Measure 37 Video: Fib or Fraud?

The Progressive Media Agency, Adam Klugman, and Dave Adams have produced this video illustrating the woefully inadequate qualifications needed to make Measure 37 claims and supporting Measure 49:


  • Oregon Reality (unverified)

    Nice video, full of emotionally powerful images of heavy machinery, wildlife in peril, and tricky developers.

    Too bad the video is full of lies. Clackamas County M37 rules require full documentation to prove property values and losses. If the Clackamas County Commissioners, the majority of them Democrats and anti-measure 37 folks, are stupid and incompetent enough to approve a M37 claim without following their own rules, who's the villain? Not the claimant, but the County Commission!

    Here's the relevant part of the Clackamas County regulations for M37 claims, Sect. 2: (e) An explanation of how the current land use regulation at issue restricts the use of the identified property and causes a reduction in the fair market value of the property. (f) The amount of the claim, based on the alleged reduction in value of the real property, supported by an appraisal meeting the following requirements: (i) Appraisals must comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and be performed by a licensed or certified appraiser in Oregon who meets the Competency Rule of USPAP. (ii) The appraisal must be a before and after appraisal that is complete and self contained, as those terms are defined by the USPAP. (iii) The appraisal shall not depart from the requirements of USPAP Standards Rule 1-3 and shall separately set forth the fair market value of the property with the challenged regulation(s) in place and the fair market value of the property without the challenged regulation(s) in place. (iv) If the appraisal is based on a use for the property other than its current use, the appraisal shall address the market feasibility of the use for which compensation is sought, taking into account all relevant factors including the potential impact on other similar properties, the availability of necessary public services, probability of obtaining necessary approvals from other governmental bodies and other constraints. (v) The appraisal shall explain how the effective date of the appraisal was determined. (vi) The appraisal section shall identify the net cost to the landowner of an affirmative obligation to protect, provide, or preserve wildlife habitat, natural areas, wetlands, ecosystems, scenery, openspace, historical, archaeological or cultural resources, or low income housing. (vii) To the extent practical, the opinion of the compensable reduction in fair market value shall be apportioned among each regulation in order that the County may separately consider the alleged impact on fair market value of each regulation. (viii) This requirement for an appraisal may be waived by the Administrator if there is other evidence demonstrating that there has been a reduction in the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein. Examples of other evidence include data on sales of comparable properties in the area or fair market values established by the County Department of Assessment and Taxation for comparable properties in the area. (g) Copies of any leases, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CCR’s) applicable to the real property or other documents, if any, that impose restrictions on the use of the property. (h) A complete list of all compensation claims, or development or permit applications previously filed with any regulatory body relating to the property, and any enforcement actions taken by any governmental body, regarding the use restriction identified in (d) above. (i) A statement of the relief sought by the owner, such as a monetary payment in a specific amount, removal of the applicable regulation, modification of the applicable regulation, or a decision to not apply the regulation to the subject property. If a modification is sought, a description of the desired modification must be included.

  • (Show?)

    This three-person panel included Commissioner Larry Sowa, who just got voted out. Yay for Lynn Peterson!

    That said, I'm glad someone videotaped someone blatantly lying at land use hearings and demonstrated how they were lying with video. People make up all sorts of things when testifying, and then they build, and the county or city is put in the impossible position: do they require a tear down or do they roll over?

    Yes on 49!

  • Brian (unverified)

    Beautiful. Terrific work. A marvelous documentation of the lies that Measure 37 claimants spout when their lust for a large subdivision overrides honesty and ethics.

    This is a work of land use art. I nominate it for a Measure 49 Academy Award.

  • anon (unverified)

    Congestion and condos are what we have as a result of our misguided land use policies. If we vote no on 49, are they going to tear down the Homer Williamsvilles that are destroying the character of Portland's grand neighborhoods?

    Do you people really want to be packed into soulless, density condo dwellings where you can't spit without hitting your neighbors house and you have to make love with a pillow in your mouth because of the paper thin walls? Just so you can jump in your flex car and drive down to Salem and admire all the open fields? Open fields that produce primarily grass seed, at the cost of huge amounts of fertilizers ending up in the Willamette and the air quality destroyed a couple months out of the year due to field burning?

    Is that really what you want for you and your children's future?

  • jim karlock (unverified)

    Please answer this:

    Would you rather have 300,000 more people in PORTLAND or have then somewhere else - that is the choice.

    Yes puts 300,000 more people in Portland's neighborhoods.

    No on 49 gives those 300,000 more poeple a choice of where to live.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    Jim, everyone has a choice of where to live regardless of what happens with Measure 49. Those people are moving to Oregon because it's a great place partially because we have land use laws.

    So yes, I'd rather have 300,000 more people live here than on Oregon's best farmland. We've got plenty of room.

  • LT (unverified)

    I have never understood comments like "Yes puts 300,000 more people in Portland's neighborhoods."

    But then, I grew up in a midwestern city where the houses were close together, and live in a Salem neighborhood where the houses are close together.

    I would rather have farmland growing produce they could sell locally (or vinyards, or grass seed or grain growers, etc.) than have developments on that farmland which make life difficult for farmers. Which is why I am yes on 49.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    If a dense Portland is so undesirable, maybe those 300,000 people won't come at all! But I bet they will, and it is in part because of that density that Portland is on everyone's top cities map across the country. The ability to grab local produce so easily is driving our restaurants (great NY Times article on this in the past month). Within 30 minutes, we're in agricultural or forestlands. On a river, or on a mountain (well, maybe not 30 minutes). Density increases the efficient usage of land in terms of housing, saves on transportation and other system costs, and adds a vibrancy and dynanism that is missing from sprawling mega-exurbs like Pheonix or Houston.

    And even then, it is a faulty proposition that Measure 49 will somehow deny development. It in fact authorizes development of a few houses, and grants more property rights (transferability) to owners.

  • (Show?)

    If you build it, they will come. If you don't build it, they will not come. There will not be 300,000 new people moving to Oregon if there is not enough housing to accomodate them. Sounds like JK is in Portland. I am writing this with a Washington/Multnomah/Clackamas County perspective and references, but the same might be true in other counties. What makes you think anybody wants to live 20 or 30 miles from nowhere? If they did move here, where would they work? Not in the forests or farms that no longer exist. In the Wal-Marts and Kaady Kar Wash out in former watershed areas? No, they would work in the established industries and businesses in Portland and Hillsboro and Gresham and so on. Heck, people already commute TO Hillsboro FROM Gresham to work. That will make the Hwy 26 commute even more cozy. Imagine 50,000 more cars with studded tires racing across townWhere will the kids go to school? Where will the fire and police stations be built. Where will the drinking water come from, and where will the sewage waste and garbage go? Are you going to approve the bonds and levys to build all the new infrastructure that will be needed to support thousands more residents? As a middle-aged worker, I don't like the idea of having to compete for work with thousands of young people who might seriously depress wages. If new immigrants to Oregon do move to urban areas like Portland (and again, there are not enough places to support 300,000 - where did that number come from anyway?) there is a fine public transit that would absorb some of the traffic. Not so in most other areas that might see increased new outskirts growth. Our growth policies have done well to keep Oregon relatively safe from Los Angeles and Seattle style sprawl. Lets not let greedy property owners and land developers destroy our unique, IRREPLACABLE farmlands, timber areas and watersheds.

  • great video (unverified)

    Great video Adam Klugmang. Shows a lot of talent! Hopefully the people who are tryng to destroy Oregon for heir own financial gain will not succeed.

  • Jill Thorn (unverified)

    Charlie has been trying since the early 1990's to get West Linn and/or Lake Oswego to expand their urban growth boundary to include his property.

    He has never been willing to work with people in the Stafford Triangle on land use issues.

    His development would cause serious issues with the lack of a water or sewer systems. He feels wells and septic tanks are okay.

    He has not been willing to look at the traffic issues that would be created to Rosemont Road because of his development. Rosemont Road currently has traffic issues that the county has no funds to fix.

    Because of his Measure 37 claim he has tried to say that West Linn and/or Lake Oswego are obligated to give him access to city services even though he is outside the urban growth boundary!

    Congratulations to Dave Adams and Adam Klugman for putting this great example out there as to why we should all vote Yes on Measure 49!

  • (Show?)

    Anyone know why the video's no longer available, or where it can be viewed?

    Jim K, that's an odd question. Our preference for where people live should not be the driving question in a debate that will determine whether or not some of our greatest resources survive into the next generation. The sediment from Lake Missoula makes Oregon some of the most agriculturally productive farmland around, and a vibrant ecology also supports the timber industry, widely varied recreation, high quality air and water. Not to mention scenic beauty and a huge diversity of flora and fauna.

    So, sure, dense is fine by me. I'd much rather see people moving in next door or across the street in east Portland, rowhouses replacing single family residences, etc., than see the whole state become a homogeneous residential sprawl.

    <h2>But that preference really isn't the point here.</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon