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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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

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

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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%

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.

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!

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

1. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?"

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

Hey, Sal Peralta, got a credable source for that claim?

Thanks JK

Becky, It sounds to me like you and most dems are calling 61% of Oregon voters stupid, so people work, does that mean they can’t read and understand a voters pamphlet? “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.” This quote of yours clearly states how democrats view Oregonians, there are 36 counties in Oregon 35 out of the 36 were in favor of M37. Why are you and all the dems down at the capital making hard working Oregonians seem stupid? You say “Most voters are basically workaday modest wage earners” Most to me would imply a majority of the voters who vote, your comments and the Governor of this state think these people are stupid and didn’t understand what they were voting for. I can assure you that I work with these “modest wage earners” that you refer too and I bring this stuff into work and let them see what you are all them dems think about them. I know of a bunch of Democrats that have filed M37 claims, they want what is there’s I don’t see them down at the capital wanting this fixed. I don’t care if you are democrat or Rep. you get in the way of someone’s retirement or financial issues and all bets are off when it comes to party lines, people will vote for there financial well being. Becky, if people were wrong about voting for M37, then I feel the same way about how people voted for Ted K, people were miss led by his so called promises, it goes both ways darling.

Per my post you can easily look the info up via the census bureau website. Look up the most recent 2006 stats.

Have you even been to Houston? If you have this data should have come as no suprise.

I'd still like to know what you find so appealing about the place since in my experience Dallas residents find Houston to be a pit, and I've never seen anything more depressing than Dallas.

Fess up JK, what's your motivation, or are you just trying to sell us crazy?

FYI Baddems: If your argument begs the question of intellect, you might want consider using spell check and/or grammer tools before posting. (I'm just saying).

I make no claims to lack of stupidity, but even with a BA in Poli Sci the wording of m37 would have missled me into voting for it.

Good greif Carla, who's head is buried?

You think the M37 proponents out spent the opposition. Not even close. I think the opposition spent 3 times what the supporters spent. And if one figured the in-kind value of the League of Oregon Cities, Assoc. of Oregon Counties, all of the various municipalities, councils, mayors, on and on and the massive press/editorial helping the opposition it would be 10 or 20 times the amount.

Do you have no memory of the campaign? What happened? Has the opposition and press successfully erased all of your memeory?

You cite "individuals and corporations dumped some serious cash"? as "borne out with a number of newspaper pieces from papers around the state".???

Yeah the same papers trashing M37 the whole way. Big surprise there. And what do they do? Pullout a dozen or two of the couple hundred contributors and try and taint their motives. Sort of like trying to trash some legislators because they have M37 claims? If you can't see the slime in this approach by the oppostion your head is more buried.

The unending biased O reporting by Laura Oppenheimer has been something to watch. Always scrutinizing for new twists and angles to diminish the M37 support. Her and the O's disdain for the measure could not be more obvious. But that's the way these people operate.

"A few of these entities are now getting their M37 claims heard" Oooooh, how awful. Is that supposed to mean something?

Your head is in the sand with "There isn't much of a campaign to repeal M37 outright" also as there is a full court press to either repeal it of render it inert and essentially repealed. Those not calling for an outright repeal are simply attempting to accomplish the same without coming clean and open about it.

I've addressed the co called "good reasons--which have been cited ad nauseum by folks" and they amount to no more than the bizzare pandamonium and inaccuracies we've heard since day one.

Yes the public did understand what they were buying with M37. The subsequent poisening of the populuous with the endless misinformation has led to the polling you cite. All this clammor about ending farming, those published maps inaccruately depicting all these parcels lost forever, Oppenheimer and company writing relentlessly to repeat every cooked up anti-M37 notion and the numerous asinine editorials stuffed with the most ridiculous takes possible has allbeen a one sided massive campaign. One the opposition enjoys because there is no election and M37 supporters can;t kkep their campaign running full time. It's quite sickening really. The "mess" is a product of the dishonest opposition who cook up propaganda such as "many property owners have already been compensated with tax waivers and abatements over the years". Can't get any more lacking in integrity than that piece of work demonstrates.
Or the Oregonian claiming it is M37 supporters who "exagerate". Go through it all with the talk of all zoning being ocerruled by M37, ground water being threatened, environmental protections lost, hog farm, gravel pit, loss of our coastline, end of wine country, loss of our farming industry on and on and on and it's rampant dishonesty, repeated every day by every newspaper and Democrat legislators hell bent on over turning the public vote. Of course they don't want an up or down re-vote. That would mean another real campaign battle. They prefer the current one sided campaign and back room plotting to get rid of the measure. And there isn't a single falsehood they won't use.

Carla, One BIG lesson for you to ponder is that those who dump on M37 the most are the identical people who insist SoWa, the Tram, PDC and all the Urban Renewal schemes are wise public investments. The same people who hand over sweeping zone changes and millions of dollars to favored developers. The same people who rob basic services of countles millions, who come up with negative property values, insist on the Burnside Couplet, push forward a convention center hotel, giving away buildings and land to their friends, selling off part of Mt Tabor. This is the "Goldschmidt" status quo the insiders really want protected.
And while you and yours are busy with the phony M37 clamity they're picking your pocket and mine to line their pockets and doll up their legacies.

"Yes the public did understand what they were buying with M37." Becky

No they didn't. Nobody... nobody can fully anticipate the ramifications of implementing M37 until it actually is allowed to begin moving forward. By the time a bunch of mini-mansion developments and who knows whatnot are allowed to crop up every which where across the state, it's a little too late to undo.

Most of the public, in supporting M37, were voting in support of the little guy they felt had a right to get a fair deal from property owned, but not in exchange for wholesale disregard for the signature character of this state whose natural beauty must be protected for generations of Oregonians to come.

It is sickening when slick talking mouthpieces favoring self indulgent advantages of M37 repeatedly dismiss cause for concerns over potential long term or irreversible damage that guerilla initiatives like M37 have the potential to bring about.

Stop selling crazy Becky.

"Status-quo insiders", "favored developers"? Perhaps the Register-Guard article entitle, "Measure 37 pays off for big donors" doesn't apply to your argument?

Let's just look at JUST the lane-county major contributors and what they have to gain, k?

LANE COUNTY TOP MEASURE 37 CONTRIBUTIONS AND CLAIMS Gregory Demers: $225,000 contribution; $7.4 million claim Aaron Jones, owner of Seneca Jones Timber Co.: $157,000 after loan repayment; $6.75 million in claims Rosboro Lumber: $35,000 contribution; claim not specified Murphy Plywood: $25,000 contribution; $900,000 claim Wildish Company: $10,000 contribution; $15.4 million claim Davidson Industries: $5,000 contribution; $58.6 million claim

I've politely asked you before to provide us some facts to back up your hyperbole, but you've ignored my requests. That leaves me to one conclusion, you're little more than a propagandist. You're slinging your slogans around hoping they'll stick, but not offering anything to propagate a discussion.

Propagandists got us into this mess in the first place. It was too easy to ignore propagandists because they're tedious as a broken record, but it's also dangerous (see 1933 Reichstag election).

So, I'm calling you out once again. Show us the money. Who are these millions robbed of basic services? What negative property values are you referring?

You "think the opposition spent 3 times what the supporters spent". I think cotton candy is yummy. Per the Register-Guard article above I know the m37 campaign spent 1.3 million. You see the difference? Put the ingredients on your bottle of snake oil if you want to sell it here.

Yah, you can fool some of the people all of the time, easy. Sure, you can even fool all of the people some of time. Yet, even Hitler, the greatest propagandist of all time, put a bullet in his head when he discovered that you can't fool all the people all the time.

I don't care too much if 37 is improved or repealed, but I'd like to know about the practical political reality. If Sadler's idea is taken up, will the electorate go along? Is there any good polling data? I think a lot of folks, perhaps some of whom would be foolishly voting against their own interests, would not vote for repeal, and Sadler's whole strategy would go nowhere.

gobytrain Per my post you can easily look the info up via the census bureau website. Look up the most recent 2006 stats. JK: Why are you refusing to give a link? What are you hiding? Give a page where we can verify your numbers, like I did.

Thanks JK

I'm talking about the US Census Bureau: (http://www.census.gov/)

Since I'm not aware of any other census bureau, I assumed everyone would know what I was referring too.

You'll want to click on the Fact Finder section: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

Then you'll want to type in Houston and/or Portland. Like I said, most of the info I posted you'll find under 2006. However, you can find the commute times there too, but to see rankings you'll have to look at 2003 (I'm not sure if I couldn't find the ranking in 2006 or if it just hasn't been done yet, I think it's the later). By the way, a ranking of 19 means the commute is worse than a ranking of 38, not the other way around.

Since I obviously shouldn't assume anything, I'm still wondering if have ever been to Houston, I don't want to take your non-response as a concession.

gobytrain, You goofball. Are you for real. The propagandists are the government agencies, their activists, and their press. Every newspaper including the Register Guard who tries to tarnish M37 donors. That list of M37 donors is chicken feed compared to the windfalls handed out by the schemers at the PDC here in Portland alone. Or the boondoggle express in the planners world. Metro doles out millions evey year to their pals.

So what if a M37 claim is valued at $7 million. Enough with your drama. All you have is propaganda. Those claims mean nothing. Even with complete and total implementation and development to their limits they amount to some sparse rural development. Big deal.

What are you doing demanding anything from me? As usual I get hardly any response to my main point or the substance of my comments while you all divert into your usual routine.

You have to be exceedingly naive to think "Measure 37 donors" are the developers getting paid off around here.

Where have you been? Do yo have no awareness of no bid government contracts or Urban Renewal schemes run amok?

You are either lacking in knowledge on the real planning or are simply using the typical tool of tarnish the messenger. What slogans am I slinging? You could have discussed any number of items I mentioned above. Yet you play like I mentioned none.

The mess we are in is not a product of M37. M37 has not produced anything but paper work so far. Your concocted predictions of calamity are both laughable and insulting.

Yes, propagandists are dangerous that's why I mention the blitz underway by the M37 opposition. What do you think the newspapers have been doing? Informing no doubt.

Show you the money? Where have you been gobytrain? And are you an Amtrak employee or something.

The millions are $65 million per year in property taxes siphoned away from basic services general funds in Portland alone. Urban Renewal in the CoP now takes up 12,000 acres and all of the property taxes, $65 million, from $4 billion in assessed value is diverted from schools, police, fire, parks, libraries and other basic services. The same goes for city after city where millions more are diverted to boondoggles and bureaucrat play time developments and their pal developers.

The PDC allowed Trammel Crow to participate in appraising a parcel they were about to buy. That appraisal came back with a negative $2 million value.

Again, where have you been.

The campaign against property rights will again be financed by The Oregonian and the state AFL-CIO. It will return Oregon to the atmosphere of 2004, when Newhouse's millions against Measure 37 inspired passionate debate about how to restore property rights that were dismantled by 1970's draconian land-use planning scheme.

Measure 37, which passed with a 61 percent yes vote, restored Oregonians' right to use their property however they could have when they bought it. The 7,500 claims filed under the measure so far would expand a property tax base that has been starved for 37 years by an effective ban on rural residential housing growth.

Now Newhouse promises $30 million against M37

Gobytrain you have been repeatedly fooled by your newspapers and friends who have taken propagandizing to new levels. Yes, even Hitler, would be jealous.

ws, You're bonkers. The "bunch of mini-mansion developments" are already here. A product of planning. They circle many UGBs where no for years has been able to afford any land but the wealthy. In the Metro region it's stunning to drive and see the vast wealth just outside our UGBs. Go try and find a parcel for sale for your little dream. Good luck. Metro has created a mess where only the wealthy can live with any space and stay nearby the urban centers. That's just one of the many stories your newspapers don't tell. They're too busy propagandizing M37 and stuffing the pages with "outlook" planner's propaganda. And you soak it all up don't you.
You must have really enjoyed those county maps the paper published along with their "explaining" propaganda. What a snow job fraud that all is. That phony deceitful display of claims as if they wipe from the face of the earth ever parcel in their entirety. That is so absolutely misrepresenting. It was the purest of propaganda, in full color.

In stark contrast M37 supporters have not a campaign insight. Is there any wonder polls show rising displeasure with M37? You and yours have been attacking the measure with every tool and everything you can cook up.
With no counter campaign at all.
The millions spent to destroy M37 is irreffutable. Now go bone up on your time.

What's wrong with you. I said "rising displeasure". Not "the will of the people".

The will of the people is still defined by the law and the election.

But I tell you what. Have all the press turned over to OIA and let them conduct a year long unopposed public campaign trashing our land use system and we'll see how the polls look then.

If you are so keen to the will of the people why don't you get together with your friends and go start your own inititvie drive to overturn M37? That way we'll have regular democratic election with competing campaigns. Something which you appear to dislike.

Nothing or no one is more "angry, "wholly arrogant", "selfish" and "prozac" dependent than land use planning fanatics and M37 bashers. You phony spin about not wanting to overturn M37 is completely transparent. Knowing you can't overturn it you want to use a charade to neutralize it.

There is nothing reasonable or honest about 1000 Friends, who BTW supported SoWa and every other planner's sheme.

I don't care what rehtoric they cook up claiming it's "accomodating of both principles" or a "workable plan that essentially grants 37's premise".

Your asinine twist suggesting I don't understand "sprawl" is comical. You truly are incappable of getting any point. You think I don't get that our planning regime and UGBs prevent expanding growth, "sprawl" and I have to have you give me some elementry lecture? Yes I know what "sprawl". Right now you are raising it as a diversion from the lies and germane items I mentioned above. That's what you folks do. Divert.

A useful start would be for you respond to Metro Executive Burton's quote about the "transporation chaos" we face. Or the bald faced lie about property owners already being compensated with tax waivers and abatement, or the colored maps depicting loss of every entire parcel, or how SoWa schemes and abuse of Urban Renewal are detrimental, or the hog farm, smelter, gravel pit propaganda. Or the "farming industry lost" BS.

The growth we have been witnessing has not been well coordinated, or well thought out, or well planned, or even crafted to actually provide for the needs of growth. Your dreamy fantasies that it has must come from the air you breath in your CoP office.

Not buying crazy, Becky (Saint John).

You don't bother to provide a single source (credible or otherwise), dismiss my references with a nothing more substantial than a "so what" and a "big deal", then you want me to do your research in order to substantiate your points!("go bone up on your own time")

Yet, I appreciate how much you've exposed of yourself with your postings. While rambling and hard to follow they are still almost embarrassingly transparent.

The single point you've managed to convey is that you're feeling hurt, disenfranchised and angry at those "wealthy insiders".

Feelings are not facts, but they are in some ways of even greater value. While you may want to hole-up alone with your sorrow, I can relate to your feelings. The problem you're having is trying to grasp the true cause.

Somone must represent the cause of your pain, the press and "their activists", the government, an "Amtrack employee", insiders, Laura Oppenheimer, "planners", PDC, the Oregonian, the Register, Newhouse, AFL-CIO, "they" are all against you.

I feel the same way. I despise political insiders, greedy developers, people that own McMansions in the middle of BFE, my tax dollars being diverted to pointless efforts like war, the Oregonian and slick talking politicians.(I do like Amtrack employees though)

The reason why you can't analytically justify your position on m37 is because your argument is about how it makes you feel, like the little guy might get some, not about the reality of the consequences of the measure.

I'm not sure how exactly you feel you'll benefit by m37, or what kind of retribution it offers you, but I actually feel a tad sorry for you since you'll never get the satisfaction out of it you're hoping for.

Gobytrain: Your premise that M37 advocates outspent the opposition by a wide margin is not factual even according to oregonfollowthemoney.org wedsite prepared by Money in Politics, a nonprofit organization predominately funded by demos. Laura Oppenheimer of the Oregonian even referred to the website in her "Profit, ideology mix for some M37 donors" article on 4/23/07, but spun the info in the opposite direction, against M37, as her editorial board requested.

The total campaign donations was $2.42M against M37 versus $.897M for it. This is almost a three times difference.

The top ten donors totaled $1.532M against, versus $.48M for it. This is a five times difference.

The top donor against M37 was Eric and Dorothy Lemelson at $504,000T, versus $113,000T from Seneca Jones Timber Co. About a five times difference.

In about any catogory that one can conceive to dissect M37 spending, the "No on M37" excels. One has to wonder how the spin/hype keeps coming out from media and bloggers that the high percentage of property owners who want to build 5 homes or less on their acreage are "sinister, moneygrabbing, capitalist fools". They, just like 1000 Friends, Oregonian, the Lemelsons, are looking out for their self-interest no more than the other side.

Jerry, did you mean to assign the sentence, "Your premise that M37 advocates outspent the opposition by a wide margin" to me?

I did quote from the Register-Guard article entitled, "Measure 37 pays off for big donors", is that what you're refering? I listed the Lane County top pro m37 contributors and pointed out that the article stated the pro campaign spent 1.3 million, but I didn't say that was more or less than the anti-campaign since I don't know. Evidently, you don't either.

gobytrain,

Nice flip. It is the M37 oppostion who is "feelings" based. That's why all the horrible predictions are nothing but speculation and hypothetical fabrications. Along with a long string of lies.

I brought up so many points you ignored you must be a planner yourself. Or just plain brainwashed.

I could re-post every point I made and you would come back with the same typical play, pretending as if nothing was ever said. I've seen your tactic many times. In this thread I answered specifically your lame rant about "show me the money" and everything else in that post. You now have nothing to say about it? Perhaps you simply don't know the subject matter well enough. Maybe you are a PSU student trying to figure it all out and think you have it. Go back and re-read my posts a hundred times. Not buying

All yo have done so far is divert.

I sourced "chaos" by quoting the former head of Metro. Your reference to the register guard story listing M37 donors is meaningless. What kind the heck do you see in it? I gave you speicific numbers from CoP Urban Renewal and you what? Don't understand?

You may have a hard time following some of this discussion but there are many here who don't at all.
For instance they know exactly what the planners tool Urban Renewal does to basic services funding. You apparently don't know what TIF is. So bone up sonny.

I'm not "feeling hurt", or "pain", "disenfrachised" or angry at those "wealthy insiders".

That was pretty funny though.

You are right that feelings are not facts. That's why I have pounded M37 opponents for distributing their "feelings" that M37 abolishes all zonning and environmental protections and other claims. They may "feel" it does having been duped by 1000 Friends or are simply lying themselves but the FACT is many zoning, permitting and environmental regulations remian fully intact with M37 claims approved.

"They" are all on board the deceit train campaigning with the falsehoods I listed above. They have and are outspending the M37 supporters and have no problem twisting the law as demonstrated by the James rulings. Thye do so not "against me" but against the 61% of voters who passed M37 and property owners across the State.

You're funny though.

You "despise political insiders & greedy developers"? You must have been screaming about SoWa then? Of course most of that scheme central is caused by the politicians and government appointees in the city.

I don't know why you despise those that own McMansions. I think have issues.

There's no 'c' in Amtrak and the employees are fine. The train system and management? Not so much.

My positionon M37 doesn't need for me to analytically refute the many bogus claims by the oppostion. What good would it do if I cite every single protective regulation that M37 does NOT remove? Not a single M37 opponent would even acknowledge one of them as they moved on to the next lie. A very easy one is the thorough requirements to control erosion during construction and to permanently control runnoff. M37 opponents have repeatedly suggested neighbors of M37 development may have their land spoiled by runnoff from M37 development. That simply is not possible. Every single devlopment, M37 or not, has to have runoff control or it doesn't get permitted or built. Now do you think that means anything at all to the fabricators of anti-M37 propaganda? No it doesn't. You may not even understand any of that while stillstuck on "feelings".

The reality of the consequences of the measure is NOT how you feel it is. I'm pretty sure now that you are more a duped victim than one of the more practiced anti-M37 charlatans.
I don't care if I ever benefit or not from any M37 claim. I do know the land use and transportation planning we have is a fraud. It has been exceesive punitive and has brought about many long term problems. Many of which I listed above and you had no comment.

You really shouldn't feel sorry for me though. I'm quite well. In nearly every way possible.

But good luck to you. Your day will come.

GoByTrain; yes I did assign the sentence to you since in your 4/30/07/1:14PM post you stated "the budget behind the m37 campaign DWARFED the opposition..". You also in several following posts inferred the same. You wanted "some facts".

I believe the dwarfing is by the M37 opposition-by about three times-opposite of your unconfirmed notion.

"Joe", click onto Oct 27, 2004 post "Timber Industry are Major Players in Three Ballot Measures" and see Chart 1 and others. Maybe Money in Politics didn't have all the numbers at the time, but the spending breakdown I posted above seems accurate based on the charts.

My understanding was that the pro m37 funding was larger than the anti m37 funding.

I tried to find the report your referring to, but couldn't find it on their website. I'd appreciate your providing a link. I'll be happy to review, especially since they sound dubious.

However, if anyone can point out where I can find some legitimate contribution and expenditure reports on both sides of the campaign, I'd really like to put this to sleep since I don't see it really accelerating either sides position.

I did find this reference to the report on 1000 friends stating that, "more than half (56 percent) of the funding for the Measure 37 campaign came from only 4 percent of the campaign's donors, and that those donors are now lining up to cash in. One example is Stimson Lumber Company, which gave $30,000 to the campaign and has filed at least $269 million in Measure 37 claims."

This seems to be contradictory to your numbers from the same report, so I would like to read it for myself.

According to a report I just came across, also from Money in Politics, from April, 19 2007 entitled "Donors Who Gave More than Half the Money to the Measure 37 Campaign File Over $600 Million in Claims, Could Earn Windfall on Campaign Investment" states that Seneca gave $321,000.

That's a lot more, Jerry, than $113,000. Perhaps you want to revisit?

I've found the Money in Politics report "Timber Industry are Major Players in Three Ballot Measures" you're referencing Jerry. For starters, they really have a crappy website so I'm impressed you found anything on there.

The numbers appear for only two opposing constituencies, the hilariously oxymoronic "Family Farm Preservation" (pro m37) and the "A Closer Look Committee" (against). While they appear to be umbrella committees, I'm pretty sure that these were not the only two campaigners required to submit contribution notices, but these are the only ones cited. For example OIA is not mentioned.

One item on this report that I did find amusing (if too good to be true?), is the category "Miscellaneous Contributions of $50 or less". According to this Calgary, FFP received LESS than .1% (yes, that's .1% not 1%) of its funds in contributions of $50 or less. While CLC received 63.3% of it's funds in less than $50 contributions. Wow, when those Timber interests, uh, I mean "Farmers" contribute, they don't mess around. I'd love to know if these numbers still hold true.

"The "bunch of mini-mansion developments" are already here." Becky from St Johns

Oh, but they aren't quite the same thing as would occur from M37, nor are they derived from the same law, and that's the point. It is the consequences of open-ended negation of established, sound land use principles that M37 would represent that many Oregonians are concerned about; mini-mansion developments and whatnot cropping up wherever.

Becky doesn't seem to be concerned about this at all. Such a state of mind in regard to momentuous consequences imminently poised, as a result of bad lawmaking, to adversely affect a persons own home state, in this case, Oregon, more or less renders them incapable of helping to do anything constructive to sustain the health of Oregon.

GoByTrain; if you find Money in Politic's website and numbers "crappy" I hope you don't tell the Oregonian that- they based a long anti M37 article on it.

I hope you don't regard Money in Politic's research as crappy and the numbers not fitting your conjectures. Some of the major contributors to the anti-M37 lobby are also major contributors to Money in Politics-a non-profit, "impartial" research group.

This question of funding level for the opposition shows what a horrible job the press does. Their bias is so bad they can't even get the basics in their stories.

Further demonstrating bad press is torridjoe's mistaken belief that "Urban Renewal ALSO increases property tax revenue". But he is a City of Portland employee so perhaps he delights in misleading the public as have the agencies and newspapers repeatedly. The grotesque distortion and misrepresentation of Urban Renewal, Tax Increment Financing, in the CoP has been tremendous. With massive debt and $4 BILLION in assessed value having ALL of it taxes diverted from basic services to pay off the debt, over many decades, the notion of "increased property tax revenue" is just slightly short of fraud. What's with you torrid? Not only is the debt massive and drained dollars a huge long term hit on basic services but much of the reckless and irresponsible spending went to subsidize city hall's favorite developers who are the fat cat contributors commissioner's campaigns. Throw in no bid contracts and UR plans which prohibit, for years, other non subsidized private development and the resulting general fund property tax revenue losses are enormous. The break even point is so far out we'll all be dead. SoWa could have been developed years ago and paying taxes this whole time. The city under Vera stopped it to advance the heavily subsidized scheme which brought us the Tram and the now completely upside down plan which is 100s of millions over budget and unfunded. Yet to hear the sloppy books PDC tell it all is going as planned.

But this comment by Joe about "increased revenue" is what we get from a system that has public agencies run amok and a press that enables it. And while all of you are in a hysteria over M37 the big players who get the windfalls and sweeping zoning changes handed to them without any need for M37 are laughing at you.

But if you don't care and don't want to know, just stay the course, mission accomplished.

Actually Lee, I said their website is crappy, not their numbers. There numbers may very well be accurate and I hope they are.

It was Jerry, a supporter of m37, who initially used the report in hopes to sustain an argument of his own. However, as I stated in my last post, they do not appear to do so.

Boy ws, you sure have bought the story telling.

What are you talking about, "they aren't quite the same thing thing as would occur from M37"? Yeah you are right. There is no where near the number that can be derived from M37. It's not even similar. The dysfunctional status quo rigged the whole game so only the wealthy could afford the larger parcel land ringing the UGBs. Why do you give an open ended pass on this reality? And you call that "sound land use principals"?

M37 is not the "open-ended negation of established, sound land use principles". And M37 effects a minute amount of Oregon land. You are simply misguided and have fallen prey to the misinformation. The mini-mansions are already all over the place. The greatest numbers M37 could ever produce is minuscule by comparison and represents essentially harmless impacts.

"cropping up everywhere"? What kind of measurement is that of quantity and quality? Many Oregonians are concerned about many of the exaggerations and fabrications they hear regarding M37. There are no "momentous consequences imminently poised" from M37. And none have been demonstrated. NONE. I've lived here my whole life 57 years, and you do not care more about our State and our State's salvation is not in the hands of central planning or 1000 Friends.

You all should read the very germane, factual and specific piece written by State Sen. Larry George. I'll try to find a link.
You can trash the Senator as a Republican and former Pres. of OIA and disregard out of hand anything he writes but read it and know the examples he gives are real and the M37 impact on Oregon is easy to realize as nothing meriting the worry which anti-M37 falsehoods have spawned.

According the the 4/28/07 article in the Statesman Journal , "Voters might get opportunity to retool Measure 37" "Measure 37 claims against state and local governments already have reached more than $10 billion"

Does that sound like "M37 effects a minute (sic) amount of Oregon land" as you claim, Becky? Or perhaps the Statesman is also apart of the conspiracy?

GoByTrain: In different tables of Money in Politics website there are different measuring sticks. You are right that the highest contribution per tables for pro M37 is Seneca's $321,000T, and not Jones $113,000T. Money in Politics features the Jones contribution as having the highest percentage of contribution per M37 dollar claims made. But what is still true is that Seneca's $331T is less than the anti-M37 Lemelson's contribution of $504T-close to a 60% difference. The other comparisons I made are true-all contrary to the media and blogger hype.

I agree, what does spending analysis have to do with the M37 debate? It has some significance just on the basis that it is another example of the misinformation, hype that is dispensed by the anti-M37 machine.

A side note, why has the Oregon Education Association been a major contributor to the anti-M37 forces as noted in the Money in Politic's tables? Is it an educational endeavor to oppose M37?

This seems like a good time to review some facts about M37:

• Opponents outspent proponents by ratio of 2.87:1 and lost.
• Opponents spent $2.7 million
• Proponents spent $942,244
• Election result: M37 passed, 61 percent to 39 percent.
• The biggest individual contributor was a “Dayton winemaker Eric Lemelson, who kicked in $550,500 to defeat Measure 37." (Source for all of the above: December 4, 2004, Register-Guard, The (Eugene, OR)
• Presumably Lemelson wanted to use the force of law to protect his private little preserve from the city riff-raff and other unwanted new neighbors.
• The biggest single class of opponents were OUT OF STATE corporations, allegedly concerned about the environment, but probably really trying to preserve “their Oregon experiment” with Oregonians as the lab rats.

Here is a list of them totaling over $500,000: Name City Date Amount C&E rept., page, line Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Washington DC 09/13/04 $7,500.00 1st pre, 8, 2 Club Sierra San Francisco CA 07/22/04 $10,000.00 1st pre, 107, 1 Club Sierra San Francisco CA 10/08/04 $10,000.00 2nd pre, 77, 4 Henry Hill & Company Napa CA 10/08/04 $1,000.00 2nd pre, 36, 4 League of Conservation Voters Washington DC 08/20/04 $75,000.00 1st pre, 64,4 League of Conservation Voters Washington DC 10/12/04 $200,000.00 2nd pre, 48,4 Messinger Alida R. New York NY 05/10/04 $20,000.00 1st pre, 79,4 National Trust for Historic Pres San Francisco CA 09/22/04 $4,000.00 2nd pre,59,5 Rockefeller Laurance New York NY 10/08/04 $10,000.00 2nd pre, 73,4 The Partnership Project, Inc. Washington DC 10/05/04 $90,000.00 2nd pre, 82,4 Trust Dorothy Lemelson Incline Village NV 09/02/04 $75,000.00 1st pre, 32,1 Trust Dorothy Lemelson Incline Village NV 09/27/04 $10,000.00 2nd pre,21,1 Wildlife Defenders of Washington DC 09/01/04 $12,000.00 1st pre, 28,1 Wildlife Defenders of Washington DC 10/07/04 $23,000.00 2nd pre, 19, 3 -------------
Total Big Money Out OF State Contributions $547,500

(Where was the outcry from the liberals about out ½ million of out of state money?)

Thanks JK

gobytrain. While CLC received 63.3% of it's funds in less than $50 contributions. Wow, when those Timber interests, uh, I mean "Farmers" contribute, they don't mess around. I'd love to know if these numbers still hold true. JK: Here are just the BIG $$$ OUT OF STATE MONEY, all over $1000, that make up around 20% of the anti side (an amount equal to around 50% of ALL monies on the pro side):

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Washington DC 09/13/04 $7,500.00 1st pre, 8, 2 Club Sierra San Francisco CA 07/22/04 $10,000.00 1st pre, 107, 1 Club Sierra San Francisco CA 10/08/04 $10,000.00 2nd pre, 77, 4 Henry Hill & Company Napa CA 10/08/04 $1,000.00 2nd pre, 36, 4 League of Conservation Voters Washington DC 08/20/04 $75,000.00 1st pre, 64,4 League of Conservation Voters Washington DC 10/12/04 $200,000.00 2nd pre, 48,4 Messinger Alida R. New York NY 05/10/04 $20,000.00 1st pre, 79,4 National Trust for Historic Pres San Francisco CA 09/22/04 $4,000.00 2nd pre,59,5 Rockefeller Laurance New York NY 10/08/04 $10,000.00 2nd pre, 73,4 The Partnership Project, Inc. Washington DC 10/05/04 $90,000.00 2nd pre, 82,4 Trust Dorothy Lemelson Incline Village NV 09/02/04 $75,000.00 1st pre, 32,1 Trust Dorothy Lemelson Incline Village NV 09/27/04 $10,000.00 2nd pre,21,1 Wildlife Defenders of Washington DC 09/01/04 $12,000.00 1st pre, 28,1 Wildlife Defenders of Washington DC 10/07/04 $23,000.00 2nd pre, 19, 3

Please indicate your outrage about all of this out of state money.

Thanks JK

gobytrain My understanding was that the pro m37 funding was larger than the anti m37 funding. JK: Yes, by a ratio of 2.87:1 and lost. Opponents spent $2.7 million, proponents spent $942,244. M37 passed, 61 percent to 39 percent. The biggest individual contributor was a “Dayton winemaker Eric Lemelson, who kicked in $550,500 to defeat Measure 37. (per December 4, 2004, Register-Guard) (probably to keep city riff-raff away from his private preserve by using the police powers of government.)

gobytrain However, if anyone can point out where I can find some legitimate contribution and expenditure reports on both sides of the campaign, I'd really like to put this to sleep since I don't see it really accelerating either sides position. JK: Oregon Secretary of State. There you will find a list of the big donors on both sides.

gobytrain I did find this reference to the report on 1000 friends stating that, "more than half (56 percent) of the funding for the Measure 37 campaign came from only 4 percent of the campaign's donors, JK: Did they mention the ½ million their side got from out of state corporations?

Thanks JK

Torrid,

You go right on ahead claiming CoP urban renewal increases property tax revenue. That's how the PDC works. By lying to the public. Of course new construction creates new property tax revenue but what good is it if more is needlessly spent than raised? What matters is the net effect of these schemes and massive debt spending. You don't know what you are talking about and/or you are lying. Much of the $65 million in this year's property taxes that are diverted from basic services to pay UR TIF debt was not generated by UR at all. Many millions are siphoined from adjacent properties within the 11 UR districts. 1000s of acres of properties having no UR created increase in tax revenue at all. Yet every routine annual tax increase is diverted to subsidize the private UR developement. Interstate UR district is 3744 acres. If you are telling people that Urban Renewal generated all the increased taxes from these 3744 acres you are lying.
12,000 acres are now in UR districts, all of which have increasing portion of their taxes diverted to pay UR debt.

In many cases development without UR subsidizing would have happened anyway.
SoWa could have been developed years ago. The city stopped it to promote the big plan and now 100s of millions will be borrowed and paid with property taxes for decades to break even. But this is once again another situation where the truth doesn't matter. I could lay out every detail of how the city is misleading and mispending and you would just change the subject.

NO, democrats don't want to repeal M37. That would take integrity. Instead they want to gut it.

Yesterday, the Joint Ways and Means Committee approved House Bill 3540B on a straight party line vote (all Democrats in support, all Republicans opposed).

There is no way to put a pretty face on HB 3540B. If passed, HB 3540B will send a new ballot measure to voters that will (if the ballot measure is approved) effectively repeal Measure 37!!

HB 3540B makes the following changes to Measure 37:

1. Every claimant who filed a claim will have to refile it, even if the claim has been approved! No matter how much time and money you've spent to follow all the laws and jump through all the Measure 37 hoops, you will have to refile.

2. All existing claims for commercial and industrial uses and in commercial and industrial zones will be automatically rejected!

3. A complicated scheme is used to replace Measure 37. Under this scheme, some Measure 37 claimants who refile their claims may qualify for up to three homes. But LCDC will decide what the claimant will get (if you get anything), not the local government.

4. There is a 25% threshold for new land use regulations. That means that for all new land use laws, state and local governments will be allowed to steal 25% of your property and you can't do anything about it! If you own commercial or industrial property, like a small business, state and local governments can pass new land use regulations that steal your entire property!

5.Metro land use regulations are exempted. That means that if you live in the Portland Metropolitan area, Metro, the area's regional government, can pass new land use laws that steal all of your property and you'll have no claim!

6.There is no time limit for LCDC to resolve refiled claims. It may take a year, two years, or ten years. LCDC says that you shouldn't worry about it, that they'll get claims resolved quickly. I would worry.

7.Anyone with an axe to grind can challenge the LCDC decision to approve your claim, for whatever reason they choose, and you have no right to attorney fees if you win. This complicated law will be a full employment act for environmental lawyers and the "friends" groups that have used the courts for years to steal your property!

Torrid, Are you on something?

There is no comparison.

Not a single M37 development will be using any tax money and the new revenue will immediatley flow into basic services.

UR devours countless millions in tax dollars to subsidize developers and any new revenue will, for decades, go to retire the UR debt.

Do you enjoy deceiving the public?

torridjoe JK: "* Proponents spent $942,244"

I've already shown this is not the correct figure. Please stop using it. JK: Maybe, maybe not. You are now claiming to know more that the professionals at the Eugene Register-Guard.

( it does appear that the Register-Guard might have picked the wrong line so, they probably did the same for the other side, so it probably doesn’t matter.)

Thanks JK

I'm confused, Becky St. John, you're advocating m37 as a generator of tax dollars?

I can think of a dozen reasons why that is ludicrous. Most glaringly is the obvious question, which you choose to ignore to respond, regarding the $10 billion in claims essentially against tax payers (since that's where the money would come from)?

PS: Don't worry JK, I wont let you off the hook, my response requires more time than I have at the present.

torridjoe JK: "* Proponents spent $942,244"

I've already shown this is not the correct figure. Please stop using it. JK: CORRECTED VERSION of REPLY:

Sorry, change two occurrences of “spent” to “raised” in my earlier post.

I notice that you have no comment about the ½ million OUT OF STATE money your side took.

Thanks JK

goby train I'm confused, Becky St. John, you're advocating m37 as a generator of tax dollars?

I can think of a dozen reasons why that is ludicrous. JK: Simple. M37 allows use of land. That use results in building a building which pays taxes that actually reach government services. This is unlike the buildings in an UR district whose tax money stays in the district for the life of the district and longer until the bonds are paid off.

goby train Most glaringly is the obvious question, which you choose to ignore to respond, regarding the $10 billion in claims essentially against tax payers (since that's where the money would come from)? JK: You fail to understand how M37 works. It is expected that the government’s land thieves will have to back off of their thievery if they actually had to pay for the land that they stole.

goby train PS: Don't worry JK, I wont let you off the hook, my response requires more time than I have at the present. JK: Don’t like hearing about all of that OUT OF STATE corp money supporting M37, eh?

Thanks JK

Russ Sadler:

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.

Bob T:

Such a measure came about because of the kind of deceitful crap done to people like Mr. Lucas in South Carolina. Recall that he was banned from developing his property after he paid, oh, something like a million for it. He planned on building two homes and selling one for a million. South Carolina lawmakers decided that having undeveloped oceanfront there was a public benefit so they changed the zoning on him but told him tough toenails about getting compensation. (Other homes were already in that stretch).

He won in the USSC and South Carolina was told that they had to pay the man because in deciding that they didn't want the homes there they were making a "public good" decision and that, my friends, requires compensation. So what did SC do? They took his land and gave him the money. But then they developed it or allowed someone alse to develop it after selling it to that someone. That's crappy, and no (real) liberal worthy of that label should support anything like that.

Thanks to progressive (so-called) disrespect for the right to property, we now have the Kelo decision as the rule of the land, and old ladies can be dragged from their homes so that George Sorros can build a mansion and pay more property taxes to state and local government than the old ladies ever could.

Bob Tiernan

Actually, JK, I have and will respond to every question I'm asked (which, by the way, is a standard you have not found necessary to reciprocate).

However, since I do have a life (something you might want to consider) a response worthy of your readership will have to come after business hours.

At least I don't hide my identity. Or do you have one?

Thanks JK

gobytrain, You sure hop all over the place.

Having trouble focusing?

Now you're back on the $10 billion. Yes, you are confused. Without question M37 will generate tax dollars. Take Washington County. If only 500 houses are built on various parcels there is no doubt each will be paying at a least an additional 4500.00 in property taxes as soon as they are built. That's at least $2.25 million more every year. And no tax subsidy will be needed to build them. In fact each of them will also pay system development charges and other fees. The few subdivisions will have to pay for all of their own streets and improvements entirely. Unlike Urban Renewal project where developers get free infrastructure courtesy of the taxpayers.

You are entirely off the ludicrous deep end if you think the "$10 billion in claims" is some bill that taxpayers will have to pay. Since you haven't yet even grasped what the $10 billion actually represents and you apparently think it's the "price" of M37 you must be a juvenile. Or just a routine member of 1000 Friends shoveling out the BS.

I know you are, but what am I?

I must have really hit a cord with you JK if you're going to devolve into school yard taunts.

Sal Peralta If barring use of out of state money were legal, and if Oregon implemented it, there would probably never be another conservative measure on the ballot in Oregon. JK: Of course that ½ million was on the liberals side of M37. IE: against your right to compensation when the government decides to take your property through regulations.

Sal Peralta Unfortunately for Oregonians, such bans are unconstitutional. JK Be careful what you wish for - the big Eastern Money Boys might not be able to maintain THEIR “Oregon experiment” with us as the lab rats.

Thanks JK

torridjoe On what planet does a bill that STILL allows land owners to have the rules removed, modified or not applied especially for them, equal a repeal of a law that allows the same thing? JK: If it does the same thing, what is the point of the bill? What are you NOT telling us?

Thanks JK

We need to look at two hard truths: Measure 7; Measure 37. Land use advocates lost badly on both. It is cold comfort to say voters were deceived. The reality is that the vote created its own reality and its own truth.

Now: consider some corollaries. Land use planning has never been embraced by significant geographical sections of Oregon. Land use, as the Will of the People, is largely the will of the urban Willamette Valley, otherwise known as the I-5 Corridor. To a lesser extent, this also includes portions of the Hood River Valley, Bend, Pendleton, and perhaps Baker City and Ontario.

A hard line adherence to the pre-Measure 37 world puts us in a corner. We are forced to put land-use policy above equity and fairness. We cannot avoid the charge that ours is a tyranny of the majority acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Emerson wrote that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Our adherence to positions that have been twoice rejected by a majority of voters puts us in that camp of small minds.

We have an opportunity to turn the tables. Foolish adherence to the rhetoric of Measure 37 creates its own class of small minds (e.g. Becky). We must show that we are fixing land use policy, not just fixing Measure 37.

People with modest claims of one to three dwellings make out very well. We have our druthers, but we should accept this as the price we pay to fix not only Measure 37, but the land use system in general.

HB 3540 protects our property rights. This is what we should have passed in 2004 - it probably would have attracted 80% of the vote.

It protects your property rights. Anyone with a claim can build at least one home and up to three, without documenting loss of value.

It protects property rights. Neighbors are protected. There will be no gravel pits, no pumice mines, no industrial plants, and no commercial development. The bill permits only residential development, consistent with what voters intended in 2004.

It protects property rights. Property owners can build as many as 20 homes if they prove loss of value at the time the rule was implemented. This is done by simply comparing the values one year before and one year after. There does have to be a 10% drop, which is a more liberal standard that used by other states, notably Texas and Georgia. The loss is brought to the present using the Treasury T-Bill rate.

The bill recognizes the value of farmland and protects it; houses must be clustered to protect the land. The bill recognizes the importance of groundwater, a concern that affects the property rights of neighbors.

The bill provides for transferability.

If you already have a claim, you can move forward if you have a common law vested right.

Thank you, Becky, for not continuing to avoid my "$10 billion" question and addressing it for me.

You have totally just enlightned me. While I had to swim through your swamp of pejoritives (whatever makes you feel better about yourself) to get to your point, I think I've deciphered your statements:

"you haven't yet even grasped what the $10 billion actually represents".

and

"You are entirely off the ludicrous deep end if you think the "$10 billion in claims" is some bill that taxpayers will have to pay."

Clearly I saw only the reality of potential dollar judgements against the government and not as a representation for blackmail. Apparently you're of the hope that these monetary claims are just a threat against the government and that door A (payment). is so scary the government will opt for door B (concession).

However, there's no laws precluding the government from choosing door A....

Hey, Red Cloud:

What about the claim that Metro will be exempt from the the new M37 and can do anything it wants to do without limit?

Did I misread the OIA bulletin?

Thanks JK

Red Cloud, don't you think land use, property rights and compensation are important enough to warrant a commitment from our citizens to discuss, define and then declare instead of simply slopping some lipstick on a pig?

Jim Karlock: Sections 9 and 10 of HB 3540 address property within Urban Growth Boundaries. It does state that Measure 37 claims filed relate to the number of single-family dwellings that can be built on the portion of land within the UGB.

The key in all of this is whether or not the zoning regulation imposed after the individual purchased the land within the UGB caused the property to decline in value.

If you own undeveloped land and that land is now within the UGB, what sort of zoning regulation would cause the property to decline in value?

I haven't found any analysis of the impact these two sections would have presented by urban land use people. I don't see anything in the Bill relating to Metro, or that would allow Metro free reign.

I have no information relating to urban concerns about HB 3540. If there are, I'd be interested in what those concerns may be.

gobytrain, What the heck is your point in repeating the "$10 billion"

It's meaningless. It's not even $10 billion anymore as 1000s of claims have already been approved which removes all of the value of those claims from the silly meaningless total.

Is it you intention to misrepresent and lead people to believe there is a $10 billion M37 tab to pay?

Red Cloud The key in all of this is whether or not the zoning regulation imposed after the individual purchased the land within the UGB caused the property to decline in value. JK: 1) Property declared open space. I think this has happened to a number of parcels in Damascus, primarily NOT the properties of people on various planning committees.

2)What happened to a friend. She bought a lot, then some gov’t declared a 200' setback from a stream making only a little corner buildable. The lot was surrounded by already built lots.

Thanks JK

Jim Karlock: Thank you, that is a good example.

A person owning property within a UGB may qualify for relief if "a provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land division ordinance . . . restricts the residential use of residentially zoned private real property." (Page 3, line 16, 13(c) under definitions.

Section (9) of the Bill would permit up to 10 single-family dwellings, the number permitted being a factor of the decline in value.

Development standards is addressed in Section 11. There is a provision for minimum lot size if the property is currently zoned EFU, forest, or mixed farm and forest.

In claims that have been filed in the past and which are now proceeding to development, owners still have to comply with setback requirements. I don't know how it would work in your example.

If they declared the property an open space that precludes any use of the property, then I wonder if that raises issues that predate Measure 37 (e.g., a taking).

If they declared the property an open space that precludes any use of the property, then I wonder if that raises issues that predate Measure 37 (e.g., a taking). JK: Wasn’t that is why M37 was created? IT should have been a taking but somehow happened anyway.

The lady that I mentioned went to court and got her property tax reduced to a small fraction of what it was. But a court cannot permanently reduce the tax, so it went back up. That is what I was told.

Just a reminder: Density is killing the Portland region with congestion, un-employment, low incomes and high costs and Oregon’s UGBs are the cause. Only by forcing Metro to free up land for living, can we preserve Oregon’s viability. Living free of congestion in affordable homes is much more important than Robert Liberty’s ability to see open space a couple miles closer to his condo.

Land is now close to a MILLION an acre for buildable land - that is why your children will NEVER be able to afford a home. M37 promises to free up land to make housing more affordable.

Are you against affordable housing? Are you for pricing the poor out of the Portland area? Are you in favor of driving the minorities out? Then dump M37. Otherwise, broaden it to free up a lot of land for living space.

Oregon’s artificial shortage of land is the ROOT CAUSE of our affordability crisis. We have to fix this and M37 was a start.

Thanks JK

For those advocating that m37 increases the property tax base:

I'd like to know if you would then agree that if a claim is granted to the property owner, any property taxes that would should have previously applied to the greater property value should also be owed.

Otherwise, wouldn't the claimant be additionally rewarded tax abatement during the period that they paid against a lowered tax assessment?

Its clearly hypocritical, and unfair, that an owner would state that their property has been devalued, but not their tax responsibility. I think it would also be disingenuous to tout tax revenue as a positive by product of m37 if you did not demand reimbursement for the difference in property value granted.

JIm: I share your concerns. Above all, I am concerned about the impact we as humans have on the environment. It may seem ironic, but New York City has a smaller impact on the environment than does L.A. Given the choice, I'm in favor of New York.

If you look at HB 3540, it does allow property owners to develop. If you saw Mesure 37 as permitting sprawl in order to have affordable housing, I don't recall that being part of the debate in 2004.

The population pressure we are creating requires a new paradigm, which is outside of the scope or intent of Measure 37. If you want to attach it as such, that is why many of us voted against it.

My preference would be to turn the UGB concept upside down and create inventories of usable land for agriculture.

GoByDTrain; in most cases M37 claims developed will increase the tax base.

It is not "hypocritical and unfair" to have granted M37 claims not pay back property tax differences. Throughout Oregon all tax assessors value the property on its present use-improvements. In M37 cases you are asking, for example, a person with one house on 10 acres bought in 1969 where he/she could have possibly divided the property into 5 buildable lots but in 1973 it was zoned for minimum of 10 acres per house, to pay back taxes from 1973 to 2007, even though he/she couldn't build the 5 houses. This is also contrary to tax laws. For example Zidell's property in SoWhat is being taxed only for the property use/present development on the property ($600). When Zidells sells their 16 acres on the Willamette in CoP for development they could realize a $28 million dollar profit. Tax law doesn't allow for taxation based on future potential development. This isn't unfair according to our tax laws- maybe you want to change the whole taxation system of the US.

Let's just take your own house and assume that you are not potentially using the full developable rights of your lot-for example you should have a three car garage in the back/side yard with a rental unit above. I think you should be taxed for that potential now, or as you suggest when you do develop as such, you should pay the back taxes for the difference of utilizing more of your lot's potential. Fair?

In your above case that would be even more fair than the M37 claimant described above who can't even build those five houses because of the B100 zoning. Atleast you can increase the usage of your lot.

gobytrain For those advocating that m37 increases the property tax base:

I'd like to know if you would then agree that if a claim is granted to the property owner, any property taxes that would should have previously applied to the greater property value should also be owed. Otherwise, wouldn't the claimant be additionally rewarded tax abatement during the period that they paid against a lowered tax assessment? JK: Were they able to take advantage of their property’s full value during that period? NO! So they should not be taxed on that which they, effectively didn’t own. I would further argue that they should be compensated from the date of the initial taking.

gobytrain Its clearly hypocritical, and unfair, that an owner would state that their property has been devalued, but not their tax responsibility. JK: Can you clarify this?

gobytrain I think it would also be disingenuous to tout tax revenue as a positive by product of m37 if you did not demand reimbursement for the difference in property value granted. JK: The tax revenue comes flooding in on the increased value of the property after the owner is allowed to fully utilize that value of the property, say by building 1000 homes (at $300,000 to pay $5,000 per year in tax or $5 million total tax) for people that won’t be crowding into our existing neighborhoods.

Increased supply might even make the new houses more affordable.

Thanks JK

Red Cloud JIm: I share your concerns. Above all, I am concerned about the impact we as humans have on the environment. It may seem ironic, but New York City has a smaller impact on the environment than does L.A. Given the choice, I'm in favor of New York. JK: But it isn’t New Your City it is the New Your area and that sprawls MORE that the L.A. area. The L.A. area is more dense than New Youk.

Red Cloud If you look at HB 3540, it does allow property owners to develop. If you saw Mesure 37 as permitting sprawl in order to have affordable housing, I don't recall that being part of the debate in 2004. JK: The cost of the artificial shortage of land is becoming more apparent now.

Red Cloud My preference would be to turn the UGB concept upside down and create inventories of usable land for agriculture. JK: Why? So that we can pay more farmers to NOT GROW things? OR more land to grow potted plants?

Please face reality, the growing of food requires less land every year for a variety of reasons.

Thanks JK

BSJ: "What the heck is your point in repeating the "$10 billion""

GBT: I was just quoting you.

BSJ: It's meaningless. It's not even $10 billion anymore as 1000s of claims have already been approved which removes all of the value of those claims from the silly meaningless total.

GBT: You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word on that. I wasn't aware that 1,000's of claims have been approved. I would be interested in knowing the actual number if you'd care to source.

BSJ: Is it you intention to misrepresent and lead people to believe there is a $10 billion M37 tab to pay?

GBT: While flattered, I can't even convince my cat to stop barfing on my couch, so rest assured I'm leading no one anywhere. However, I do believe that the monetary value of claims against the state is not "silly and meaningless" but a relevant empirical measurement.

Now, BSJ, I'm putting you on notice: Your use of aggressive rhetoric is a thinly disguised attempt to intimidate.

As I've tried to convey to you an earlier post, incessantly using bullying statements like "What the heck is your point", "you sure hop all over the place. Having trouble focusing?", "Are you on something?", "You don't know what you are talking about and/or you are lying.", "What's wrong with you", etc, provides nothing to your argument, so cut it out.

Not that it should matter, but I'm not a part of the vast conspiracy against you. I'm not with the government, a "planner" or any or the many other things you've accused me of being. I'm just a normal citizen, trying to have a real discussion about a real social issue. Your position is in the minority on this blog so it's tempting to abide your vexatious style so as to not appear intolerant, or just abandon the conversation all together in avoidance.

However, I'm not going to afford you the luxury of intimidating me away. So, be apprised that I will respond to you with a completely warm and loving manner, which is the only way I know to combat aggressive bullying behavior.

torridjoe
(Quoting JK) Density is killing the Portland region with congestion, un-employment, low incomes and high costs and Oregon’s UGBs are the cause.

Good old Jim! Footloose and fact free! You'd never know the opposite is actually true. JK: There you go again, Mark,

• are you saying that the law of supply and demand doesn’t to apply to restricting land supply with a UGB? Prove that and you’ll win a Nobel prize.

• Even Metro admits that increased density increases congestion. Also see DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

• Metero and at least one local non-profit published data showing the INCREASED cost of high density. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm for their data.

• Oregon is consistently near the top of the un-employment rate.

Good old Mark! Footloose and fact free! You'd never know the opposite is actually true.

Thanks JK

GoByTrain, I notice that you seem to care more about the manner of other bloggers language, than the content of what they have said, or try to say. In my particular case, I responded to your claim that ProM37 outspent AntiM37 with the best information available. It was the opposite of what you claimed by a large margin. I responded to your claim of "hypocritical, unfair" in regards to M37 not paying "back taxes" for something in theory they couldn't even develope to be taxed on. I would appreciate if you could discuss the issues and not the messengers you disagree with.

Per a statement made by Debbie in a much earlier post:

"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."

Thus, she would be paying taxes on $7,300 correct? Let's say after ten years she wants to sell the property and files a m37 claim for the value of $79,800 (or more likely, an appreciated amount). If granted under the measurement rules, she would then be awarded the ability to build, or be given the difference in valuation, correct?

Sounds like money in the bank to me. She pays taxes on $7,300 until she's ready to develop, sell, whatever.

gobytrain Per a statement made by Debbie in a much earlier post:

"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."

Thus, she would be paying taxes on $7,300 correct? Let's say after ten years she wants to sell the property and files a m37 claim for the value of $79,800 (or more likely, an appreciated amount). If granted under the measurement rules, she would then be awarded the ability to build, or be given the difference in valuation, correct?

Sounds like money in the bank to me. She pays taxes on $7,300 until she's ready to develop, sell, whatever. JK: Not money in her bank - the government stole most of that money. She would have been paying the higher taxes all along, except for the government taking most of the value of her land. Would you have her pay taxes on land stolen from her by the government? I guess the answer is yes.

And I thought liberals were into fairness.

Thanks JK

gobytrain, Are yo the most oblivious person on blueoregon or what?

What is the "relevant empirical measurement" ?

You didn't even know 1000s of claims have been approved. I think it is 4500 or so, You don't know what the $10 billion really is. You didn't know the $10 billion is obsolete due to the 1000s of approved claims, you then say the $10 billion is " relevant empirical measurement', you don't say what it's a measurement of or how it is relevant,

and after many exchanged where you avoid countering every specific point I make and claim I am trying to "intimidate" you toss out,

You'e "just a normal citizen, trying to have a real discussion about a real social issue" ???????????????????????????

Geeze

There is no question tax revenue willbe generated by M37. It's as unavoidable as any non-M37 development. And nothing like the Urban Renewal schemes which cost hundreds of millions in tax dollars. You had no comment on that after I detailed how.

So "touting tax revenue as a positive by product of M37" is entirely rational and fact based. Reality, fella.

Someone getting a M37 approval is no different than someone having their land brought into the UGB. But we don't hear the wide array of imaginary ills that is supposed to trigger. Apparently that's the rub for many of you. Having become so enamored with the central planning you want only the government to decide who and when gets property rights. No matter the hypocritical, unfair, punitive and costly way they carry it out.

Well, M37 is a get out of planner's jail free card for many Oregonians and when it plays out, things get built, taxes flow to basic services and NONE of the propagandized calamity appears Oregon and it's people will be better off for it.

And we can still be friends.

JK: She would have been paying the higher taxes all along, except for the government taking most of the value of her land. Would you have her pay taxes on land stolen from her by the government? I guess the answer is yes.

GBT: What I'm asking is if the claim is rewarded. Then she would get "full" value for her property, correct?

bsj: you avoid countering every specific point I make

gbt: I've asked you several times for sources of your charges/assertions. Preferably with a link, or even enough specifics for me to google it with some assurance that it's your reference. I'm not sure what the point is in countering hyperbole or something that's simply an opinion you don't bother to substantiate.

bsj: There is no question tax revenue will be generated by M37. It's as unavoidable as any non-M37 development. And nothing like the Urban Renewal schemes which cost hundreds of millions in tax dollars. You had no comment on that after I detailed how.

gbt: This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't detail this assertion with anything more than numbers you admittedly pulled out of your hat. I'm simply asking for your edification. If these are "facts" then you should be able to direct me to something, anything, that cooberates your statement.

bsj: Are you the most oblivious person on blueoregon or what?

gbt: You can't help yourself, can you? The sad thing is that such a rude statement without any relevence to the topic makes people avoid you, you don't want that do you? Now, I'm sure you're a very nice and articulate lady and would never say such a rude thing to somone in person. I don't doubt that you're correct, so your sincere edification is welcome, preferebly in the form of sources.

yeah gobytrain, I pulled all the numbers out of my hat.

So now you admit you know nothing about Urban Renewal either and I am supposed to walk you through UR kindergarten and direct you every PDC web page and link and data and rub your nose in it and at the end of it all, what? NOTHING. You'll adapt to exactly what torrid joe has been doing. Ignoring the numbers and data you see and keep spinning the propaganda out. Just as you will never admit you didn't know what the $10 billion represented when this thread started and as you keep dancing around calling it "relevant empirical measurement". You don't know what has happened with M37 and you can't even explain yourself. If you had any idea what you are talking about you would simply explain how it is a "relevant" and what it "measures".

If you don't know there are 1000s of claims approved go get the claims numbers yourself, or read the paper more often or
better yet, call 1000 Friends and ask them what to say.

The $10 billion figure is irrelevant, obsolete and a measurement of nothing.

There is nothing out of line by making an observation that you are in fact oblivious to M37, pretend to have knowledge enough to debate it, and continually misrepresent the measure.

I really don't care if you think that is rude or intimidating. It's no where near as insulting as your parade of falsehoods and attempt to feed the flames of propaganda and public deceit.

You may be a nice person too, but you are out of line on this issue.

gobytrain JK: She would have been paying the higher taxes all along, except for the government taking most of the value of her land. Would you have her pay taxes on land stolen from her by the government? I guess the answer is yes.

GBT: What I'm asking is if the claim is rewarded. Then she would get "full" value for her property, correct? JK: Not necessarily. Many claims are to do something that is not within the planner’s scheme of how the city should be, but less than the most that they could have under M37. For example, Dorty English bought her land at a time when there were no restrictions, so under M37 she could build a Homer Williams style condo farm. She only wanted a couple of houses for her children (and maybe some to sell?)

Thanks JK

torridjoe You said "density is killing Portland with congestion;" despite the fact that a) Portland is not dead; b) congestion is being held in check by mass transit ridership and smart growth, as statistics indicate, JK: a) Don’t you recognize a “figure of speech”? B) Mass tranist’s ridership it too low to have a meaningful effect on congestion outside of downtown, where its share is dropping. Smart growth increases congestion. Please provide a link to your (credible) statistics.

torridjoe and c) congestion is also a function of having more people in a finite space, which is true with or without a UGB. JK: The goal of the UGB is to FORCE an increase in density. As you admit that increases congestion.

torridjoe (JK:)* Metero and at least one local non-profit published data showing the INCREASED cost of high density. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm for their data.

(TJ:)Relevance? What about the cost-benefit analysis? Buying a house increases your costs viz renting, but that doesn't mean it's sensible to augur against home ownership. JK: Totally irrelevant answer has no bearing on the fact: High density costs more.

torridjoe (JK:)* Oregon is consistently near the top of the un-employment rate. (TJ:) You said Portland, not Oregon. And you make no link between unemployment in Oregon and density in Portland, or between density and unemployment. Unemployment in Oregon is a function of both structural factors (such as the decline of the forest industry) and cyclical factors (the crash of the tech market in 2000). Density is not a factor. JK: Totally irrelevant answer has no bearing on the fact: Oregon has high un-employment.

torridjoe ...completely false--such as you claiming the government has "stolen" land from anyone involved in making a 37 claim. It's just not true, and you know it. JK: I was speaking of the government stealing the VALUE of the land and you know it. Look at it this way: You rich uncle died and left you 100,000. You put it in the bank and the government says that you can only take out 50%. Ever. You still own the other 50% on paper, but cannot use it. That is stealing from you while you still own it. That is Oregon’s land use laws.

torridjoe Be sure to balance it against the millions spent administering the claims and ajudicating the lawsuits. JK: Millions spent to restore property to its rightful owner! Besides, it should take no more than ½ hour to process a claim. It is really very simple: 1) is there proof of ownership at the relevent date. 2) Does this concern compliance with the Feds? 3) Is is health or safety?

If 1,2 and 3 are all yes, then “regulation is hereby cancelled.”

Very simple. Only a planner of bureaucrat could make it into an extensive, expensive process.

Thanks JK

JK,

Your "sources" have no credibility, you have no logic and you are bought and paid for by outside interests. Find another forum.

Hi, Hawthorne. I see you still have no facts, only insults.

thanks JK

JK,

If you actually responded to facts we could have a real live debate. You don't. And funny that someone who is reknowned for calling people on internet names to suggest that I am the guilty party.

Jim: you make valid points. We need affordable hoousing; farming may no longer be practical; UGB constrainst contribut to traffic problems, pollution, etc.

Is Mesure 37 about property rights or is it about urban development? You seem to be saying that it is both. If you are, then are you also saying that only the market should determine the nature of growth?

If you argue that it is both, then do not cities and counties and the citizens of both have some right to determine the nature of that growth and development?

It seems like it then comes full circle - a debate between private development rights and the public's interest in regulating where and how growth occurs (which I say at the risk of being called a communist by Jeff Kropf, KXL, and some here). The debate then turns on the threshold at which regulation becomes a taking, at which point the United States Supreme Court is distinctly against such a broad interpretation.

The people of Oregon enacted a statute that appears to define any loss of value as a taking. The Legislature is addressing this issue in HB 3540. If you take an extremely broad interpretation, then you open the door to windfall profits when you allow the property owner to determine the nature of the loss. HB 3540 sets a statewide standard for determining loss of value, by comparing the property value immediately before the regulation change and the value after, and bringing the loss (if any) up to the present day, providing the loss was 10% or more in value.

Property taxes are addressed in calculating the reduction in fair market value (starting at P.9, line, 26): "The reduction in fair market value shall be adjusted by any ad valorem property taxes not paid as a result of any special assessment of the property . . . (elisions refer to applicable sections of the ORS), plus interest, offset by any severance taxes paid by the claimant and by any recapture of potential additional tax liability that the claimant has paid or wil pay for th preoperty if the property is disqualified from special assessment under ORS 308A.703."

Jim: I think the term "taking" is not the theft of value - it is the taking of use.

The perfect example of the dishonesty and fabricated propaganda used by M37 opponents is the repeated assertion that Jim Karlock is "bought and paid for by outside interests" and paid by "east coast money".

I already know, but why don't just one of you explain where any of you got this idea?

The answer is of course it was made up by the progressive smear merchants. And no matter how many times people are corrected and not a shred of proof is offered to support the smear you will keep repeating it. I have to assume that some of you are simply so naive you will blindly accept anything that smears someone who has opposing views but the purveyors of such lies are truly unethical.

So let's here an "explanation" for the Rove-like smear Karlock routine. Anything other than silence should be entertaining.

HawthorneJK, If you actually responded to facts JK: So, do you have any?

Thanks JK

Red Cloud If you argue that it is both, then do not cities and counties and the citizens of both have some right to determine the nature of that growth and development? JK: The reality is that the people haven’t had any real say in the development of their neighborhoods since Metro got the power to rewrite the city codes of ANY city that didn’t follow their forced density mandates.

Red Cloud If you take an extremely broad interpretation, then you open the door to windfall profits when you allow the property owner to determine the nature of the loss. JK: What windfall? You mean the recovery of property stolen years ago. The recovery of stolen goods is only a windfall in Robert Liberty’s fantasy world. The fact that the value of the stolen goods increased in the meantime is not referent. Does he complain about windfall profits when the Nazi’s stolen masterpieces were returned to the rightful owners years later? What is the difference, they owned the masterpieces all along, they just couldn’t use them.

Red Cloud Jim: I think the term "taking" is not the theft of value - it is the taking of use. JK: See above.

Thanks JK

With the passage of HB 3540-B by 31-24, I think the nature of the discussion changes. Lost value should not be debated in terms of the ballot measure that will go to the voters in November.

RC: Property taxes are addressed in calculating the reduction in fair market value....

GBT: I'm not sure I understand the statute you then quoted, please interpert this from your point of view. This is from the proposed HB 3540, correct?

RC: UGB constrainst contribut to traffic problems, pollution, etc.

GBT: Can you please support the statement that UGB contributes to traffic and pollution, or are you simply claiming this as a personal opinion? If it's a personal theory, do you have any data to corroborate? I'm unaware of any research showing a correlation between UGB and an increase in pollution/traffic. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was research, or data, showing/indicating the contrary.

Hawthorn (directed at JK): Your "sources" have no credibility, you have no logic and you are bought and paid for by outside interests. Find another forum.

GBT: Amen. The sad thing is, Hawthorn, I suspect he's an unpaid (or lowly paid) stooge. This makes me feel kinda sorry for him. It's like that kid in school who would do anything to be a part of the cool kids, but who the cool kids always used to do their dirty work and then made fun of afterwords.

Hawthorne ...you are bought and paid for by outside interests. JK: I receive no income from blogging related activities. Who pays you? Do you work for the city? A developer? A toy train sales company? A transit agency?

Hawthorne Find another forum. JK: Why don’t you just slither away.

BTW: why are you hiding your real name?

Thanks JK I don’t get paid from anything remotely related to my blogging - can you say the same?

GBT (who is hiding his real name): I'm unaware of any research showing a correlation between UGB and an increase in pollution/traffic. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was research, or data, showing/indicating the contrary. JK: There is good proof that increasing density increases traffic congestion. Of course the point of the UGB is to increase density and pollution is associated with increased vehile miles, especially buses. For proof of the relationship between density and driving see the Sierra club table at: sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/modal.asp. Now multiply the people/sq Mi x Auto Trips /Cap (person) to get aito trips per Sq Mi. As density goes up, the trips per person goes down AND the total trips goes up DRAMATICALLY. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm for a graph of that function.

Even Metro admits this.

GBT (who is hiding his real name) Amen. The sad thing is, Hawthorn, I suspect he's an unpaid (or lowly paid) stooge. This makes me feel kinda sorry for him. It's like that kid in school who would do anything to be a part of the cool kids, but who the cool kids always used to do their dirty work and then made fun of afterwords. JK: Funny thing, I was just talking to a friend about this very subject and concluded the same thing about you. It really is pathetic to be arguing with people that are constantly looking to find “a sense of place” and a “sense of community.” What shallow lives they must live.

PS: I never was one of the cool kids - that is probably why I can do basic arithmetic, unlike most city planners.

Thanks JK I don’t get paid from anything remotely related to my blogging - can you say the same?

BSJ: Rove-like smear Karlock routine

GBT: That's pretty kinky coming from a nice old lady like you.

JK: She would have been paying the higher taxes all along, except for the government taking most of the value of her land.

GBT: Right, she is paying taxes on the current market value assessment.

JK: Not necessarily. Many claims are to do something that is not within the planner’s scheme of how the city should be, but less than the most that they could have under M37.

GBT: Right, the claim increases the ability of the property owner to prior land use regulations, and by definition, the market value prior to any land use changes. You're assuming that "many claims" would do less than what they've been afforded under m37. I don't know too many people who when offered anything from the government demurs and accepts a smidgen less than the full amount.

JK: For example, Dorty English bought her land at a time when there were no restrictions, so under M37 she could build a Homer Williams style condo farm. She only wanted a couple of houses for her children (and maybe some to sell?)

GBT: Wasn't her claim denied? What was the reason for that now? Could it be because she didn't show a decreased market value?

That raises an interesting point. Assuming you're correct, that there were no restrictions at the time Dorthy English purchased her property years ago, and she immediately built a building identical to The John Ross (325ft tall/31 stories). She claimed that she just wanted a place for her and her kids to live, and you know, "some to sell"...

You're perfectly comfortable telling us now that you would have defended her "right" to proceed, correct? Keep in mind that to claim otherwise and impart a desire for any restrictions, by your definition, is theft and would put you in the scheming planners camp.

torridjoe What about OTHER activities? JK: Just for the record (as I recall): Jack’s blog exposed Torridjoe as Mark Bunster, city employee, who Jack’ Blog noted frequently blogged from a city web site (and was such a pain to Jack that he was banned multiple times)

Is that about right, Mark?

Thanks JK

JK: GBT (who is hiding his real name):

Her real name. Now you can really fantasize.

JK: There is good proof that increasing density increases traffic congestion. Of course the point of the UGB is to increase density and pollution is associated with increased vehicle miles, especially buses. For proof of the relationship between density and driving see the Sierra club table at: sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/modal.asp.

GBT: You mean the article entitled, "Stop Sprawl How Compact Neighborhoods Affect Modal Choice - Two Examples" that states:

"When density increases driving falls as trip lengths are shortened and more can be taken by transit or walked or bicycled. (Unfortunately, there were too few bicycle trips in the MTC survey to lead to firm conclusions, although they averaged about 0.1 trips/hh, rising to about 50% higher between 10-20 hh/res ac.) Transit trips increase with density until trip distances become short enough that more are taken by bicycle and foot. Walking trips continue to rise with density as they become more and more convenient."

"These increases in walking and transit use help explain why, in the San Francisco area, vehicle miles per household fall over 40% every time neighborhood density doubles."

"Denser cities have less driving per capita."

(There was a second study quoted as well with the same outcome, I'll restrain a quote as to not completely rub your face in it.)

I think the word "sprawl" in the link should have clued you in that it might not defend your position (now I see why Becky never provides sources). This reminds me of an earlier post where I debunked your Houston claims using your own words. By the way, what was the weather like last time you were in Houston?

JK: Even Metro admits this.

GBT: Really? Can you give me the quote? That way we can make them look real stupid when I send them the reports above from the Sierra Club. I'll be sure to let them know they're courtesy of Mr. Jim Karlock, a friend of the reality based community wanting Metro to "bone up" (as Becky would say).

JK: I never was one of the cool kids- that is probably why I can do basic arithmetic, unlike most city planners.

GBT: Perhaps you should have spent more time in the science and statistics. A stronger grasp of scientific methodology would help you discern symptom from cause.

gobytrain That raises an interesting point. Assuming you're correct, that there were no restrictions at the time Dorthy English purchased her property years ago, and she immediately built a building identical to The John Ross (325ft tall/31 stories). She claimed that she just wanted a place for her and her kids to live, and you know, "some to sell"... JK: Better a condo jungle there than in my neighborhood. Seriously, she would probably not do that because it would not make economic sense. There is a reason you do not see condo towers in the wild - they are much more expensive to build than low wood frame buildings, so they are only built where land is very expensive. see DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm

This is a key point that the planning class pretends to not understand when they try to grab control of zoning and land use from the population: people usually don’t build things that don’t make economic sense, so if you can build anything you want, it will not be a condo tower on farmland. Heck it won’t even be a condo tower in the North Macadam UR district. It only makes sense there because of the subsidies. Planners lie about zoning to scare people into giving them control over zoning, not realizing that the planners will then force density into our neighborhoods.

Let me reword that: Planners scare us with the possibility of a pig farm next door, we give them control of zoning and they mandate a condo farm next door instead of a pig farm.

Thanks JK

JK: Just for the record (as I recall): Jack’s blog exposed Torridjoe as Mark Bunster, city employee, who Jack’ Blog noted frequently blogged from a city web site (and was such a pain to Jack that he was banned multiple times)

GBT: No one here is exposing themselves but you, JK, in every perverted sense of the word.

You're a bigger fool than I gave you credit for if you don't stop, take a deep breath and think about where you're headed with that last post. I hope for your sake you're taking some kind of calculated risk for incomprehensible reasons, and not just a hot headed retort in hopes of coming off cute, when making statements that could rightly land your butt in court.

You clearly have an obsession with "outing" people who blog here. You're creating a hostile environment by insinuating the threat. People have their reasons, not to mention their rights (something you claim to be a defendant of), to privacy. No one posts here with the original knowledge that Mr. JK will stalk your identity, and I will absolutely inform BlueOregon of how deeply this concerns me.

Your little fetish of asking for my identity every other post, which I previously dismissed as a symptom of mental illness (paranoid delusions), has now officially creeped me out. I'm going to give you a little disclaimer right now. It better never, not even for a second, have crossed your mind to violate my privacy by attempting to obtain my private identity without my consent. You'll find yourself meeting me in person all right, in court, in front of a judge.

GBT (who is hiding her real name): GBT: You mean the article entitled, "Stop Sprawl How Compact Neighborhoods Affect Modal Choice - Two Examples" that states:

"When density increases driving falls as trip lengths are shortened and more can be taken by transit or walked or bicycled. (Unfortunately, there were too few bicycle trips in the MTC survey to lead to firm conclusions, although they averaged about 0.1 trips/hh, rising to about 50% higher between 10-20 hh/res ac.) Transit trips increase with density until trip distances become short enough that more are taken by bicycle and foot. Walking trips continue to rise with density as they become more and more convenient."

"These increases in walking and transit use help explain why, in the San Francisco area, vehicle miles per household fall over 40% every time neighborhood density doubles."

"Denser cities have less driving per capita." JK: This is a classic example of a Sierra club deception. And a classic example of YOU not doing the math.

Yep, driving per capita decreased. But you forgot that the capita increased. Now multiply the two to get driving PER SQ MILE instead of per capita. Presto Instant Congestion. Do the math and get back to me.

(I do hope that you understand that multiplying people/Sq Mi by trips/person gives trips/Sq Mi., if not re-read some basic arithmetic)

A note: The driving per capita doesn’t start to decrease until you reach quit high densities, a fact hidden by the club’s changing the axis from the original chart which I posted at DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm (lower right corner)

As to the Metro claim, I’ll have to post the scan of the handout from the “where do we grow from here” event a few years back. Or you could email Burkholder and ask him.

GBT (who is hiding her real name): It better never, not even for a second, have crossed your mind to violate my privacy by attempting to obtain my private identity without my consent. You'll find yourself meeting me in person all right, in court, in front of a judge. JK: My, my, aren’t we getting paranoid. I have no desire to seek out someone so non-fact based as you (and I am having no fantasies about you either.)

However, I am interested in hearing you deny working for any government agency, contractor to governmet, transit or developer.

Thanks JK

JK: My, my, aren’t we getting paranoid. I have no desire to seek out someone so non-fact based as you (and I am having no fantasies about you either.)

GBT: I regret that retort. It was meant to be a sarcastic parody of the ridiculousness of obsessing over someone pretending not to be something as mundane as a government employee. That was before your post insinuating that you and your colleague may actually be stalking people.

JK: Yep, driving per capita decreased. But you forgot that the capita increased. Now multiply the two to get driving PER SQ MILE instead of per capita. Presto Instant Congestion. Do the math and get back to me.

GBT:

People/sq mile multiplied by trips/person would not give you trips/square mile driven (which is what I think you're implying). You would need other data points, such as the actual area covered by the cars being driven. The data implies that the closer things are, you're more likely to drive for other reasons, like when you need to go further distances.

You can look at the number of trips/person living with a defined area.

If I take the low density (3.6 hh/ac) and multiply by average daily trips per household (5.9) I'll get 21.24 trips.

If I do the same with high density (30.6 hh/ac) x 2.9 (t/hh) = 88.74 trips.

Is this what you mean by congestion?

You're still looking at only 4 households doing 21 trips a day while 31 households are doing 89 trips a day. That's a 4 to 1 ratio.

Want me to extrapolate that out for you? Let's take those same 31 households out of their condos or townhouses and put them in single family homes tract homes on about a quarter acre each (as a developer, I'm happy to sell them either one). Shall we do the math? 31 hh x 6 td = 186 trips. Huh, that's twice as much driving as they were doing before!

So, let's see if there were 186 cars instead of 89 cars it would seem like you'd have twice as many cars on the road. Which, would by definition be twice as much traffic/pollution.

GBT People/sq mile multiplied by trips/person would not give you trips/square mile driven (which is what I think you're implying). SaveEnergyByCar: Yes, it will. It gives TRIPS / Sq Mi. We are talking trips not miles. That is a different discussion. This discussion is based on the Sierra club page. If you look at the original chart, you will find that vehicle miles closely follows trips

GBT You can look at the number of trips/person living with a defined area. SaveEnergyByCar: That’s what the charts are.

GBT If I take the low density (3.6 hh/ac) and multiply by average daily trips per household (5.9) I'll get 21.24 trips. SaveEnergyByCar: Pulling data out of thin air are we? And please document you conversion factor. The original data was in persons/sq mi.

GBT If I do the same with high density (30.6 hh/ac) x 2.9 (t/hh) = 88.74 trips.

Is this what you mean by congestion?

You're still looking at only 4 households doing 21 trips a day while 31 households are doing 89 trips a day. That's a 4 to 1 ratio. SaveEnergyByCar: And all those trips are concentrated into a smaller area.

GBT Want me to extrapolate that out for you? SaveEnergyByCar: No thanks, it is already done for you at DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm Why don’t you take a look - it is pretty convinving.

GBT Let's take those same 31 households out of their condos or townhouses and put them in single family homes tract homes on about a quarter acre each (as a developer, I'm happy to sell them either one). Shall we do the math? 31 hh x 6 td = 186 trips. Huh, that's twice as much driving as they were doing before! SaveEnergyByCar: And it is spread over a wide area = less congestion (IE:Trips per area) We are not talking driving we are talking trips PER AREA.

GBT So, let's see if there were 186 cars instead of 89 cars it would seem like you'd have twice as many cars on the road. Which, would by definition be twice as much traffic/pollution. SaveEnergyByCar: NO, it would be twice as much driving, but less traffic PER AREA and less pollution because the pollution is spread over a wider area - remember we measure pollution on a volume basis. PPM etc.

Lets elaborate on a game the density profiteers play: Density reduces total pollutant emissions, but increases pollution by causing it to occur in a smaller area - where people live. So they are sacrificing people’s well being to reduce total pollutants emitted. (Save the earth, kill a person should be their motto) Density decreases total driving, but increases congestion by concentrating the driving into a smaller area. * Density also increases housing costs due to high construction cost and high land cost.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

A note: Although we are using the Sierra club web page, one needs to note that there are only three data points on the downslope part of the curve and in fact they may be an anomaly. If so the whole theory may be false. See the original chart at the bottom right of DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

SEBC

Oxymoron (aka: SaveEnergyByCar): Yes, it will. It gives TRIPS / Sq Mi. We are talking trips not miles. That is a different discussion.

GBT: Milage driven is not a part of this equation since it's not present in the data. If you're implying square mileage driven, then you would be wrong.

Oxymoron: This discussion is based on the Sierra club page. If you look at the original chart, you will find that vehicle miles closely follows trips

GBT: I'm not sure what you mean by "original chart". The chart I was referred to was by JK above (http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/modal.asp). The chart entitled "Density vs. Daily Trips, from Dunphy and Fisher" refers to ppl/square mile. I see no reference to vehicle miles.

Oxymoron: Pulling data out of thin air are we? And please document you conversion factor. The original data was in persons/sq mi.

GBT: Again, the data is from the same link, given to me from JK as stated above. The chart is "Daily Trips by Density, from MTC's 1990 Household Travel Survey". The data is given in households/acre.

Oxymoron: NO, it would be twice as much driving, but less traffic PER AREA.

GBT: Wrong. Actually, it would be twice as many trips, not twice as much driving since we don't know how much actual driving is being done. It's actually possible there could be more than twice as many miles driven since households are further from resources.

Oxymoron: less pollution because the pollution is spread over a wider area - remember we measure pollution on a volume basis. PPM etc.

GBT: Wrong again, since we do not know the mileage driven, we cannot deduce the pollution generated, regardless of how pollution is measured.

Oxymoron: And all those trips are concentrated into a smaller area.

GBT: Wrong. Again, you're implying that the miles driven were quantified. You're talking about the area the trips were generated within. Very different.

Oxymoron: And it is spread over a wide area = less congestion (IE:Trips per area) We are not talking driving we are talking trips PER AREA.

GBT: Trips generated per area/person. That doesn't mean the driving that took place over a size of area over time was quantified.

Oxymoron: Lets elaborate on a game the density profiteers play: Density reduces total pollutant emissions, but increases pollution by causing it to occur in a smaller area - where people live. So they are sacrificing people’s well being to reduce total pollutants emitted. (Save the earth, kill a person should be their motto)

GBT: What bothers me most about your claims is that their so counterintuitive. Just by looking at Houston, the city your ilk tout as a model for your vision(but oddly, won't admit to visiting) ranks number 5 in the most polluted cities list as just reported by the American Lung Association (5/1/07). Yet NYC is number 10, while not admirable, its home to millions and has a density that dwarfs Houston's.

The Houston Business Journal article, Report: "Houston fails air quality test (1/5/07)" quotes Michelle Bernth of the American Lung association as follows (http://washington.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2007/04/30/daily33.html):

"These air quality grades show a particularly troubling trend for the region," Bernth said. "In the Houston area, we certainly still have a long way to go to have air that is safe for everyone to breathe. Science clearly shows that air pollution is dangerous-even deadly-at levels we once thought were safe."

Perhaps Houston should incorporate your motto to say, "Screw the earth, kill a person".

(As an aside, I'm blown away by how this list (http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html) is actually dominated by cities that are not known for their planning. I think that it would be an interesting exercise to compare these cities in terms of density.)

Oxymoronic: Density decreases total driving, but increases congestion by concentrating the driving into a smaller area.

GBT: We discussed this. Without actual miles driven, you're claim is unsubstantiated.

Oxymoronic: Density also increases housing costs due to high construction cost and high land cost.

GBT: Interesting theory. However, I suspect that property would become increasingly affordable when you account for little things like cost of transportation (see my earlier post on Houston's ranking), or say, breathing. When the VP of the American Lung Association points out that the pollution levels in your town expose you and your family, "to unhealthful levels of ozone and particle pollution" and "Science clearly shows that air pollution is dangerous-even deadly-at levels we once thought were safe."

Perhaps density costs more, because the market dictates it to be more desirable.

torridjoeMy observation of your comprehension of facts tends to give me a great deal of sympathy for Jack.

PS: if you can point out factual errors on debunkingportland.com, please do. Otherwise quit the baseless accusations.

Thanks JK

gobytrain SEBC: Yes, it will. It gives TRIPS / Sq Mi. We are talking trips not miles. That is a different discussion.

GBT: Milage driven is not a part of this equation since it's not present in the data. If you're implying square mileage driven, then you would be wrong. SEBC Please quit pretending to be stupid. I simply started that the data shows that trips per square miles increase.

GBT: Again, the data is from the same link, given to me from JK as stated above. The chart is "Daily Trips by Density, from MTC's 1990 Household Travel Survey". The data is given in households/acre. SEBC I forgot that there were two charts on that page. OK, lets look at the chart you chose and add a third column for trips per acre:

Hh/Acre....Veh trips/Hh........Veh Trips/acre
1.4...................6.4.......................9.0 3.6...................5.9......................21.2 6.7...................5.0......................33.5 13.5.................3.8......................51.3 30.6.................2.9......................88.7 121.9...............1.2....................146.3

Looks like a pretty dramatic increase in the number of vehicle trips per acre. A 16:1 increase in trips per acre. And we know from Dunphy and Fisher that the vehicle miles follows about the same curve off as trips, so the miles per acre has a similar increase. That IS ain increase in congestion.

gobytrain SEBC: less pollution because the pollution is spread over a wider area - remember we measure pollution on a volume basis. PPM etc.

GBT: Wrong again, since we do not know the mileage driven, we cannot deduce the pollution generated, regardless of how pollution is measured. SEBC That is because you are looking at the Sierra Club instead of the original which is at the lower right of the debunkingportland.com page. You probably missed it because it is labeled “ Here is the original Dunphy and Fisher FIG 4.” Vehicle miles is one of the lines on that chart and is quite similar to trips. So we can be justified in saying that the milage increases in the same way as trips. You are wrong again.

• SEBC - (Be sure to see how you can save energy by quitting your addiction to transit and getting a car at DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm)

Oxymoron: That is because you are looking at the Sierra Club instead of the original which is at the lower right of the debunkingportland.com page.

GBT: I looked at the link JK provided, but now there's an "original"? By the way, are you one and the same?

Oxymoron: looks like a pretty dramatic increase in the number of vehicle trips per acre.

GBT: Generated per acre. As I said above, "You're still looking at only 4 households doing 21 trips a day while 31 households are doing 89 trips a day. That's a 4 to 1 ratio."

"Want me to extrapolate that out for you? Let's take those same 31 households out of their condos or townhouses and put them in single family tract homes on about a quarter acre each (as a developer, I'm happy to sell them either one). Shall we do the math? 31 hh x 6 td = 186 trips. Huh, that's twice as much driving as they were doing before!"

You agree that the same population would do less driving, but then allege that since the trips are generated within a smaller area it will thus increase congestion and pollution (while ignoring the fact that fewer trips are taken over all). However, you don't want to address directly my Houston example (your vision of a positive future for Portland's future as purported on JK's (your?) website).

It's kind of like your nome de plume, Save Gas by Car. Burning fuel (1) does not save energy, it expends energy (-1). Instead of 1-1=0 you're trying to prove that 1-1=2.

Jim Karlock: I notice that you have no comment about the ½ million OUT OF STATE money your side took.

Sal Peralta If barring use of out of state money were legal, and if Oregon implemented it, there would probably never be another conservative measure on the ballot in Oregon.

Bob Tiernan:

Can you give a straight answer? It appears that when you get right down to it, it's not any large amount that bothers you, or the fact that it comes from out of state. What matters is the facts of the issue in the measure or legislation being debated. That's good. Try to stick to that and win on the issue. As we have seen, outspending is no guarantee of anything. Recall that in 1998 the pro-light rail people outspent opponents 10-1, yet North-South failed. Sadly, that defeat caused the establishment here to decide that voters will never again get to vote on a light rail issue and are now working on their third project to prove it. Alleged pro-democracy people like progressives (no relation to progress) have been silent on this issue ever since. It's the goal that matters, apparently. No wonder so many of them have nice things to say about Fidel Castro who hasn't allowed a vote in almost half a century yet remains the beloved "Fido".

Bob Tiernan

good by train You agree that the same population would do less driving, but then allege that since the trips are generated within a smaller area it will thus increase congestion and pollution SEBC That is correct. You have the same streets and you put more cars on them - that is an increase in traffic which becomes congestion as the street’s capacity is reached.

That is also how pollution works: It is not the total amount of emitted pollution, it is the amount pollutant per volume of air. Same pollutants spread over more air = less pollution. Per volume of air..

This brings us to the planners/Enviro whacko position: They believe that it is more important to reduce the emitted pollution than to reduce the pollution where people live. That is why I wisecracked, that save the planet, kill a person is their belief.

good by train (while ignoring the fact that fewer trips are taken over all). SEBC That is not relevant to the discussion which is pollution and congestion where people live - or do you consider that less important then the total emissions? (In which case you don’t care about people’s health)

good by train It's kind of like your nome de plume, Save Gas by Car. Burning fuel (1) does not save energy, it expends energy (-1). Instead of 1-1=0 you're trying to prove that 1-1=2. SEBCHave you learned nothing? Small cars use less energy and pollute less per passenger-mile than buses. Further, where most electricity comes from coal, they pollute less than electric rail. BTW the new commuter rail will be diesel, not electric, so it will pollute more than small cars. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

• SEBC - (Be sure to see how you can save energy by quitting your addiction to transit and getting a car at DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm)

SEBC: (Be sure to see how you can save energy by quitting your addiction to transit and getting a car at DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm)

And if you like the scientific validity and logic of the above website, may I suggest taht you visit

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

That would be the home of the Flat Earth Society, where they also use scientific data and measurements to back up their claims.

Hawthorne SEBC: (Be sure to see how you can save energy by quitting your addiction to transit and getting a car at DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm)

And if you like the scientific validity and logic of the above website, may I suggest taht you visit

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

That would be the home of the Flat Earth Society, where they also use scientific data and measurements to back up their claims. SEBC; I see that you re unable to come up with any actual errors on DebunkingPortland.

• SEBC -

SEBC; I see that you re unable to come up with any actual errors on DebunkingPortland.

Dude, where to start? How could anyone find an actual error given the horrible site navigation?

You can't just throw up a website that looks like it was designed by a fifth grader lay down a rats nest of weblinks and claim relevance, authority or good sense.

Your first actual error is in the design, flow and logic of the site. Fix that and we'll go from there. Given the poor design and thinking that went into it why would anyone bother to see the same flaws replicated throughout?

torridjoe Good luck showing how a bus puts out 50x the pollution as a normal gasoline engine car. SEBC see Union Of Concerned Scientists at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html

• SEBC -

I can't resist this: Where is the third best place in the good old U S of A to live? According to today's New York TImes Real Estate Section it is good old puddletown, Portland. So much for all of your nattering about density and crowding.

This has made for very interesting reading...thank you all for taking the (considerable) time to outline your positions and debate the issues...these are clearly emotional issues with very strong feelings on both sides...please allow me to add my thoughts.

First, I should make it known that I did not vote for M37 because I reject the notion that I (as a taxpayer) should be somehow responsible for securing the speculative real estate investments of my neighbors. I firmly believe in personal property rights, and that individuals should be compensated if government actions dictate a change in how they are actually using their property at that time. However, investing in real estate based on what you MIGHT do with it in the future is speculation, and like any other speculative investment it has risks, and one of the risks is changes in regulations. Just because your investment is a piece of land does not give you a god-given right to a gauranteed return on that investment. Consider the individual who invests (say) in a company than builds nuclear power plants, and the government determines that nuclear power is not safe and puts a moratorium on new plants, so the company stock tumbles. Should we as taxpayers be required to compensate that individual for the loss in value of their investment? Of course not - the notion is absurd. And so - to my way of thinking - is the underlying premise behind M37.

What I did not know (until reading this thread) is that the nice folks who brought us M37 had previously tried several (progressively more unsuccessful) frontal attacks against land use planning...I suspect that if they had been honest about their real agenda with M37, the results would have been quite different.

I also did not know that the M37 opposition outspent the advocates 3:1...but I do know that the opposition never got their act together in terms of delivering a clear, concise, compelling message.

Nor did I know that "on paper", Houston and LA are better places to live than Portland...all I know is that I've visited both, and much prefer Portland (as it seems many others do in spite of the dismal conditions that have been created by the evil planning nazis)...just proves the old point that statistics don't lie, only people do...

But one thing that I do know (and that hasn't been mentioned here) is that there is a finite amount of prime farmland in this state, and when it's gone it's gone forever...the M37 proponents like to bring up tons of irrellevant data about the decline of the family farm, the good farm land included within UGBs, how we should import all of our food because it's cheaper, etc, etc...but the facts are the facts...land that can grow food to feed people is a limited resource that must be preserved for our long-term national security (or else we'll be invading foreign countries in 100 years for food - the way we do now for oil).

But the thing that is still troubling about all of this is that 60% of Oregonians voted for this dog of a law, against the warnings of virtually every credible public official in the state. We also know from other election results that at least 15% of these people who voted for M37 are not stupid, so I have a difficult time buying the arguement that "people didn't know what they were voting for". Was it just a reaction to over-zealous enforcement of land use regulations, or what?

<h2>The foregoing discussion illustrates how complex land use issues are. Those who might think that I, and maybe some other voters, did not fully understand Measure 37, are right, of course. When experienced attorneys, land use lawyers, legislators, and public policy analysts cannot agree on interpretation, it is folly for me to presume greater wisdom. Still, one lives and votes. I voted for Measure 37 without any belief in its perfection and I will assess the legislature's ballot measure after I read it and the inevitable pro and con debates. But however I vote, it will be with the knowledge that my understanding remains imperfect. Regardless of the voting outcome, our pleasant way of life will change if population continues to increase without end.</h2>