Timber Companies and Measure 49
The Register-Guard details the opposition of timber companies in Oregon to Measure 49, as well as the vast scope of claims filed by the companies to turn forests into subdivisions:
New TV ads depict elderly couples worrying that the value of their land could be destroyed by a measure on the Nov. 6 ballot that would scale back a 2004 property rights law that opened up new possibilities for development.The ads are bankrolled in large part by timber companies, some of whom have filed claims to turn forest land into housing subdivisions under the 2004 property law known as Measure 37, and stand to benefit if the current law is left as it is.
Campaign finance figures show that 18 timber-related companies have contributed $1.14 million, or 59 percent, to the $1.93 million campaign so far to defeat the Nov. 6 ballot measure, called Measure 49.
Of those timber companies, nine have claims under the 2004 law seeking the right to convert 113,000 acres of their land to subdivisions or $32.5 million in compensation if governments reject those claims.
These claims by timber companies would be blocked by Measure 49:
Oregonians voted by a margin of 61-39 percent for Measure 37 because it promised to loosen what were perceived by some as unfair restrictions in the state's land-use rules that hurt small landowners. Instead, it has brought disarray and confusion, resulting in more than 250 lawsuits seeking clarification of its provisions. As a result, there have been no clear guidelines for property development since Measure 37 was passed.Measure 49, the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, is intended to bring order to land-use rules. It would allow rural landowners to build a few homes - three in most cases and as many as 10 for some - but curb larger subdivisions and industrial development currently allowed under the 2004 law.
The timber industry, owners of vast acreage in Oregon, is among the most powerful of the ballot measure's opponents.
The largest single contributor to the anti-Measure 49 campaign so far is the Stimson Lumber Co., which has chipped in $375,000.
The Portland-based company has filed the largest development claims under the 2004 law's provisions - a total of at least 57,000 acres in six counties, which the Yes on 49 Committee says signals Stimson's intent to convert forests into subdivisions.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Oct. 20, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:21 p.m.
Oct 20, '07
Well, hopefully they have wasted their 375,000 dollars. I've been glad to finally see some really strong pro-49 ads in the last week or so, especially an increase in primetime. I know I voted yes for both measures.
Oct 20, '07
Rec'd ballot today voted yes on 49, 50 & 26-93, ballot already mailed.
Oct 20, '07
Lifetime liberal, but haven't followed state politics this session. Received my ballot today and logged on to see what blueoregon had to say. Was in a hurry and clicked on a link at the top of the site; It tool me to www.measure49.blogspot.com -- an anti-49 corporate phony-blog.
IOT, you are running ads for the timber companies? Why?
It's not hard to filter adsense target urls.
Best,
RHP
1:29 p.m.
Oct 20, '07
RHP, google runs the ads up top, unfortunately there must have been an anti-49 ad up there. There's a disclaimer up in the corner:
Ads by Google. BlueOregon doesn't control the content, and we know that sometimes the ads are really wrong. Sometimes, they're right on.
In any case, if you're still looking for some info on the two measures, here's a few good posts from the past few weeks:
Measure 49 - Helps Transferability Measure 49 - Maps of M37 Claims Measure 49 - Endorsed by Winemakers Measure 49 - No on 49 Ad Watch
Measure 50 - Kitzhaber Endorses M50 Measure 50 - Blumenauer Supports M50 Measure 50 - Tobacco Tax Analysis Measure 50 - Tobacco Companies Behind Opposition
Anyways, those are just a few posts, I hope they're helpful you decide to support both Measures.
Oct 20, '07
Here's a fun idea: click over to the anti-49 blogs and paste the reg-guard atricle into the discussion. Add as much as you like, they seem to have a great tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Just remember, if your gonna troll, be polite and accurate.
Oct 20, '07
Query: if all Measure 37 claims were approved, how much total land in Oregon would be affected? Note: by "approved", I refer to permitting landowners to use their property, rather than paying them for the loss of their private property rights.
5:29 p.m.
Oct 20, '07
Per 1000 Friends of Oregon...
Measure 37 has resulted in over 7700 claims potentially impacting almost 800,000 acres around the state.
Oct 20, '07
Oregonian37 Per 1000 Friends of Oregon... Measure 37 has resulted in over 7700 claims potentially impacting almost 800,000 acres around the state.
JK: Holy crap - that’s enough land to fit EVERY projected newcomer to Oregon in their own brand new neighborhoods, instead of overcrowding our existing neighborhoods with skinny houses, row house and condo towers. Not to mention putting all that traffic in their own neighborhoods.
Every home on new land is ONE LESS skinny house, row house or condo in our already overcrowded, existing neighborhoods.
It’s a win-win: our existing neighborhoods are saved from more density, congestion and pollution while the newcomers get real homes with a real back yard for the kids.
That is why I am voting NO on 49. Thanks JK
Oct 20, '07
[Repeated identical comment removed. - editor.]
Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator www.getenergized.com/vote.html
9:59 p.m.
Oct 20, '07
JK, Maybe you like the idea of tens of thousands of new folks moving into the state, I'm an immigrant (from Los Angeles no less) but do you think thay will all ride bkes or walk wherever? Thousands of additional cars, requiring roads (and commuting on already congested roads) creating lots more sewage, garbage and pollution, requiring lots more new schools, sewer systems, hospitals, police and fire departments, etc. Where are these folks gonna work? They will be competing for existing jobs, driving costs of goods UP while driving wages DOWN, reducing the per person tax base. And since they are not making any new dirt, less food and timber production in OR will raise those cost and reduce quality. But if your OK with that, well gee you will love living in New South Seattle, OR.
Oct 20, '07
Not so many years ago....less than 10 perhaps, I used to bike regularly out north of Cedar Mills, east of Rock Creek Community College on Kaiser Road. It wasn't timberland, but hundreds of acres of beautiful, rolling farmland with an occasional house and barn, a church and a school here and there, woodlands and wetlands too. I suspect this area presented a very accessible, close-in refuge from dense housing for many people visiting the area by other means in addition to bikes.
So, since I seem to be reviving my once spirited interest in cycling, I took a ride down Kaiser Road last week. It's only a couple miles from Cedar Mills. How did it compare to the experience of 10 years ago? It was barely recognizable. Rolling fields are replaced by acres and acres of asphalt and tile roofs topping houses accessed by garrison contemporary brick entryways leading to so called "estate" housing.
I suppose each one of those "estates" has its own real back yard for the kids that are lucky enough to live there. I suppose some people consider housing development like this to be examples of one the wonderful outcomes that full implementation of M37 would help to fulfill. Just think...more housing developments like this one distributed ever farther and wider throughout the state.
Well, I don't agree. I think housing developments like this are a mistake and a foreboding sign of what full implementation of M37 may be responsible for dramatically expanding upon in other places in Oregon. The potential damage represented by implementation of 37 should be significantly countered by M49. That's why I intend to vote for M49.
Oct 21, '07
Glen HD28: JK, Maybe you like the idea of tens of thousands of new folks moving into the state, I'm an immigrant (from Los Angeles no less) but do you think thay will all ride bkes or walk wherever? JK: I don’t like the idea of a million more people coming to Oregon, but if you believe the planners, we may be stuck with that future. The real question is where they live - squeezed into our existing neighborhoods or in entirely new neighborhoods? I vote to allow them to have new neighborhoods so they don’t over-run our existing neighborhoods. That is why I am against M49.
Glen HD28: Thousands of additional cars, requiring roads (and commuting on already congested roads) creating lots more sewage, garbage and pollution, requiring lots more new schools, sewer systems, hospitals, police and fire departments, etc. JK: That is why they need to be in new neighborhoods instead of overtaxing our existing roads, schools, infrastructure, cities and neighborhoods. Every home in a new neighborhood is one less skinny house, row house or condo in an existing neighborhood and one (two?) less cars on our local roads. Again vote NO on 49 to help these newcomers have their own neighborhoods instead of overcrowding our existing neighborhoods.
Glen HD28: And since they are not making any new dirt, less food JK: Most of our food is NOT grown in the Willamette valley.
Glen HD28: and timber production in OR will raise those cost and reduce quality. JK: Timber production was mostly stopped years ago.
Glen HD28: But if your OK with that, well gee you will love living in New South Seattle, OR. JK: Actually we are headed to become more like New York. (Metro actually wants us to model ourselves after the densest, most congested region in the county.)
The only way to stop becoming more like Seattle (then New York) is to allow more land for living space to keep our density from increasing. (You do realize that density is the a major cause of traffic congestion, high cost housing and pollution, don’t you? - see PortlandFacts.com)
Thanks JK
1:23 a.m.
Oct 21, '07
Jim Karlock,
When I listen to the morning traffic reports on congestion, it is all about people either coming from suburbs and exurbs into the city, or people moving around the circumferential highways from one 'burb to another.
Why won't what you advocate just make all that worse?
Also, I'd be curious about your perspective on a question that has occurred to me ever since M37 was being debated.
Quite frequently you point out that the urban growth boundary has the effect of raising property values within its ambit. Now, supposing someone bought property within the UGB based on a particular regulatory regime, with investment expectations based on that regime.
And then suppose the government goes and changes the regulations, say by eliminating the UGB as you advocate, I believe, and causes their property to lose value. Would that be "taking their property"? Why or why not? What's the difference between this kind of change of expectation and that complained of in the arguments for M37?
Similarly, suppose someone buys property with the expectation that the value of that property will be protected by certain regulations from private actions by neighbors that detract from the value of the land, or the purposes for which the land was purchased. And suppose the government changes the regulations such that those expectations prove wrong, and the value of the land goes down, or the purchaser is unable to use the land for the purposes intended at purchase. Is such regulatory change a taking? Why or why not? What's the difference ... (as asked before)?
Thanks.
Oct 21, '07
ws: Rolling fields are replaced by acres and acres of asphalt and tile roofs topping houses accessed by garrison contemporary brick entryways leading to so called "estate" housing. JK: That is the medium density crap you get with scarce land. If you allowed people to have the homes that they really want, on decent sized lots, those houses would be surrounded by trees and the asphalt would be a smaller percentage of the land.
ws: I suppose each one of those "estates" has its own real back yard for the kids that are lucky enough to live there. I suppose some people consider housing development like this to be examples of one the wonderful outcomes that full implementation of M37 would help to fulfill. Just think...more housing developments like this one distributed ever farther and wider throughout the state. JK: Would you rather have them in skinny houses, with a teeny-tiny-tacky back yard towering over the homes in our existing neighborhoods? With their cars clogging our, already congested roads? Or, perhaps, you would rather the city spend $100,000 each to subsidize new high rise millionaire condo in the North Macadam district?
ws: Well, I don't agree. I think housing developments like this are a mistake and a foreboding sign of what full implementation of M37 may be responsible for dramatically expanding upon in other places in Oregon. JK: The alternative is destroying our neighborhoods with more high density - you can already see it all over Portland: most main streets are starting to sprout giant condo buildings, towering over existing buildings, creating a canyon like effect. This will continue until Portland becomes a clone of New York unless we stop it. Or do you want our main streets to become lined with giant condos as far as the eye can see and grid locked 12 hours per day? M37 can save our neighborhoods from being destroyed by ever increasing density, M49 WILL stop that and destroy our neighborhoods.
ws: The potential damage represented by implementation of 37 should be significantly countered by M49. That's why I intend to vote for M49. JK: M37 will save our existing neighborhoods by allowing the creation of new neighborhoods for the projected one million new Oregonians. Why would you want all those people packed like rats into our existing neighborhoods? That is why I will vote NO on 49 to preserve our neighborhoods.
Do you really want Metro’s projected 300,000 new residents jammed into our existing neighborhoods?
Thanks JK
3:21 a.m.
Oct 21, '07
Do you really want Metro’s projected 300,000 new residents jammed into our existing neighborhoods?
Last I checked, a bunch of those folks were projected for the Happy Valley area? Or are you pretending to ignore the "new neighborhoods" that are under development now?
Oct 21, '07
JK:
It seems as if you would prefer Oregon to look more like southern California, where exurban developments bleed into exurban developments for hundreds of miles, with no open space or farm land.
Contrast that, if you will, not to the specter of New York that you repeatedly raise, but to many parts of Europe, where small, medium and large communities (villages, towns, cities) have territorial integrity (they don't bleed from one to another), historical integrity (they weren't dreamed up in some developer's board-room), and are surrounded by the resource lands (farms, forests, wetlands, etc.) that help create both a high quality of life for residents and an economic, environmental and agricultural base. (BTW, you can eat almost entirely from locally-grown agriculture if you shop at farmers' markets--kiss that goodbye if 49 fails.)
These communities, residents can easily get most of their needs met without using cars. This is where your complaints about density break down. If you create walkable, bike- and transit-oriented communities, the million new residents that Metro threatens us with (totally bogus, BTW--the development industry's scare-tactics and campaign contributions at work) WON'T HAVE TO DRIVE--at least not anywhere near as much as folks who live in SoCal.
To get between communities, yes, you CAN drive, but why bother, when it is faster, cheaper and cleaner to take the train.
THAT's the kind of vision progressive Oregonians have for our future, as opposed to the development industry's idea where you have to drive 2 1/2 hours each way from home to work, so that a middle-class family can afford a middle-class home. There IS another way.
Oct 21, '07
I believe it's possible to build better urban and suburban housing than has been built in the past. It will be made of increasingly taller structures. It will be accompanied by expansion of ways to get around that do not compel every resident to have a motor vehicle. Readily accessible greenspaces and increases in public space will replace postage stamp backyards. This concept can provide for Oregon's growth needs without paving over the very reason people want to live in this state.
If hundreds of thousands of people still do want to come live in Oregon, then why shouldn't they be more than happy to help build this kind of housing?
We, the people of this state, could have been growing a lot of food on the farmland that we have of late, senselessly allowed to be blanketed with single family houses.
Oct 21, '07
What is this "paving over" crap?
It is the medium and high density that paves over the whole landscape. Just look at the Pearl, downtown and Homer's towers in the North Macadam district.
Homes on 1/4 acre lots have little paving, llittle run off, room for growing a little food and solar panels. UNLIKE kigh sensity.
M49 will give us more paved over Pearl districts and less green homes on 1/4 acre lots.
Thanks JK
3:59 p.m.
Oct 21, '07
Never mind the acres of ground that have to be paved so that people can DRIVE to those houses on the 1/4 acre lots. Most of them won't even have sidewalks.
Oct 21, '07
4 homes to an acre...that's 250,000 acres to build 1,000,000 homes...I think that works out to 326 square miles to house however many people you can get to live in those houses. Let's say, 2-4 million people. So basically, an area 19 miles square of solid 1/4 acre lots scattered hither and yon about the state. People living on those lots just might expect at least some support services such as grocery stores, schools, gas stations, and places to work, so additional acreage better be figured in for those things.
And who's actually going to be living in those places, especially if they don't get many of the support services? A couple retirees to each house?
I don't actually like a number of the buildings in the Pearl or SoWa, but about those places, first of all, they were already paved over decades ago. They are part of the metro area located within the urban growth boundary. Secondly, they are to a certain extent, efficiently utilizing land situated in places where people need and want to live. Some effort is being made to create housing there that provides for the convenience and enjoyment of the people that want to come and live in Oregon.
Given the overall global population, the population growth rate, the numbers of that population that want to come live in places like Oregon, and the style in which modern civilization seems to want to continue living, providing for housing in a relatively more dense fashion seems like a far more manageable and practical idea than continuing to allow the market to almost exclusively determine how people are housed.
Vote yes for Measure 49 to help keep Oregon a beautiful place for everybody.
9:43 p.m.
Oct 21, '07
Was in a hurry and clicked on a link at the top of the site; It tool me to www.measure49.blogspot.com -- an anti-49 corporate phony-blog.
RHP, that's the problem with Google Ads. They're contextual, but they're often exactly backwards and wrong. We've often had blogs promoting pro-Bush t-shirts and Republican dating sites on posts that say negative things about Bush and Republicans.
Yes, it's easy to filter Adsense target URLs, that's true - but it'd be a never-ending task.
Rather, we invite you to click on those right-wing ads. Again and again and again. Every time you do, another nickel (or more) goes from a right-wing campaign to help fund BlueOregon. Fun!
Oct 24, '07
??? I just don't get it, personal property is personal property, what if I don't want you to look at my 500 acre mountiain property? I do not understand how you can sleep at night, thinking you have rights of something that is rightfully owned by another. I do not think people should be do anything illegal on thier property, but doing 1 acre sub-divisions on a 250 acre property should never be illegal. How is it wrong for a person to decide that he or she does not want to farm anymore? But they do not want to sell it for practically sell thier property for nothing.
Nobody has the right to violate another's freedom, I think everyone can agree with me on that. In reality, you are all hoping that there will be a law passed that will violate people's freedom to their land. If I own a farm, I am the only person with rights to that property, none of you have any right to my property, to the view, to the garbage or extra long grass in it (I am not saying I have a trashy house). It makes me sick when someones rights are violated.
Please reply to me at [email protected] and in post, thank you
Oct 29, '07
Kyle,
I'm going to pretend that you in fact received NO education whatsoever in civics or how democracy struggles to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of society, and take your questions at face value. Probably a mistake, but it's mine to make.
I do not understand how you can sleep at night, thinking you have rights of something that is rightfully owned by another. I do not think people should be do anything illegal on thier[sic] property, but doing 1 acre sub-divisions on a 250 acre property should never be illegal.
Let's see...so if you building your subdivision takes away all my ground water, what... tough shit? What if it creates a fire hazard, or makes it impossible for me to use my property the way I want? The saying goes, "No man is an island." What you do affects the people around you. Now, some people might want to make it illegal to drive a gas guzzler, because that contributes to climate change, while others might think that's going way too far. That's why we have a political process; to work out these differences of opinion and to balance self interest and public interest. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than anarchy, where anyone can do whatever the heck they want with their property? Oh, yeah.
Nobody has the right to violate another's freedom...I am the only person with rights to that property... It makes me sick when someones rights are violated.
Great! Then you should vote YES on 49! Why?
Because if a farmer is allowed to put 250 houses on his prime farmland (or a timber company on their forest land), then they are allowed to violate our freedom to live under the rule of law, and to have those laws applied equally to all.
Because the farmers or foresters around the proposed subdivision certainly must have an equal right to continue to farm, a right which is more than violated, in fact is vaporized if these proposed developments are allowed.
Because I will no longer be able to be free to do what I want to with my property if you do what you want with yours.
If you don't like how our land-use system balances the rights of property owners against other property owners or the public at large, that's fine. M49 is not the last word on our land use system. Contact your representatives; testify; contribute; volunteer; vote. But M49 actually gives property owners more privileges (I don't think they are "rights") than they had with or without M37, so if it is freedom you want, vote YES.
Oct 29, '07
Property rights are absolute! Property rights are absolute! Property rights are absolute! Property rights are absolute! Property rights are absolute! Property rights are absolute! Property rights are absolute!
<h2>What's wrong with you liberals, progressives, and communists that you can't understand this?</h2>