’t you understand?” After the legislature passed Senate Bill 100 in 1973, an organization called Oregonians In Action tried to repeal the state’s land use law, by repeatedly placing initiatives on the ballot -- five times in 10 years.
OIA finally stopped because voters rejected repeal by a larger margin with each initiative. Failure to repeal the land use laws made it clear Oregonians intended to eliminate incompatible uses in farm and forest zones. It became apparent that OIA would have to use more deceitful methods to get their radical compensation claims past the voters.
Now that their deceit has been unmasked for all to see, the legislature has a duty to see that Oregonians get an honest vote on the original Measure 37.
Referring a “fix” to the voters is a waste of time and money. Once burned on the original Measure 37, any necessarily complex measure to rewrite it is doomed to failure if it is referred to the voters. They will trust nothing said about it -- and they won’t be wrong. A referral to keep or repeal the original Measure 37 is the only responsible way to deal with this public pocket-picking.
|
April 29, 2007 |
Russell Sadler | Comments (172 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: jimbo | Apr 29, 2007 9:12:28 AM
Amen on this post. IMO M-37 is a huge threat to Oregon's unique landscape. It's will take 10-15 yrs for the threat to play out, but it will. Here come the sprawling subdivisions and strip mall and billboards. It's inevitable unless M-37 is stopped now.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Apr 29, 2007 10:37:41 AM
I have commented extensively on this issue on my blog Land Use Watch.
First, it is a sad day when a single Democrat, Representative Mike Schaufler, refuses to go along with the rest of his party on voting for the Framework. The minimum he will do is vote to refer to voters. This DINO should be truly ashamed.
Second, there's no leadership on Measure 37 reform in the legislature. Prozanski and Macpherson, the chairs of the land use fairness committee, are pretty meek and let Larry George use fast and loose facts to trump them on point after point.
Third, the Framework (the "fix") that is being referred to the voters will NOT PASS. It is 40 pages of confusing legalese. It is highly complicated and convoluted. The average voter, well, he will think that by voting for the Framework he is actually voting for more houses. This Framework gives MORE rights to M37 claimants (the ability to fast track development, etc etc).
This Framework was watered down and watered down some more since it was originally designed to try to make it into law the legislature. So it was weakened to the point where they thought Representative Mike Schaufler would bite and go alone with it.
Well, he didn't.
And now, instead of referring an outright repeal of Measure 37, or instead of bulking up the Framework to make it stronger and less complicated, they simply pass along the strained and complicated mess to the voters. THE FRAMEWORK ISN'T EVEN ANY GOOD!
Prozanski and Macpherson should be ashamed at how they have handled the land use fairness committee. They have done an incredible bad job. At the end of the day, the only thing they are able to do is ram out a referral to the voters at the last moment. They can't even do a good job of that, as the referral is a product of their lawyer minds: complicated beyond belief, and it will never pass.
And the House Dems should be truly ashamed. I get lots of emails from them about how they've done this or that... well, they failed to get their own people in line when it comes to one of the most pressing and vital issues in Oregon.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 29, 2007 10:48:07 AM
Oregon has a recent history of voting twice on important issues. 9/13, Death with Dignity, the right to choose; sales tax (ok, that's about a dozene votes). to give the voters another opportunity on M37 is far from unprecedented. in fact, given the nature of what's at stake, to have the voters rethink their original decision seems the only sensible and democratic approach. if the backers of M37 can convince the public to vote Yea again, then the Leg will have their clear marching orders. but we know the public is currently against M37; to vote on it again is really the only option.
not to mention it buys the Leg, Ds & Rs alike, a big fat escape clause. how could they not want that?
Posted by: dartagnan | Apr 29, 2007 11:48:00 AM
Superb piece, Mr. Sadler! The voters of Oregon were sold a bill of goods with M37 and I believe most of them know that now.
It is also deceitful and disingenuous to claim, as M37 supporters do, that one vote -- no matter how lopsided -- settles an issue for all time. Times and opinions change, and the people have the power to modify or repeal misguided laws. If that wasn't true the Volstead Act would still be in force.
Posted by: ws | Apr 29, 2007 11:50:17 AM
Yes, scrap the fix and resubmit M37 to voters. It that does happen, it would be terrible if, contrary to the polls indications about voters current level of support for it, M37 was approved again.
To avert that happening, voters better have some tangible indication that this whole situation regarding property ownership and rights associated with it, affected by post purchase zoning, land reform and land protection laws is understood to be an issue that must and will be addressed promptly.
Rights, real and implied by property ownership, need to be carefully examined and clarified in order to keep property owners in the future from being blindsided again.
Posted by: jimbo | Apr 29, 2007 12:31:04 PM
Does anyone here think it is possible that the legislature would put M-37 up for another vote in '08? I agree with Mr. Bray that the fix measure being sent has a good chance of failing--if it is as complex as the fix being pushed by the commitee.
Many politicians from both sides are afraid to push back on this since M-37 passed with a 61% aye vote. I believe there would be no penalty for any of them if they killed this vile measure right now. The next best is to have the voters decide to repeal it via a ballot measure. The big problem with that is the damage done until the vote on the measure. Last week a vile week for our State--this measure has the potential to wreck Oregon's landscape, simple.as.that.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 29, 2007 1:09:15 PM
Russell Sadler Oregonians deserve another chance to consider Measure 37 now that it has been unmasked as a “developers rights” measure demanding blood money to obey zoning laws that have been in effect for decades.
JK: Yeah, the zoning laws that hijacked by the planners to force high density into every neighborhood in Oregon, instead of protecting us from high density like they used to. As people realize what was done to them, by the misuse of zoning, the outcry will be even louder.
Russell Sadler After the legislature passed Senate Bill 100 in 1973, an organization called Oregonians In Action tried to repeal the state’s land use law, by repeatedly placing initiatives on the ballot -- five times in 10 years.
JK: It wasn’t until the last few years when we lost housing affordability, livability, high unemployment, poor schools, cutbacks ibn police and fire departmetns and we began to suffer terrible congestion, did the REAL effects of SB 100 become apparent. As time goes on, it will be harder and harder to ignore its effects - and outright repeal will be the obvious course.
Russell Sadler Failure to repeal the land use laws made it clear Oregonians intended to eliminate incompatible uses in farm and forest zones. It became apparent that OIA would have to use more deceitful methods to get their radical compensation claims past the voters.
JK: It is not about farms anymore, it is now about Neil’s vineyard vs our overcrowded neighborhoods. Remember the biggest dollar donor to stop M37 was a vineyard owner who, presumably, wanted to keep the city riff-raff out of his pristine private preserve. The second biggest group of donors was big eastern money to preserve “the Oregon Experiment” with use as the lab rats.
Russell Sadler A referral to keep or repeal the original Measure 37 is the only responsible way to deal with this public pocket-picking.
JK: There is a much simple way to fix M37, just delete section 3E. That will cure the following objections:
M37 will then apply equally to everyone and every property.
The transferability issue will be solved.
It will be fully compatible with the true meaning of the takings clause of the US bill of rights.
(don’t you just love it when people keep coming up with exceptions to the bill of rights like blacks aren’t really people, separate is equal, the draft isn’t involuntary servitude, a little property taking is ok.)
It won’t take 40 pages. It wont take an election. It could be done in a one sentence law. Where is the problem?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: ws | Apr 29, 2007 2:46:08 PM
I should have written "Rights, real and implied by law and tradition related to property ownership, need to be carefully examined and clarified in order to keep property owners in the future from being blindsided again."
Civilization and the infrastructure it requires to function according to the expectation of standard of living that people have today is a complex thing. Careful, responsible land planning is essential to sustaining any reasonable semblance of quality life in which an open Oregon landscape plays a continuing role. If this is to happen, property owners must know clearly where they stand relative to acheiving that objective.
Posted by: Becky | Apr 29, 2007 4:25:41 PM
Russell said,
"Measure 37 is a deceitful measure approved by voters after a deceitful campaign"
Get real. What is more deceitful than the perpetual anti-M37 campaign.
And aren't you forgetting the MASSIVE anti-M37 campaign the voters were subjected to while pondering how to vote?
Give me a break on YOUR perpetual deceit.
And Peter Bray, aren't you along with Russell and the rest forgetting your praise of the Judge James M37 ruling?
During this episode the M37 opponents have been wrong, embellishing, exaggerating, fabricating, conspiring and deceitful anyway they can dream up.
Russell you are now trying to reinvent the term "deceitful".
Where is the "deceit" in the notion of getting paid for having your property rights taken away?
The recent thread here http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/04/fix_measure_37_.html
has a full display of the deceitful anti-M37 tactics.
No need to go through it all over again.
Just go back and read that previous thread.
Every little worry wart, "concern" that was launched during the original campaign has been regurgitated in true blue form.
The only thing needing mending with M37 is the deceitful contortion Hardy Meyers used to throw up the transferability road block. And that has nothing to do with the measure itself. When the courts eventually handle this deceitful attorney General like they did Judge James we'll get to listen to more whining.
What really disgusts me is no matter the broad participation and support from every fricking newspaper in the state they enjoy, M37 opponents are still too gutless and disingenuous to go out and signature gather up their own measure to repeal M37.
You had a massive effort to stop M37 during the campaign. You had the same prior to that with M7 which Kitzhaber conspired to have over turned.
Now you want your Blue controlled legislature to do what you are too weak and lazy to do yourselves.
I say stand aside stomping your feet while the real M37 works. It will prove your anti-M37 propaganda to be exactly what it is. The dishonest and unethical attempted manipulation of the public and public approved policy.
Posted by: Jay Wells | Apr 29, 2007 4:38:10 PM
There's no leadership on Measure 37 reform in the legislature. Prozanski and Macpherson, the chairs of the land use fairness committee, are pretty meek and let Larry George use fast and loose facts to trump them on point after point.
Legislative concensus has eluded stronger chairs than these guys in the previous two sessions as well. And Larry George is no LB Day.
So why is that voters will get an 11th hour referral that is DOA? Why is it that wingnuts and property rights absolutists like Jim Karlock are gloating?
Timber and Realtors are only part of the arm-twisting. Homebuilders' wink-wink testimony about how they support Oregon's program is way beyond duplicitous.
Nobody is calling any of these lobbyists onto the carpet.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 29, 2007 4:48:04 PM
The only thing needing mending with M37 is the deceitful contortion Hardy Meyers used to throw up the transferability road block.
And the Jackson County judge who agreed with him, you mean?
Posted by: Steve | Apr 29, 2007 6:07:36 PM
Mr Sadler
SInce you seem to have spent most of your time turning over rocks to find the conspiracies behind M37, might I suggest an alternative to help out the poor, ignorant and easily duped voters?
Since both M7 and M37 seemed to deal with the heavy-handed govt abuse of land use, perhaps if you suggested something as an alternative that made voters feel as though they have a say in land use issues that affect them directly (spare me the "this is a representative democracy and we are stuck with who we elect") as an alternative. Puh-leeze, something else than we need to abolish M37 - isnt that just a little too simple-minded way of addressing the issues that made M37 pass?
Who knows you might have more success than that old stand-by - "This is the end of life as we know it in Oregon and this time we mean it."
Posted by: Becky | Apr 29, 2007 6:15:16 PM
Oh yes of course the Jackson County Judge who went to the same law ethics class as Judge James.
Be sure and praise that judge as many of you did Judge James' distortion of law.
It's not even slightly complicated.
I can get a variance approved and decide to sell my land with the variance. Yet the variance does not state that it is transferable. It doesn't need to, just as M37 does not. Unethical Meyers fabricated the transferability problem knowing it would likely not survive judicial scrutiny yet figured it would buy time for a greater conspiracy to overturn M37.
Last Sunday's Oregonian was a mammoth propaganda publication with the outlook sections essentially written by all the various anti-M37 planning bureaucracies and officials, then followed by three of the main op-ed pieces attacking M37.
The high level propaganda blitz to repeal M37 is unprecedented. And here you folks are trying to portray M37 proponents as the monsters of deceit.
This is such a lopsided all out attack on the M37 that it's beyond laughable.
And you just make it up as you go as fast as you can.
BTW those outlook pieces were complete crapolla.
The Beaverton Round? Wow! What a model. The so called "alternatives" you naive people enamor over are no substitute for genuine accomodations for growth.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 29, 2007 6:33:41 PM
Jay Wells Why is it that wingnuts and property rights absolutists like Jim Karlock are gloating?
JK: Hey, wingnut, I’m not gloating. I’m just sad that so many people have so little respect for the bill of rights. (And that includes the supreme court’s many decisions in the tradition of Dread Scott.)
Jay Wells Timber and Realtors are only part of the arm-twisting. Homebuilders' wink-wink testimony about how they support Oregon's program is way beyond duplicitous.
Nobody is calling any of these lobbyists onto the carpet.
JK: Don’t forget to also call on the carpet:
1) That winery that was the biggest contributor to the anti M37 campaign. It most be so nice to have a place in the country where the government guarantees that you won’t get any new neighbors to damage you tranquility, while the rest of the state is crammed into the overpriced, over polluted cities with bad schools.
2) The big EASTERN green corporations that want to continue experiment on use Oregonians. The experiment should be over - forcing high density on people isn’t working, it is destroying livability.
Make no mistake this is not about farmland, it is about a movement to de-populate the country side and confine people to the cities.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: joe | Apr 29, 2007 8:18:08 PM
Nice of you to declare the intent of Oregon Voters. Once again the liberals feel free to use other people's property to create their vision of the world.
Joe
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | Apr 29, 2007 10:43:38 PM
Russell Sadler's proposal is a roll of the dice. Unfortunately, it appears that "all or nothing" is the only outlet our paralyzed legislature and polarized interest groups (particularly the right-wing ones so well represented on this thread) will allow.
In a perfect world, Measure 37 would be repealed and the "Big Look" at Oregon's land use laws just beginning now would give us fair rural land use rules for ALL property owners, regardless of when they bought the property.
Unfortunately, the same polarizing forces on display here will probably doom the Big Look too.
I'll have a more detailed post on the latest revoltin' developments in the Measure 37 debacle soon on my own blog, www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com
Posted by: ws | Apr 29, 2007 11:27:52 PM
"Make no mistake this is not about farmland, it is about a movement to de-populate the country side and confine people to the cities." Jim Karlock
It's not about a movement to depopulate the countryside and confine the prople to the cities. It's about taking steps to ensure there will be a countryside at all, for people now and in the future to experience. Ownership of any property carries various limitations. The limitations of property rights are defined in part by obligation to observance of the needs of the greater good of the public.
So, yes, I suppose it's been a bummer for some property owners to have bought property under one set of land rules, only to see a revision to those rules that consequently changed the options available for use of their property. I think most property owners understand that such eventualities are part of buying and owning property, even if they don't like it when it happens.
In terms of anybody living out of state, if they don't want to live in areas of our state scheduled for greater density, they don't need to move here.
Posted by: Jake | Apr 29, 2007 11:56:18 PM
Can we FedEX Gridlock Karlock to Houston so that those of us native Oregonians who want to preserve our heritage can live without his rhetoric funded by East Coast interests?
Posted by: Fred Heutte | Apr 30, 2007 12:29:40 AM
A month ago, a group consisting of former governors Barbara Roberts and Vic Atiyeh, and business and civic leader John Gray (which I informally refer to as the "three sages"), issued a report to the Land Use committee summarizing many months of candid discussions about Measure 37 with organizations ranging from 1000 Friends of Oregon to Oregonians in Action and many other key players on the Measure 37 issue.
Their recommendations form the heart of what is now House Bill 3546. I strongly suggest reading this before jumping to any conclusions about the bill and the referral to the voters.
I am really unhappy about the process that has occurred in formulating the final package. The legislative leadership has not seen fit to fully involve organizations and the public, instead continuing the months-long hearings, dominated by dug-in positions as opposed to debate over core issues and potential solutions. In the end, not one public hearing was held on the actual text of SB 1019/HB 3540, although it is certainly true that extensive testimony was heard on many subjects within the final package.
But there will be time to deal with this poor choice on legislative openness. There is not, as I further review below, near as much time to deal with the looming crisis of the November-December 2006 claims rush.
As for Rep. Schauffler, while he likes to see himself as owning the crucial 31st vote in the House, don't overestimate his importance to the current situation. In the end, he does not have a thumbs up or down on the package as some have said.
I see the situation as resolving to a short term crisis, a medium term problem, and a long term choice.
The short term crisis is that within the next month, counties and DLCD will run out of time to process claims within the 180 day window for the claims rush that ended on December 4, 2006. If that happens, claimants can go to court and get compensation, damages and attorneys fees. The only available option to cover court judgments is for counties and the state to raise taxes. The political consequences would be devastating. HB 3546 is designed tie up the boat on shore for a while until a better route can be found. Right now, the boat is already drifting in the danger zone and we can hear the roar of the falls.
The medium term problem is how to deal with the thousands of currently filed claims. The "three sages" report divides them into three groups: (1) small residential claims asking for 1 to 3 houses; (2) larger clustered claims asking for up to 10 residences; and (3) all others, including large subdivisions, commercial and industrial claims.
The report recommends, and HB 3540 includes, a fairly comprehensive approach including an "express lane" for the first group of small claimants; a tight definition of valuation for the remainder; a political deal to protect at least some important types of land (high value farmland, irrigation districts, vineyards, groundwater limited areas, a couple others); and a new proof-of-loss requirement of at least 10% for future claims.
Pretty much everyone has something to greatly dislike in this package. I think the transferability for the small and medium claims is far too broad, for example.
But the package does some important things. It separates out the claims that have the broadest political support -- people who bought property and thought they would build a house or two some day. It provides a brightline test on valuation, a key issue that is already underneath the worst claims and the worst behavior by local governments trying to push claims through recklessly while under unworkable deadlines.
Most of all the package reins in the whole Measure 37 process while referring it to the voters for final approval. Russell may be right that a legislative-only fix might be stronger, but the reality is simple: OIA would have a much easier time of repealing it, and possibly killing the land use system itself for good, if the voters, having twice approved Measure 7 and Measure 37, did not get a shot at the legislative package.
In addition, a referral in 2007 means OIA has to wait at least a year before putting the inevitable repeal measure on the ballot. I rather suspect that voters will decide they are tired of the shouting and chaos, the fix is good enough, and that is where it will stand.
In effect, the package is a peace settlement. It is far from perfect and it may not work, but not to send it to voters who, no matter what they actually thought they were approving, voted 61% for Measure 37, would be folly.
Sen. Schrader put it best during the Thursday hearing. The package allows people to build a house or two on their property -- that's what voters wanted in Measure 37. They didn't want gravel pits, 500-home subdivisions and strip malls in the middle of farm country.
I don't like this concession. It means some claimants will build modest houses on their farms for their retirement and their kids, and mostly that seems OK. It also means there will be a wave of claimants taking their windfall opportunity to build new McMansions, just like we see in the rural areas of other states (though certainly not as extensively). But the political calculus is simple. The "homestead" is an issue that voters united on. All the bold talk about repealing Measure 37 has to deal with that simple but massive political reality.
In effect, the package calls the OIA's bluff. If Measure 37 is really about property rights, the HB 3546 package does a pretty good job protecting what most people see as a political priority -- their right to develop something modest on their own piece of property. It also moves at least in the right direction of protecting all property rights, not just the lucky recipients of "monopoly rents" who want to develop subdivisions and shopping malls while their neighbors bear the consequences.
So as a result, the "express lane" doesn't have a valuation component. Schrader's view is that OIA and others will have an awfully hard time telling people that getting their small property approvals is "repealing" Measure 37.
As I said above, the process of getting to this point has been really bad. But, holding my own nose a bit, I can see supporting it as a good political strategy, one that will finally simmer down the last seven years of chaos on the issue. The key is that the voters must make the final decision.
Now for the long run choice. HB 3540 will not address the long run issue we all face. Let me turn to Edward Sullivan's very fine "Year Zero" article on Measure 37 implementation in a 2005 issue of Environmental Law, the Lewis & Clark law review.
Measure 37 has more than just the potential to change the shape
of things to come. It has the potential to unravel over thirty
years of valuable planning and compromise. Statewide planning
goals that have long been in effect may be forsaken at the whim
of an individual landowner. The Measure insults the remarkable
vision demonstrated by past generations of Oregonians in their
ability to look beyond their immediate needs.
As the sheer inability of local governments to meet demands for
payment is already plain, it is on the waiver of regulations
which attention must now focus. To “forego enforcement” achieves
only short-term gratification for individual owners. The costs
of waiver cannot be justified: neighbors and posterity will be
obliged to forego the benefits of controlled urban expansion and
the scenic communities in which previous generations had the
pleasure of living. These costs are in addition to the
externalities imposed on neighbors as a direct result of the
grant of a waiver, such as reduced property values, congestion,
increased infrastructure costs, and the like. Viewed in full
daylight, forbearance of enforcement is a most unattractive
prospect.
Local governments have been emasculated and rendered powerless
to continue regulating land use in a predictable, fair, and
effective way. The unparalleled Oregon planning program is not
merely fortuitous; it is the result of careful compromise and
consideration. As SB 100 identified back in 1973, uncoordinated
planning was destroying the state. In the face of Measure 37,
there is a tangible threat of a regulation rollback on a
property-by-property basis, leading to an incoherent patchwork
of land-use regulations and reluctance by state, regional, or
local governments to undertake most new land-use regulations
because of the Measure.
The proposed package does some important things to address these issues. By setting a clear standard for proof of loss for present and future claims, HB 3540 responds somewhat the concern many of us have for protecting the integrity of our land and environment against the relentless commercial pressures of sprawl and the consequences for land, air and water by at least providing some reinforcement for our current land use system.
The problem is that HB 3540 freezes the current system in place. The 10% proof of loss requirement for future claims turns Measure 37 into a regulatory takings system, no question about it. It will lead to a chilling effect on any new land use regulation, whether to deal with the changing economy or global warming.
How long can a post-3540 land use system survive in that condition before development pressures further erode its political support? That is a very big question for many of us who have been staunch supporters of the land use system over the decades.
The current effort for looking at these wider issues is the "Big Look" process. But barring a major turnaround, the Big Look process looks like it is heading toward a pretty dismal failure. Another avenue for reviving the visionary and balanced view that SB 100 represented for land management in our state is a project we now will face.
But in my view at the moment, without something like HB 3540 going to the voters this fall, it is quite possible the system we now have will collapse much sooner than that because Measure 37 exudes such a destructive political force.
So to sum up, in my view HB 3540 is an imperfect but necessary step to protecting what we can in Oregon's land use system, while giving more leeway than I would like in handling current claims and the political balance on these issues. And further, it poses very significant problems for addressing the defects in the "regulatory takings" approach that it implicitly adopts. I don't have any perfect answers; but political reality is forcing us to make a significant choice with real world consequences. I could still have my mind changed, but as of this moment I support the HB 3540 approach. Perhaps as a result, we will gain a few years to sustain our land use system and reconsider where we stand as a state in defining how to protect the sustainability of our economy, our environment and our communities.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2007 12:45:13 AM
I think the framework IS a fair compromise, by and large. But it is clearly a compromise towards Measure 37, and was undertaken in an atmosphere of Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches, with ample indications from polling, editorials and testimony that the public clearly supported some kind of modification or compromise that preserved principles of land use regulation with the rectification of economic losses as a result of government regulation.
It's too convenient an argument, I'm sorry--back when we were talking about a Rainy Day fund, and we thought there was an agreement but then the Republicans turned obstinate about even the COMPROMISE that Democrats had allowed to be brokered, and it looked like it might get referred, nobody in leadership said, "Because people beat the Rainy Day Amendment last year, we should send this rainy day fund to the people, just to check." No, they drew the line at the unified stance of idiocy from the state Republicans, declared their unity for a policy of relative sanity...and wielded their majority, doing their jobs and voting to do things.
It was expected that the Legislature would deal with this issue. A compromise bill was tentatively agreed to, a framework that follows independent recommendations in the main has been proposed--why Schaufler thinks a single Republican is needed to validate this eminently reasonable compromise fix, or why voters need to be asked to review something everyone admits is complex and which you people have had four months to review closely unlike us, is beyond me. Do the job, please. If you like it, vote for it. If not, don't and be prepared to explain why next fall.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2007 7:34:14 AM
A compromise bill was tentatively agreed to, a framework that follows independent recommendations in the main has been proposed--why Schaufler thinks a single Republican is needed to validate this eminently reasonable compromise fix, or why voters need to be asked to review something everyone admits is complex and which you people have had four months to review closely unlike us, is beyond me.
I agree with you about this measure. It seems to be a reasonable compromise. It'd be nice if they would also place some kind of hold on Measure 37 until the public has a chance to vote on the new measure, but barring that, I think it's okay.
As I understand it, the law will allow residential partitions (3 or fewer homes) on ag land, but make it more difficult to develop subdivisions.
As for the politics of an up-or-down vote versus a referendum, I generally have no problem with the legislature coming up with a reasonable solution and then referring the issue to voters to decide.
Doing this is a sign of respect for Oregon voters, and I think it will increase the likelihood that whatever is passed will be sustained since referring the statute to Oregon voters will also make it difficult for OIA to come back with a ballot measure to overturn the work done by the legislature. It also eliminates the argument that the legislature is not interested in the will of the people.
Posted by: Becky | Apr 30, 2007 8:26:36 AM
No, Sen. Schrader demagogued it.
Voters knew what they were voting for. If Schrader and his fellow demagogues think they didn't he can put an up or down re-vote on the ballot and let the entire M37 campaign M37 play all over again.
You can recycle the same massive campaign you used during your original failed attempt.
What you don't get, and the voters do, is the reality that gravel pits will be needed in perpetuity. Just because plans for one surfaces on a M37 parcel instead of one next door on similar land represents no added threat to Oregon. There is no sweeping M37 "gravel pit" movement.
Voter also recognize that it hasn't been real pretty cramming those large subdivisions up against the overcrowded chaos planners like. The few larger M37 subdivisions are less threatening than the status quo mandated high density chaos which has planners scratching their heads over where to put a million more Oregonians.
As far as strip malls go, again, there are strip malls going in all over the place all the time. This "suggestion and exaggeration that M37 will place them in the "middle of farm country" is simple demagoguery.
You had ALL of the weapons of mass misinformation before the M37 vote. You far outspent and out screamed M37 supporters and your distortion, which continues today, failed to manipulate enough voters.
Now in a near total hysteria and panic mode you'll take any obstruction you can get. Big surprise.
Anything but allow the relatively small amount of Oregon effected by M37 to proceed to proving you have mislead Oregonians the entire M37 way.
More and more people are finally waking up to the insanity of forcing people to live in the overcrowded mess you call planning. We are witnessing daily the detriments of cramming more Oregonians into and up against 20 years of ignoring the needs of growth.
You want to tell people how marvelous our land use planning works? Let's have that campaign all over again.
Let's have another M37 vote. You can tell people how preferable the Beaverton Round is, explain the wisdom of SoWa and insure us all that paying to stack more and more of them on and next to our neighborhoods is good.
With all of the rhetoric about what "voters were thinking" I wonder why no Democrat Legislator has suggested simply enabling a re-vote on M37. Your friends wouldn't even have to go through all the work of gathering signatures for that other horrible right you hate, the initiative process.
Your thread attacking the initiative system is probably being prepared right now.
I say it's repulsive that even with an overwhelming advantage of having every newspaper, other media, every government agency , all their staff, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties and all of your heavily funded activist groups hammering the public
you have to resort to overturning their vote.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2007 8:49:50 AM
I say it's repulsive that even with an overwhelming advantage of having every newspaper, other media, every government agency , all their staff, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties and all of your heavily funded activist groups hammering the public
you have to resort to overturning their vote.
... all of which ignores the fact that when Measure 37 gets overturned, it will be the public that does it. In the immortal words of the Decider "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... uhhhh.... fool me, can't get fooled again."
Posted by: Bad Dems | Apr 30, 2007 9:25:15 AM
The only reason that we would vote twice for M37 is that Dems can’t stand it when the public votes for what they want. Twice, Twice the public has voted and twice the Dems think the public is wrong. THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED, GET OVER IT! Put it out there a third time and we will vote it in again, and when it gets voted in again the Dems will not be happy they will say something like, “The people didn’t know what they were voting for” Hmmm, maybe the people didn’t realize what they voted for when they voted Ted back in again. All he has done is lied since he was voted back in. Why is is that the Dems here in Oregon don’t like the will of the people? Why is that, why is it when people vote for something the Dem’s think the people didn’t understand what they were voting for, why do the Dem’s think that the people in this state are stupid, why is this. I get sick and tired of the Dem’s saying that the people voted for something they realy didn’t understand when clearly the issue has been approved twice by the voters. Understand this, there are a bunch of claims out there and a lot of money to be lost if it goes to vote again, I bet the next time it gets voted on it will win by more the 61%
Posted by: Becky | Apr 30, 2007 9:35:19 AM
Sal,
Who does the fooling around here?
You and yours overturned M7 and are now trying to do it to M37.
Any vote you all come up with will not be an up or down vote on M37. It will be a cooked up Bill that changes M37 and leaves an illusion of re-voting on the measure.
That's how you, el al, operate.
And none of you ever address the tremendous land use planning failures unfolding every day. Preferring to pretend growth is being "planned" and that it's all coming together now. It is absolutely senseless what so many of you are doing in blindly supporting the status quo that clearly is not working.
It's ludicrous to pretend the Urban Growth Boundary, Beaverton Round, SoWa, Cascade Station, Gresham Station, Orenco Station, Transit Oriented Development, light rail and the rest of the mess is actually accomodating growth. There isn't a single arena where the needs of growth are being met.
Yet M37 is being cast more of a threat than the monumental failure of our planning systems.
Some of you get so far off the deep end that you have no limits to what you will make up.
Jake wrote
"Can we FedEX Gridlock Karlock to Houston so that those of us native Oregonians who want to preserve our heritage can live without his rhetoric funded by East Coast interests?"
"native Oregonians"? That's funny since so many of cabal he supports has non-natives pulling the strings and have been attempting to alter our heritage by turning every city into an East coast rat race.
But Jake's whopper is his claiim Karlock is "funded by East Coast interests?"
This is a perfect example of the extreme wrongness in your camp. Karlock is entirely grass roots and isn't funded period, let alone by "East Coast interests."
That's in stark contrast to the left wing groups who get out of state funding and routinely get various local government agency grants to fund their rhetoric.
It's perpetual "fooling" funded by taxpayers around here.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2007 9:55:33 AM
Becky, have you ever lived anywhere else? I think if you had, you'd understand just how well Oregon's land use system works. You appear not to care about subdivisions and strip malls that destroy the social fabric--then go move where they're blessed, and the landscape is one continuous melange of faceless, indistinguishable "motor miles" of gas station after fast food joint after dollar store. I know how it works when sprawl is allowed to happen; I've watched it happen twice in two cities in the last 20 years.
You are pretending that adding a million people to an area can possibly result in no change whatsoever, if only we simply stop planning where to put them--and that the problems associated with adding the PREVIOUS million are the fault of sensible planning....rather than the obvious truth, which is that planning prevented mass sprawl and elimination of Oregon farming as a major state industry, not to mention the gobbling up of our coastline by expat Californians et al.
The will of the people is to fix M37. There's simply no way around it, and all your bleating won't change it. Oregonians do not like M37, and while they want some kind of balance between sensible planning and causing people to lose economic value on their property, they've been pretty clear that M37 is not the answer. Planning advocates have heard the complaints loud and clear, which is why the bill currently being proposed represents in large part a full concession to the concept of recompense for planning decisions.
Posted by: Debbie | Apr 30, 2007 10:21:39 AM
No one can show a loss of money because of the land use rules???
Would you like to see my tax statement? After being denied my lot of record the assessor's office reduced the real market value of my small parcel from $79,800 to $7,300. When I called asking about it I was told it was because the land wasn't able to be build on.
You don't know what you're talking about!
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2007 10:34:34 AM
The only reason that we would vote twice for M37 is that Dems can’t stand it when the public votes for what they want. Twice, Twice the public has voted and twice the Dems think the public is wrong. THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED, GET OVER IT!
The public killed the first 5, count them 5 attempts by Oregonians in Action to shoot down the state's land use laws, but the big timber companies could not take no for an answer. Why should people who don't want to see our farmland paved over quit. Did OIA quit after they lost in repeated attempts?
Whether you like it or not, the public is going to get another chance to vote on this issue.
Posted by: Pam Hardy | Apr 30, 2007 10:36:31 AM
The description of the compensation problem in this article is the best I've seen in the press.
I'm a land use attorney working on behalf of neighbors of M37 claimants in Central Oregon. In almost all cases I look at the price the claimant purchased the property for compared to the value today. In most, but not all, cases claimants in Central Oregon have seen huge increases in value, even after adjusting for inflation.
A paradoxical result in a recent case really caught my attention. Four claims came in at the same time from the same claimant for similar parcels in the same area. Three parcels were purchased in 1972, and one was purchased in 1975. Basically just before, and just after Senate Bill 100. The three parcels that had been purchased in 1972 had increased an average of 200% in value, after the purchase price was adjusted for inflation. The one parcel purchased in 1975 had decreased 4%.
The paradoxical result: The parcels that had had substantial regulations added to them had increased in value *more* than the one parcel that had not had regulations added to it.
I have since observed similar patterns in other claims from immediately before, and immediately after Senate Bill 100. I don't know if this is just random, or if there is a real pattern here, but I would love to see more research on it.
Posted by: carla | Apr 30, 2007 10:47:42 AM
Voters knew what they were voting for.
Actually, they're having a serious case of buyer's remorse:
And before anyone bothers to say that this polling is the product of a propaganda campaign against M37, let me remind you that there was a massive campaign prior to the vote--which helped buffet its passage. I've spoken to no less than 15 people who voted for this law that had no idea that it was retroactive. Many of those same people also had no idea that there was no funding mechanism in place for compensation.
Let's be real here. This Measure was a major snow job for a lot of Oregonians--and now its biting us in the ass.
Posted by: ws | Apr 30, 2007 10:53:11 AM
"Voters knew what they were voting for." Becky
No they didn't. Most voters are basically workaday modest wage earners, not clever lawyers and deviously opportunistic property speculators. Most voters supported M37 out of simple compassion for small landowners and farmers prevented by land use laws from being able to build a few houses for their extended family on their land. That and the ability of people like Dorothy English to convert their small parcels into a retirement fund.
That's what voters thought they were supporting in M37...not these suprize profit trumps all else M37 claims popping up across the state.
Posted by: Becky | Apr 30, 2007 10:53:17 AM
Torrid,
This is sure getting old.
I've lived and been all over this country.
I don't know what you are smokiing but this region from Greshanm to Hillsboro is rapidly becoming LA and Metro knows it. And they have NO plan for the effects of next million people they want to stuff on top of us. They don't even know how they are going to do the stuffing. They can't find the money to build more Rounds/SoWa/Cascades/Orencos and their land use model won't accomodate enough people.
So save the pompous lecture about how you "understand" and I don't, "just how well Oregon's land use system works".
Yeah I care about subdivisions and strip malls that destroy the social fabric. That's what Metro has been doing with their haphazard cramming of them all together
making a sea of roofs, asphalt and concrete.
Your reluctance to address the failures and instead dribble on about planning theories is proof positive you have little interest in saving any of our "social fabric" at all.
I could easily suggest that you go move to one of the rat races our planners are are atually attempting to copy.
Metro's high density, "landscape of continuous melange of faceless, indistinguishable "motor miles" of gas station after fast food joint after dollar store is not better. It's overcrowded chaos.
Looser, less dense growth in the abundant land we have would be far preferrable and need not destroy any "fabric".
But no, this grand planning experiment that has taxpayers funding the Beaverton Round, SoWa and other follies is supposed to provide what? "Social fabric"?
I am not pretending that adding a million people to an area can possibly result in no change whatsoever. Quite the contrary. I am charging that the so called planning around here has no plan for that million more.
All they know, like you, is to cram more into the same space without ANY regard for how it all works or for any of the impacts.
Oregon Farming was never threated to be eliminated as a major state industry. And it is not now under M37.
You have nothing but propaganda to back up that ludicorus statement.
Same goes for you claim that our coastline would be gobbled up.
But this is what you people do best.
You justify the status quo horror show planning we witness by suggesting anything else, every other alternative, would lead to complete loss of all things good. I mean listen to yourselves.
You honestly think the mess we have going on in our planning arena is the one and only way to prevewnt the loss of our coastline and farming industry?
There are so many options between what we have and total losses you predict it's mindless than you pretend there are not.
Then you pretend to speak for Oregonians and how they feel about M37.
There has been no balance between sensible planning and causing people to lose economic value on their property. Our planning was being driven by the same extremes you unfolded here. That our excessive planning is a model and all will be lost without it entirely.
Is M37 an "answer"? OF COURSE NOT. Who said it was?
It is a small step in the right direction and if and when you folks stop your temper tantrum and get out of the way Oregonians will discover we can alter our planning to a far more fair and well reasoned form which M37 will demonstrate is possible. Without the calamity you falsely claim is imminent.
It is you who does not understand, about what has been happening or what will happen with M37.
Posted by: BlueNote | Apr 30, 2007 10:54:08 AM
Isn't the best way to measure the impact of land use regulations to use the old law school "but for" test? Appreciation since purchase seems irrelevant. The question is, what would "Black Acre" be worth today, "but for" the adoption of the land use restriction in question. If you bought subdivision property in 1970 which would be worth $100,000 per lot @ 50 lots = 5 million bucks today, but the land use regulations prohibit you from subdividing and therefore Black Acre is only worth whatever Ag land is going for, your damages are the difference between the 5 million and the Ag value of Black Acre.
I am not a supporter of M37, but I don't understand the difficulty in calculating damages.
Posted by: Richard | Apr 30, 2007 11:17:29 AM
Come on Carla,
Let me remind you that there was a far more massive campaign prior to the vote--which sought to defeat its passage.
Just as the far more massive campaign today is attempting to repeal it.
How can anyone pretend the public did not get a huge daily dose of anti-M37 "information" prior to the vote?
Is that truly your claim? I mean it was a relentless barage predicting billions in costs, destruction of the State and every imaginable horror. Including the loss of our wine country, farms, forests and habitat.
Yet, you now say the public didn't know?
I say BS.
Along with the notion that that stuff is or will ever come true.
The public heard plenty.
It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 30, 2007 12:46:39 PM
torridjoe You appear not to care about subdivisions and strip malls that destroy the social fabric--
JK: What do you have against people having a home with a back yard? Do you have a back yard? Metro is taking away people’s back yards and side yards.
As to strip malls - they are built because they work and are efficient. Do you have something against what works? Are you against efficiency?
torridjoe then go move where they're blessed,
JK: Why don’t you move to LA if you don’t like Portland? For LA is metro’s model for Portland.
torridjoe ...the landscape is one continuous melange of faceless, indistinguishable "motor miles" of gas station after fast food joint after dollar store.
JK: You just described high density - Metro’s goal for us. Without density, there are not enough customers for mile after mile of stores. You only find such patterns where there are mile after mile of apartments (ie: density) not single family homes.
torridjoe You are pretending that adding a million people to an area can possibly result in no change whatsoever, if only we simply stop planning where to put them
JK: No, I am saying that if you REALLY want DENSITY, then you can put MANY million people in Washington county - just use Hong Kong, instead of LA as a model.
torridjoe ... planning prevented mass sprawl and elimination of Oregon farming as a major state industry,..
JK: You mean all of those farms that spread noxious chemicals all over the land and pollute our rivers and streams with cow shit? OR do you mean those farms that grow lawns and decorative plants for us city folk?
Again it is not about farmland, it is about “the Oregon experiment” with us as the lab rats. Just look at all of the Eastern money that was used against M37
Thanks
JK
Posted by: gobytrain | Apr 30, 2007 1:14:33 PM
Two points brought up by other writers I'd like to highlight:
1. Taxation
While advocating 37 Debbie brought up a point I think is actually a valid denouncement of the measure.
It is unfair to every tax payer in the state that property owners would not have to pay retroactive taxes if they were granted compensation under 37.
2. Funding
I would like to have more discussion regarding Becky's claim:
"aren't you forgetting the MASSIVE anti-M37 campaign the voters were subjected to while pondering how to vote?"
Can you please quantify? The budget behind the m37 campaign dwarfed the opposition, so I'm confused by your statement.
I'm sure some astute reader can fill us in on the exact numbers, but I think Oregonians would be appalled to discover the Howard Rich ilk funding the campaign.
Posted by: gobytrain | Apr 30, 2007 1:36:26 PM
Wow, Pam!
That's very interesting, thank you for the post. I'm wondering if you can fill us in more on Senate Bill 100.
Also, I'm not suprised by your following statment (if I'm understanding correctly):
"The paradoxical result:
The parcels that had had substantial regulations added to them had increased in value *more* than the one parcel that had not had regulations added to it."
As you're discovering, land use reglation and planning increases the value of property. There are several well documented reasons for this "paradox".
As a layperson on the subject, I cannot elequently elaborate on all of them (many readers may offer their own knoledge here), but there are plenty of obvious and intuitive reasons.
For one, developers and buyers alike appreciate knowing in advance the rules regulating future development in a given area. Less tangible is the atmosphere created by showing interest in the future of an area by taking the time and effort to create rules of play.
There is plenty of reading on this subject, I doubt however either side would be willing to take the time to do the homework, so I wont bother linking, but others I'm sure can elaborate.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2007 2:13:04 PM
I've lived and been all over this country. I don't know what you are smokiing but this region from Greshanm to Hillsboro is rapidly becoming LA and Metro knows it. And they have NO plan for the effects of next million people they want to stuff on top of us. They don't even know how they are going to do the stuffing. They can't find the money to build more Rounds/SoWa/Cascades/Orencos and their land use model won't accomodate enough people.Why whould I? It's clear you don't understand, otherwise you wouldn't say such outrageously unsubstantiated thinks like Gresham and Hillsboro becoming LA. No one who has been to LA in the last 30 years would ever say something so stupid. They are polar opposites. Furthermore, you flat out lie to say Metro has no plan for growth--it's called the 2040 Plan, and even that is being revised to account for an increase in the speed of in-migration to the state.So save the pompous lecture about how you "understand" and I don't, "just how well Oregon's land use system works".
What you claim Metro is doing by "cramming" things is in fact the opposite of sprawl, where those structures are allowed to pop up wherever someone with the money to do so wants to build one.
Metro's high density, "landscape of continuous melange of faceless, indistinguishable "motor miles" of gas station after fast food joint after dollar store is not better. It's overcrowded chaos.
See, you don't even seem to understand what sprawl is--the phrase "high density" and what I describe are definitionally incompatible, because what I describe has no infill and is not contained--it just keeps spreading out along the main motorway, further and further out.
You have nothing but propaganda to back up that ludicorus statement. Same goes for you claim that our coastline would be gobbled up.
Nothing but propaganda--and the repeated results I describe from experience in other parts of the country as empiric examples of what happens without growth management policies. Go spend some time in Houston and tell me we have nothing to fear.
Posted by: Becky | Apr 30, 2007 3:01:57 PM
Torrid,
You apparently have a comprehension problem.
I didn't say Gresham and Hillsboro are becoming LA.
I said the whole region is becomeing like LA "from" Gresham to Hillsboro as Metro seeks to have the same density, regionwide as LA.
I have been all over the LA area several times in recent years. Much of it is no different than the emreging mess here. But they have more freeways. If you think because of the Metro follies they are polar opposites you are beyond reason.
Metro's 2040 plan has proven to be NOT a plan to accomodate growth at all. You are confused, misguided and misrepresenting both the plan and it's track record of producing "chaos" as observed by former Metro executive Mike Burton.
To say the 2040 plan provides for the needs of growth is a flat out lie. Not in terms of land supplies, housing transportation, infrastucture, jobs, or basic services does 2040 work.
Metro's plan is to continue ignoring growth while deceiving the public and perpetrating more of the same failed rail transit and LA style high density devlopment patterning polices. Of course you think it all works swell. Never mind the soaring cost of congestion and housing.
The only thing Metro is trying to revise is the State law requiring UGB expansions every 5 years. Of course that is in addition to the road blocks they left in place for the last 2002 UGB expansions which sit idle waitng for more "planning".
What Metro is doing by "cramming" things is in fact an EXTREME opposite of sprawl with many if not more detriment than unregulated sprawl.
There is a huge distance between the two extremes and only your side is actually advocating one of them. I don't know anyone who advocates the end of all zoning and regulations. Do you? We could very well have zoning and p[rotectionis of all shapes and sizes without the UGB for instance. You act like we're the only place in the country with land use regulations. In reality many other states have reasonable regulations without our extreme version. This is the problem which you do not understand. It's either what we got or wide open no zoning, no regulations sprawl with you and yours. A totally false and deceitful choice.
Sprawl comes in many forms across the country.
You have a narrow perception of sprawl and fail miserably to recognize that we ARE sprawling, in the most haphazard way possible, in Metro's sea of roofs, asphalt and concrete form, without regard for the effects of over crowding and failing to accomodate the needs of growth.
It's an attack on the suburbs attempting to urbanize them all. Your central planning fanatics speak of single family homes with yards being "obsolete", that cars will soon be a thing of the past, that our food will need to be grown nearby and delivered by trasnit. It's all kookery my friend.
Heck you can't even recognize the tremendous shortcomings in accomodating growth. Metro planning is definitionally incompatible with the real world needs of growth.
You can go to Houston youself. I'll pass since no one here is advocating Houston policies.
As usual you made that up.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2007 3:13:38 PM
Becky, you are very much advocating Houston policies, because they are in effect no policy at all.
It's difficult to keep discussing this with you until you quit distorting what sprawl means. Sprawl is un- or loosely-regulated development that is allowed to move ever further outward from the central city, in a haphazard pattern driven by development profit maximization. You simply cannot call high-density, low-landmass development sprawl, because it's the opposite of sprawl: it is planned development in a controlled space, as opposed to unregulated development over an ever larger area.
You also clearly distort what Metro is doing and not doing, to say they're only reviewing the time frame on expansions. There is no chaos; there is only smart, deliberate growth planning that has made this one of the most livable cities in the country. All you need to do is travel to another city to discover that. Think of the terrible congestion and pollution we'd have without it!
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 30, 2007 4:20:17 PM
torridjoe Go spend some time in Houston and tell me we have nothing to fear.
JK:
You mean you fear Houston’s having solved traffic congestion?
You mean you fear Houston’s more affordable housing?
You mean you fear Houston’s lower un-employment?
You mean you fear Houston’s higher average income?
In other words, you fear prosperity.
See: debunkingportland.com/Houston/Houston.htm
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Becky | Apr 30, 2007 4:24:08 PM
Torrid,
I never advocated and know of no one advocating "no policy at all". So off with your head. Figuratively speaking of course.
Your obsession with sprawl, "no policies", as the only advocated alternative to what we got has your judgement and your side of this debate entirely skewed.
What does it take for you to stop with your obsession and consider what is really being suggested? Which is something less than our status quo but far from no policies.
Even M37 does not equal no policies.
Just about anywhere in the country has something between Houston's and Portland's extremes that would be preferable.
Are you incappable of recognizing the counltess cities and States which have something other than Houston or Portland? Or is this the only way you can debate? Against a possition you fabricate.
What we have is preceisely haphazard pattern driven by development profit maximization. Unfortunatley taxpayers are funding much of this experiment with 100s and 100s of millions in public dollars.
Forcing taxpayers to fund the Beaverton Round, SoWa and the other follies is neither smart or effective.
Metro hasn't a clue what to do about their failures or growth except to continue lying about it all and push for more of the same.
"There is no chaos" you say? Right. So what about the soaring cost of our increasing congestion and the soaring cost of housing and lack of land supplies on an on and on?
Are you saying Mike Burton, former head of Metro was distorting things 7 years ago?
The infilling hasn't made this city better. I lived here 35 years ago and it was livable then.
I do travel to other cities. You should travel around our own region and cross over to Clark county.
Tell me Mr. Torrid, is Vancouver also Houston?
Oh and then there is one of Metro's favorite punch lines,
"Think of [or just imagine] the terrible congestion and pollution we'd have without it!"
That's what we have to rely upon, imagination.
Great.
What is "it" that you are so impressed with.
Quit beating around the bush and spit it out.
The UGB? The expansions are chaos. Both for residential and industrial use. You are not familiar with the haphazard process picking where to expand. It's laughable. Light rai? Transit Oriented Development?
What is "it"? We have some of the fastest increasing congestion in the country. How can you conclude it would be so much worse without "it". Is that what you read on a Metro brochure? Because they print some lovely stuff.
Here's that Burton quote I see all the time and never see any of you talk about.
"Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos."
from Metro head, Mike Burton's State of the Region Speech, 2000
Posted by: gobytrain | Apr 30, 2007 4:30:23 PM
Becky:
Can you please explain (or quantify), with as little hyperbole as possible (please), what you mean by the following:
1.
"What Metro is doing by "cramming" things is in fact an EXTREME opposite of sprawl with many if not more detriment than unregulated sprawl."
Can you define, or explain what you mean by "cramming"? Is there a specific rule or law that you can point to as an example for me to quantify what "cramming" is to you?
2.
"In reality many other states have reasonable regulations without our extreme version."
Can you give me an example of a city that fits this ideal and how so I can visualize what you're advocating?
3.
"Sprawl comes in many forms across the country.
...we ARE sprawling, in the most haphazard way possible, in Metro's sea of roofs, asphalt and concrete form, without regard for the effects of over crowding and failing to accommodate the needs of growth."
Can you define your vision of "sprawl"? You clearly find sprawl distasteful, but you also clearly find UGB distasteful.
UGB is pretty much considered synonymous for anti-sprawl in development parlance, so I hope you understand why the two statements can be perceived as incongruous.
I'm genuinly curious as to understanding your perception. If I can understand your vision of livibility, perhaps I'd discover we have some of the same hopes for our future.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Apr 30, 2007 5:02:31 PM
It would be a mistake to send Measure 37 back out to the voters. They specifically rejected the previous status quo twice and would likely reject it again. Whatever goes to the voters has to at least address some of the concerns that land use laws were too onerous for some small select group of landowners.
That said, the anti-UGB stuff here is just empty rhetoric. The fact is that very few places in the country have addressed the issue of rural land development successfully. It would be a tragedy if the vision that has saved Oregon from the fate of other places was lost in silly political posturing.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 30, 2007 5:09:27 PM
RossIt would be a tragedy if the vision that has saved Oregon from the fate of other places was lost in silly political posturing.
JK: Have you notied the terrible price that we are paying for "the vision". See DebunkingPortland.com/Houston/Houston.htm
Thanks
JK
Posted by: gobytrain | Apr 30, 2007 5:46:45 PM
Awesome website Jim. Keep up the good work. The more you compare Portland with Houston, the more any Portlander who has been to Houston will fight you tooth and nail.
Who cares how far you can drive in 1/2 hour in Houston when it takes that long just to get out of your suburban development?
In fact, families in the Houston (TX) metropolitan area have the highest overall transportation expenditures at 20.9 percent." [of household income]of any major city in the USA!
By comparison Portland is one of five areas where families expended the smallest share of their household at 15.1 percent (and we still need to do better)!
On the other hand studies show that households in regions that have invested in public transportation reap financial benefits from having affordable transportation options, even as gasoline prices rise.
Additionally, low-income families are unduly impacted by higher transportation costs since transportation expenditures claim a higher percentage of their family budgets.
Here are a few more stats from the census bureau to make you want to move to Houston not-at-all:
*Houston ranks as 19th in average work commute, while Portland ranks 39th.
*Percentage of families and people whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level:
Houston = 20%
Portland = 11.8%
Here is a more honest comparison housing and income (from the 2006 Census Bureau). What you're seeing below in Houston's disparity between Median and Mean family income is the huge, third world type, discrepancy between the rich in the poor in that city. Per ca pita, each Portlander enjoys more than 4k dollars over each Houstonian. Dang! That's a nice used car...
Median family income (dollars)
Houston: 40,172
Portland: 42,287
Mean family income (dollars)
Houston: 63,958
Portland: 59,153
Per capita income (dollars)
Houston: 22,534
Portland: 26,677
Home ownership? over half the people in Houston homes are renters, while over half the occupants in Portland homes are owners.
Portland = 57% of homes are owned by occupants
Houston = 47% of homes are owned by occupants
I wont even get into crime statistics for Houston, as they are notoriously high in violent crime and gangs.
It's no surprise that after Californians, more people are moving here from Texas than any other state.
Since it doesn't appear to offer your neighbors any benefit, it begs the question, "what's a model like Houston stand to offer Mr. Karlock?"
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 30, 2007 6:08:22 PM
gobytrain Here are a few more stats from the census bureau to make you want to move to Houston not-at-all:
JK:Got a link for your data instead of just a general bureau?
gobytrain *Houston ranks as 19th in average work commute, while Portland ranks 39th.
JK: You mean Houston’s commute time is less?
gobytrain Here is a more honest comparison housing and income (from the 2006 Census Bureau).
More honest? If that is real data, post the URL - I got my data from “News Release: Personal Income for Metropolitan Areas, 2005”, released Wednesday, September 6, 2006 by Bureau of Economic Analysis:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/mpi/mpi_newsrelease.htm
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2007 7:58:50 PM
Since it doesn't appear to offer your neighbors any benefit, it begs the question, "what's a model like Houston stand to offer Mr. Karlock?"
Pollution. You forgot to mention that Houston is also the 5th most polluted city in America.
Posted by: jim karlock | Apr 30, 2007 9:55:01 PM
Hey, Sal Peralta, got a credable source for that claim?
Thanks
JK
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: John Bromley | Apr 29, 2007 9:11:44 AM
Once again, Russell Sadler, is right on. Just ask the voters if they still want this mess or would they rather go back to Oregon's land use planning.
I don't think it will even be close. About 70% of the voters will see what short sighted greed will bring to this state and vote to kill 37.
Thanks for giving us a good solution, Russell.