I wonder if you have any idea how your confused little rant, taken as a whole, comes across as screed against the aspirations of the working middle class, rather than an informative and persuasive piece which invites people of diverse perspectives to help solve the problems Measure 37 has created? I'd wager that to a casual visitor to Blue Oregon who has unresolved feelings about Measure 37, your agenda-driven, moralizing attack that ignores and disrespect the actual social dynamics which led to it's passage is quite offputting. Of course, for you this may just be about egotistical preaching to a choir that failed to act responsibly and intelligently, much less constructively, against Measure 37 anyway, rather than actually doing something meaningful.

One thing is particularly ridiculous about your analysis. You display that typical ugly NW/Oregonian narcissim if you really believe, as your over-reaching framing suggests, that the idiosyncratic, provincial problems we face here with regard to Measure 37 are THE epic example of the larger economic problems we face in this country. A few facts for you: Oregon is one of 50 (2%) states, but we have only 1.2% of the population, about 1.1% of the GDP, and 2.6% of the land mass of the U.S . I think it is safe to say that we are not representative of the country as a whole for those and a host of other reasons. (We are, however, disproproportionately "over-blessed" with smug, self-centered, white baby-boomers and those on the fringes of that age group and that may make us emblematic of a whole other set of social dysfunctions.) I feel quite safe in saying that Oregon will continue to be a follower, rather than a leader, in implementing the successful adaptions our country discovers to the challenges we actually face. The Measure 37 episode and the socio-political environment it represented will not even be a postscript to that history.

Measure 37 came about because of the abject moral failure of you and those who supported our land use planning system to respectfully maintain the trust of a voting majority of a state in which that should have been easy to do. The arrogance typified by groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon in their failure to act as moral trustees of a legacy entrusted to them, an arrogance you continue to demonstrate here without missing a beat, is THE chief reason why we are in this mess.

SB 100 and the entire land use system came into existence during the first petroleum shock of the 70's

The debate since the passage of 37 has largely skirted the issue of the end of oil. Proponents attempt to argue that farming is dead, and that we can feed ourselves on a tiny part of the land (or at least that is what I thought I heard Harland Levy testify to, as if a realtor would know anything about farming). The other agriculture related argument that I hear today is that, in the words of a Washington County claimant, "we have too many winos now."

Vinyard land is valuable to builders, and I'm seeing what I would call "oenaphobia."

As we see the effects of imported food on our pets, global warming, and the cost of oil to our lifestyles, you would think that reasonable people would be doing everything possible in terms of public policy to increase local agriculture and urban environments that leave a low carbon footprint and would make best use of our limited energy resources.

Veeper SB 100 and the entire land use system came into existence during the first petroleum shock of the 70's JK: You forgot to mention the role of other popular delusions of the time: The Population Bomb Oops! The world population boom didn’t exponentially explode, instead the end is in sight (as any idiot could have seen at the time by looking at individual, industrialized coutries’ birth patterns). Canecel the upcoming food shortage and mass starvation. The Limits to Growth Oops. We did not run out of many raw materials (and won’t anytime soon, as the supply of exploreable dirt is constantly expanding). We have more raw materials. We did not run out of food. We actually are growing more food on less land.

Veeper The debate since the passage of 37 has largely skirted the issue of the end of oil. JK: Another fallacy like the above. That we use such delusions as a foundation of public policy has caused many Oregonians to suffer a lower standard of living than they might have had.

Veeper Proponents attempt to argue that farming is dead, and that we can feed ourselves on a tiny part of the land JK: That is the reality of what is actually happening.

Veeper (or at least that is what I thought I heard Harland Levy testify to, as if a realtor would know anything about farming). JK: And you are the expert?

Veeper and the cost of oil to our lifestyles, you would think that reasonable people would be doing everything possible in terms of public policy to increase local agriculture and urban environments... JK: Are you actually expecting people to give up their lifestyle to save a little money on the cost of gasolene? If so, you are as deluded as the average city planner.

History and Europe clearly shows that the reaction to expensive gasolene is to get more fuel-efficient cars, not to move into some Homer Williams condo jungle in the polluted, crime infested city center. I hope you noticed that there are a lot of hybrids driving around Portland now. They effectively make $2 gas out of $5 gas through efficiency. This has been the pattern throughout much of modern history and is well understood by economists, but beyond the intellect of politicians and planners.

Of course the obvious next step in cars is the plug in hybrid which will completely free us from petroleum for the first 20-50 mile of daily driving. This will completely free many people form oil and maybe allow us to once again be energy independent, especially if we had the political will to use our already known reserves.

Veeper ... that leave a low carbon footprint and would make best use of our limited energy resources. JK: Please spare us from Al Gore’s partisan B.S.

Thanks JK

That's rich! JK banning partisan BS!

This debate over whether private citizens should be allowed to subdivide land however it is zoned will not end with a gutting of Measure 37 this legislative session.

On the contrary, gutting Measure 37 and sending it back to the voters will propel subsequent measures just like Measure 37 or stronger in the next elections.

This is one issue that conservatives and those who believe in the right of private property will not back down on.

Elections and houses in the Oregon legislature may swing on this issue alone.

Democrats got the Oregon legislature back in 2006 in large part to voter dissatisfaction over the Iraq permeating down into the state and local levels causing protest voting by Republicans. Likewise, Republicans retained the presidency in 2004 because history has shown that Americans are reluctant to change presidential administrations during wartime. I don't expect the same results for Democrats to occur in 2008 because it will be a presidential year and Republicans are sending signals to Bush that if results of the "surge" are not apparent by September then they will not support this infinite adventure in the middle of a civil war anymore.

BTW, I have always wondered this regarding private property and Kelo.

If Democrats and liberals profess to champion individual rights, then why do they throw their support behind the State usurping individual rights?

There seems to be an inherent conflict between the due process rights spelled out in the 14th Amendment and Government using the Kelo decision and an overbloated, economically unsustainable land use system to usurp those 14th Amendment due process rights. IMO.

"If Democrats and liberals profess to champion individual rights, then why do they throw their support behind the State usurping individual rights?"

YOV, You seem to be trying to confuse liberal Democrats with libertarianism or anarchism. Liberal Democrats support individual rights in the context of a community, where the rights of others also must be respected.

Re: Karlock. Have you noticed that when you po someone, their grammer and writing go South?

His screed comes down to his last point:

Veeper ... that leave a low carbon footprint and would make best use of our limited energy resources. JK: Please spare us from Al Gore’s partisan B.S.

Thanks JK

Well, JK: spend some time here, well beyond Al Gore's "BS":

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

Then, JK, spend a LOT of time here: http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

As to young oregon voter, I have no clue whatsoever as to what you mean by:

"BTW, I have always wondered this regarding private property and Kelo.

"If Democrats and liberals profess to champion individual rights, then why do they throw their support behind the State usurping individual rights?

"There seems to be an inherent conflict between the due process rights spelled out in the 14th Amendment and Government using the Kelo decision and an overbloated, economically unsustainable land use system to usurp those 14th Amendment due process rights. IMO."

What in the devil are you blovating about?

You want to talk about liberalism. The distinction between liberalism and conservatism hinges on how either would use the power of the state. A liberal would use the power of the state to insure the well being of all. A conservative would use the powe of the state to insure norms of belief.

Kelo? Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives can find common ground that this is a bad decision.

I conclur with Doretta: I doubt you've ever been there. I have. I've lived there. Their values are far more consistent with the land use values that OIA subverted with Measure 37. Fortunately, as others have more clearly stated that I am able, to continue the bad-vibes mantra of Meausre 37 and "property rights" (whatever that means [perhaps young oregonian can elighten us) is immaterial.

If you want to engage in any debate, you cannot do so except within the context of HB 3540 - everything else is so much chaff.

JIm said:

"Veeper SB 100 and the entire land use system came into existence during the first petroleum shock of the 70's

"JK: You forgot to mention the role of other popular delusions of the time: The Population Bomb Oops! The world population boom didn’t exponentially explode, instead the end is in sight (as any idiot could have seen at the time by looking at individual, industrialized coutries’ birth patterns). Canecel the upcoming food shortage and mass starvation."

Jim: were you there? What do you mean by oops! Your sentence structure contridicts you: "the world population didn't exponentially explode, instead the end is in sight . . ." Whatever are you talking about? I spent three years in Africa and I know what it was like before I arrived, and I know what it is like now. Get your head around the issue.

Measure 37 came about because of the abject moral failure of you and those who supported our land use planning system to respectfully maintain the trust of a voting majority of a state in which that should have been easy to do. The arrogance typified by groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon in their failure to act as moral trustees of a legacy entrusted to them, an arrogance you continue to demonstrate here without missing a beat, is THE chief reason why we are in this mess.

While the tone of that comment is overblown, unfortunately, there is some truth in it. I say that as a supporter and admirer of 1000 Friends and its leadership. I think 1000 Friends got caught in the trap of defending the land use laws intellectually and in the courts and failing to rally broad public support for those legal victories.

On the other hand, opponents used those same legal victories as examples of the laws rigidity and unintended consequences. They did not always limit themselves to the actual facts or issues to make an appealing public case.

The result was that while 1000 Friends won in the courts and won the intellectual debate, it lost public opinion at some level.

The fact remains, most Oregonians continue to support the land use laws. They were sold Measure 37 as restoring balance to those laws. I think most are now convinced it went to far in the other direction.

doretta Have you ever been to Europe? Europeans rely much more heavily on mass transit than we do even in smallish cities They are significantly less likely to drive a car to work than we are. JK: Only in a planner’s dreams. Over 78% of person-kilometers in Europe are by car. See PortlandFacts.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm (be sure to download the original booklet from the European Union)

(Sure their transit numbers are a bit higher, but its basically a case of two times zero still equals zero.)

doretta I'm not sure where you are really getting the ideas you are promoting but it's clearly not from the Europe we have on this planet. JK: I got that inconvenient fact from the European union. You really should quit believing anything that planners say. They are really quite out of touch with reality.

Thanks JK

Red Cloud Well, JK: spend some time here, well beyond Al Gore's "BS":

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

Then, JK, spend a LOT of time here: www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx JK: Sorry not in the mood for science fiction. For some science see: co2science.org/ junkscience.com/ To understand that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, see this page at a site advised by the creator of Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick” temperature chart: realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Then learn how CO2 only causes, at most, 33% of the greenhouse effect: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Then findout how much of the total CO2 release is man caused and get back to me about Al Gore’s partisan B.S.

BTW don’t miss AL Gore’s confession of BS: Question: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Al Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions. (bold added) From: grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/

Thanks JK

Jim Karlock, you think facts are BS?

Or you think it's BS to put a high number of factual presentations before the public?

Or you don't realize that Gore was saying that right now the emphasis for people communicating about climate change is on describing the facts instead of describing possible solutions, because talking about solutions will work better after more of the public is familiar with the facts?

Ross said "I think most are now convinced it went to far in the other direction"

It didn't go too far because M37 effects relatively a very small amount of the State. Take out all the claims which both sides see as essentially harmless and the amount is even less. Minuscule really. But the demagoguery lambasting M37 with all sorts of lying liberal creations has polls showing the desired outcome. Still, any real competing campaign and election will expose the propaganda for what it is.

Today on Kremer and Abrahms, that right wing-nut Marc Abrahms, said he viewed the legislative "fix" as a 2/3 of a gutting of M37. And he works for the Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers.

In previous threads die hard anti-M37 posters have tried to spin the fix as not a gutting of M37.

Peter Brey, perhaps you should call up Abrahms so you guys can get your stories straight before the campaign starts.

Hopefully M37 will proceed to much implementation and development. Of course none of the calamity will occur but that won't stop the whining.

What I find intellectually dishonest is that had it been Metro and other planning bureaucracies who selected the same parcels as M37 for development these same M37 opponents would be calling it good planning.

That's really what this is all about.

Liberals can't stand people, not government planners making the calls. And all the hysteria since M37 got on the ballot and passed has been nothing but liberals stomping their feet and screaming like brats.

But now we have respected liberal Marc Abrahms validating that the "fix" is a gutting so what's next children?

The single best description of the liberal philosophy can be found in the first chapter (amusingly enough) of John Grisham's The Pelican Brief in which he describes the philosophy of a fictional Supreme Court justice thusly:

His ideology was simple: government over business, the individual over government, the environment over everything. And the Indians, give them whatever they want.

It's not quite perfect, but it's pretty damn good for 19 words.

This comment Kari, is probably the single most nutty and undecipherable comment I have read on this blog, bar none. I am attributing it to a chance to introduce some levity, which certainly is appropriate, because it doesn't make sense from any other viewpoint. I don't want to believe it is some kind of unartful, backhand slam, particularly since it is more representative of a certain nutty Blue Oregon contingent than anybody else I know. This bears no resemblance to the any of the liberals / Liberal Democrats I have known over the course of my life who cut the chain cold, and appropriately, between "individual over government" and "environment over individual", but support a host of disadvantaged groups, including native Americans, in their efforts to redress legitimate grievances about ongoing patterns of violations of their individual rights.

And by the way, Veeper is the one who started the whole global warming thing with the coded "low carbon footprint" remark. Following the nutty remark I quoted, your failure to point the finger where it should have been pointed to rightly keep out the whole global warming thing compounds the nuttiness.

Dem Voter's comment

YOV, You seem to be trying to confuse liberal Democrats with libertarianism or anarchism. Liberal Democrats support individual rights in the context of a community, where the rights of others also must be respected.

misrepresentating the values of liberal Democrats is typical of a certain nutty segment of the Oregon Democratic party (Dem Voter didn't say enough to suggest whether he/she is in the nutty segment). And I say that as a proud liberal Oregon Democrat who finds the rot from within of that nutty segment to be a bigger problem for the party than opposition from anything outside the party.

All the Liberal Democrats I have known in my life found Kelo to be an absolute backstabbing betrayal of Democratic party beliefs by several DLC Democratic appointees on the court. We support individual rights, and only support community-oriented decisions on land-use and such as the collective expression of individuals exercising their civil rights to strike a balance with property rights. Kelo was not even close to being in the spirit of liberal/progressive Democratic party belief because it was about nothing more or less than illegimately putting the property interests of a privileged private interests over the legitimate property and civil rights of individual average working people we respect, to the point of outright theft. I think DeFazio's position against Kelo says all that needs to be said to prove that. Liberal/progressive Democrats worthy of that label should be publicly criticizing any Oregon Democrats, including elected officials, who support the principles of Kelo as being a disgrace to the party.

doretta JK, you cherry picked one number you liked and you ignore everything else, including that the number you chose to share does not contradict anything I said. JK: Well, lets compare your statement with my response:

doretta Europeans rely much more heavily on mass transit than we do.... They are significantly less likely to drive a car to work than we are. JK: Over 78% of person-kilometers in Europe are by car.

78% by car only leaves 22% by non-car. Not a heck of a lot, especially after you subtract the airline share. Oh, did I mention that the tranist share declined by about 20% in the last 20 years.

Not exactly the model of transit usage that the planners trout out to convince us to live like rats in cages.

Thanks JK

Let's get back to Measure 37, which says changing the rules or compensation.

Was it Prineville where someone wanted to develop a well known landmark like a bluff and the local authority (county? city?) said "we won't allow that, how much do you want in compensation? and wasn't there eventually a court case? Yes, it is late, I'm tired, and don't remember clearly.

But if there was a court decision, that means more than all the philosophical debate.

I lived in Germany for 5 years and found the transport for most of my peers was the bus and the train. We all live in 4 plex or 6 plex and high rises. green space was everywhere and used for small family garden plots. we ate well all summer and good canning made winter pleasent. Bike trails to the town center (Wiesbaden)were everywhere. We would load up the bikes on the bus for the ride up hill. 37 is a very poor way to make things better for all. The I got mine and will do as I want, when I want, is so over. Gated tracks of houses? All this makes me think of kids on a roller coaster. Everyone screams on the way down. And those that scream the loadest are the most scared, yet will say they are not. land use is for all, not for the few with money. Honey, lets go live in the woods. But, sweety is dark there. Do not worry we will cut down the trees.

I keep reading how the "fix" "guts" or "2/3 guts" 37. Would it be asking too much to get back to what Russ Sadler was writing about.

Karlock doesn't want to live like a rat in a cage, which really passes judgment on the good folks of Stockholm, Paris, and Berlin. The rest of us don't like to see cities pour over their belt lines like so many beer bellies.

Sadler addressed the sustainability of land use. In his conclusion, he writes:

Oregon’s population grew by one million during the last 30 years. The land use challenge was keeping suburban sprawl under control to protect the agricultural and timber base of Oregon’s economy. In 1950, six of the top ten agricultural counties were in the Willamette Valley. That is still the case in 2006 despite one million more people.

It is an issue of public policy. Public policy codifies values for a long term purpose. I'm sixth generation; I've watched Salem grow from 35K and still keep its character (what little it has). What we have is the product of policy enacted over the past 30-50 years. No one, least of all Karlock, has offered any substantive discussion as to why that is now wrong and that we should allow property owners to determine the state of the landscape.

One thing is certain. The next 30 years will not resemble that last 30 years. The conditions that created Oregon’s post-World War II prosperity no longer exist. Measure 37 seeks to perpetuate the post-war land use patterns even though they are economically unsustainable. Measure 37 -- even the “fixed” version -- forces Oregon taxpayers to pay unnecessary “compensation” to land owners if government changes the land use rules to reflect the changing realities. Is that what you voted for when you voted for Measure 37? I didn’t think so.

Sadler tries to focus us on what the next 30 years will look like, just as McCall tried to focus those of us who were here then on what Oregon would look like today. Thirty years ago, this is what they/we wanted.

I am not entirely happy with HB3540. When I read statements of public policy such as Measure 37 is, I read the words for what they do, not for what I'd like them to do. I am not going to read non-existent words into the statute. I have read 37 to the point I could recide it word for word. I have also read and analyzed 3540. I have set them side by side. What Abrams thinks 3540 guts, is as nearly as I can figure, to gut the non-existent words he sees there.

As has been said before, the issue will be what 3540 does. If it "guts" I need to know how, because that will say more about the critic than it does about the bill. Forget 37; how does 3540 fit with your world view?

Sadler is saying we have some very, very hard choices ahead of us. Karlock and some of the rest of you deny this. To read you, it is like observing the last defender of the world as flat.

"What Abrams thinks 3540 guts, is as nearly as I can figure, to gut the non-existent words he sees there."

You better call Abrams and get him back on the plantation. He's drifted so far he's imaganing "non-existent words".

veeper, you could not be more of a hypocrite. You claim Abrams imagined non-exitent words in 3540?

You've "read 37 to the point I could recide it word for word".

Did you happen to notice that AG Hardy Meyers imagined non-existent words about nontranferability in M37?

doretta and Veeper betray their self-centered narrowness of their viewpoint in their comments. I think only someone like them would see careful criticism of living patterns of European society, being reflective of a history of regressive class rigidity that continues to this day as they are (not to mention a modern resurgence of virulent racism), as somehow being something to only be answered with disdain.

Of course, as in the U.S., the middle class of Europe has become what used to be called the "bourgeoisie", a smug, self-centered class that continues to aspire to be upper class (a lot of those middle class apartment dwellers also would like to own a house in the country or on the sea), and expresses carefully-circumscribed concern for those underneath them on the social ladder, and only to extent those people both affirm the entitlement of the middle class and they receive social capital for doing so.

And unfortunately, Ross Williams is wrong: 1000 Friends of Oregon only won the intellectual argument if one in fact shared the belief the argument should be predicated on the condescending values of people like doretta and Veeper. When those values are challenged as not being progressive or even particularly enlightened, much less being in the total best interest of our society, the intellectual "argument" falls apart because it is built on weak and false foundations.

Measure 37 then failed because of people were so obnoxiously self-assured they had made the case in their opposition. Measure 37 was a as much a rejection of a lot of those people because solutions based on their values to the problems we face were disrespectul to others who also understood the problem, but felt solutions needed to be compatible with other diverse viewpoints and values. And I'm not talking about the crazy right wing or doctrinaire libertarians here, I'm talking about average working people with widely diverse life circumstances.

I apologize for the poor pronoun references.

What I want Abrams to do, and all of us to do, is to compare the words in 37 with the word in HB 3540. Tell me what it is in 3540 that offends you with respect to 37.

The "words" to which I infer are the ability to engage in any legal development when any reduction in value is established under 37. Sadler and others talk about what the voters "approved." I have gone through the pro-37 statements to try identify what the voters approved - I cannot find arguments that 37 would result in the claims that have been filed. I have found, when I read the arguments in opposition, nearly every concern expressed has come to pass.

"I have found, when I read the arguments in opposition, nearly every concern expressed has come to pass."

That's hysterical since not a single M37 development has occured yet. The only thing that has comne to pass is more demagoguery, wild fabrications and outright falsehoods perpetrated by the oppostion. You just can't help yourself can you?

Ironicly, essentially none of Metro's 2002 UGB expansions have been developed etiher. That's some kind of marvelous planning you all defend. It's all about conniving roadblocks. Including the cooked up transferrability road block. Which will actually serve to accelarate M37 development as people move forward partnering with developers to vest their M37 "use" rights.

Torrid, there is absolutely zero doubt you know nothing about the two Judge's rulings or the AG creation. Or excuse me, about as much as you know about Urban Renewal. Meyers and the judges have utilized a hyper-technical attempt at blocking M37 by interpreting the word "use" to mean what they needed it to mean.

I can almost see a Marc Abrams commentary coming here.

Janice:

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, The mulberry bush , the mulberry bush, Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, So early in the morning.

I'm a trusting soul. I trust the data from the counties and from the 473 files I've reviewed. So, Janice: who do I trust? What the claimants say they want or do I have to wait until it is all completed.

In the words of Rudyard Kipling:

I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.

Unlike, I fear, you:

But different folk have different views; I know a person small- She keeps ten million serving-men, Who get no rest at all!

She sends'em abroad on her own affairs, From the second she opens her eyes- One million Hows, two million Wheres, And seven million Whys!

Here is just one of your seven million whys: "That's hysterical since not a single M37 development has occured yet. The only thing that has comne to pass is more demagoguery, wild fabrications and outright falsehoods perpetrated by the oppostion. You just can't help yourself can you?"

Have you given any thought at all to comparing the words in 37 and the words in HB 3540, staying to the point, and telling me why you object to the provisions, why you are unwilling to make any compromise other than to badmouth people who are trying to make rational contributions to the discussion.

Good point, Torridjoe:

"Because the nature of who the "present owner" is in M37 is so clearly defined, the measure hamstrings itself by tying all benefits and remonstrances due to said "present owner."--and thus not to anyone else."

Gosh, wouldn't "transferability" be one of those words being read into 37 that is not there? And perhaps that is why 3540 has to provide for it.

Then there is what you can do under 37 because there are no words:

"(8) Notwithstanding any other state statute or the availability of funds under subsection (10) of this act, in lieu of payment of just compensation under this act, the governing body responsible for enacting the land use regulation may modify, remove, or not to apply the land use regulation or land use regulations to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner acquired the property."

Thus, once you have established entitlement to just compensation, which is defined as "the reduction in the fair market value," the agency will waive the regulation. That means you can do any legal thing permitted. Any loss results in any legal development. 3540 now provides for a definition of loss and limits development to the amount of the loss. Fairness, at least, is now defined so anyone can understand it, without having to guess (or find words that are not there).

M37 is not sacrosanct. It's not written stone, but supposedly was a stab at correcting property devaluation experienced by certain property owners. The implied intent of M37 was to redress perceived damages to property owners associated with property they bought prior to implementation of land protection laws. And nothing more.

It's been said that consequences of M37 implemented would be minimal because claims effect a relatively small part of the state, yet the true effect of M37 is not and probably can't be definitively known unless it were allowed to happen. What seems pretty certain, is that under an unrevised M37, we'd be seeing be suprizes in the form of development and whatnot popping up in various places over the landscape where the people of Oregon have decided they don't want such things to be.

The population grows larger but land area within the state does not. Rolling single family dwellings across the landscape in order to accomodate an archaic form of housing stands a good chance of destroying that which many Oregonians regard as home.

Janice said: "Did you happen to notice that AG Hardy Meyers imagined non-existent words about nontranferability (sic) in M37?"

Or, more accurately, he failed to imagine non-existent words about transferability.

I love how it's only judicial activism if it po's a Republican.

"accomodate an archaic form of housing stands..."

Detached single family homes are regarded as "archaic?"

God, you whackos kill me...

All the Liberal Democrats I have known in my life found Kelo to be an absolute backstabbing betrayal of Democratic party beliefs by several DLC Democratic appointees on the court.

That's assumedly because none of them read it, or are familiar with the history of eminent domain. There was no other rational way to decide Kelo than the way it was decided.

More than a couple of them (including a few in the legal profession) and I had read the decision and some associated informed commentary, and found the assumptions of majority on which they chose to predicate a decision which supposedly "There was no other rational way to decide" to hardly be beyond dispute. Since you seem predisposed to given legal analyses here, perhaps you can enlighten us with your considered opinion of why Kelo, being in the part the grounds on which limits on M37 would be philosophically validated, was not decidable any other way. This would include refuting the arguments of the minority, of course. It should be quite interesting.

Bravo, doretta:

"I've been saying for a very long time that much of the most problematic legislation by initiative that we have represents a serious failure of those of us on the left of the politial spectrum to look for--let alone find--better solutions to very real problems. Measure 37 is in that category as is Measure 5, in my opinion. When you are setting up your strawmen you might look less foolish if you refrain from attaching my name to them."

whether artfully, or not, we have been trying to open the door to compromise and to consideration of alternatives. Have you noticed how direct requests to this end are ignored? I fear they, though do not share your concerns about "problematic legislation by initiative." Keep it up, though.

There is a mistake that we have made. We made comparisons to European policy decisions and then let Jim rip the statistics, for example about person/miles, and holding that up for ridicule.

What we should have done is to point at that what he said was an example of a logical fallacy. He is arguing tu quoque. That is bad argument. They do this, therefore their values are wrong. We were trying to make an argument about policy and he was using bad reasoning. Europeans have faults just like us and may not meet their own goals - does that mean the goals were bad.

Of course doretta, you misrepresent what was said here because it is clear you just can't stand to be challenged, or have someone deconstruct carefully what you say and the context and manner in which you say it.

You throw out a comment that seems so full of meaning, but in fact is really just an embellished cliche used for effect, since it does not contain any content that can be responded to directly:

blockquote You can do better than that, Mr. Wanting, one statistic does not make a careful criticism. blockquote

First, what statistic are you referring to? (By the way, a statistic is a measured numerical quantity and I cited none, nor did I refer to the correctness or meaning of any you cited because I didn't see any you cited.) You made several comments, including an approving anecdotal observation about the living patterns of one social class, that in fact clearly conveyed preferences and value judgements. You resent that fact that those were held up to scrutiny on their own merit.

You then try to play an intellectually dishonest whining game, practiced quite well by the neocon rightwing actually, that maybe works well for you, of misrepresenting the entire comment as being about you personally and in an attempt to make you look like the victim of an unfair attack:

You are so caught up in your own narrative that although you comment on who I am and what I think quite frequently you don't actually have a clue about either.

I note you do this right down to using a meme like "caught up in your own narrative" which is factually incorrect, solely for the drama-queen effect. No one commented on the existential issue you clearly make this comment to be about of "who you (are)". Again, what was held up to scrutiny here were the preferences and values you chose to express. Just how great is your sense of entitlement that you are arrogant enough (and immature enough frankly) to believe no one has the right to call you out for preferences and values you chose to express publicly?

Finally, your last statement continues in that vein of trying to make you look like misunderstood victim:

I've been saying for a very long time that much of the most problematic legislation by initiative that we have represents a serious failure of those of us on the left of the politial spectrum to look for--let alone find--better solutions to very real problems. Measure 37 is in that category as is Measure 5, in my opinion. When you are setting up your strawmen you might look less foolish if you refrain from attaching my name to them.

The rest of my comment did not talk about Measure 37 at all but was directed at a specific assertion by Ross Williams about the nature of the bigger failure of 1000 Friends of Oregon and how your comments were illustrative. It is an objective fact that the several comments you chose to make had as their point precisely the character that was illustrative. There was no strawman argument being set up because the argument was about the merit of the intellectual argument, and how it depended on a particular set of values and beliefs of which you and veeper merely provided specific example at your own choosing.

So knock-off the typical childish, narcissistic Portland Democrat whining about being treated unfairly after you repeatedly shot off your mouth (virtually speaking). Or about how your enlightened and superior views are being misrepresented and misunderstood, "I stand by my previous comments," doretta. Particularly after the extent to which you developed your views attacking the views and values of other commentors.

There is a mistake that we have made. We made comparisons to European policy decisions and then let Jim rip the statistics, for example about person/miles, and holding that up for ridicule.

That is not your mistake veeper, and it is where the "we" you allude to here "just don't get it". Where you have legitimately come in for criticism is in citing the European model as compatible with, if not outright exemplary, of your preferences and values. Some have done that overtly. Others have implicitly by citing admiringly how that is proof of what can be done.

For that reason, this bit of scrambled thinking is just that:

What we should have done is to point at that what he said was an example of a logical fallacy. He is arguing tu quoque. That is bad argument. They do this, therefore their values are wrong. We were trying to make an argument about policy and he was using bad reasoning. Europeans have faults just like us and may not meet their own goals - does that mean the goals were bad.

I don't think you know what the "tu quoque" fallacy actually is, because what you describe, at least as you describe it is not that. "tu quoque" means your argument is invalid because it is inconsistent with other views you express, i.e. you are hypocritical". Personally, I haven't read much here that shows your goals are incompatible at all with values you actually express, and I think both are quite subject to criticism on their merit. Not the least reason for that is this is an argument about politics, and therefore values. In that sphere, pointing out hypocrisy is quite legitimate when it comes to assessing the merit of values, which rightly has nothing to do with logic, but life, death and all those other illogical (alogical?) facets of human existence.

If you have goals for living patterns in our communities that appear to be satisfied by what you observe in European communities, (and those are goals the "we" must approve of that have been met because they have been cited as examples) and those European living patterns are a necessary consequence of a certain set of historically long standing, elitist, regressive, class-based preferences and values in those communities, which they are, it is quite legitimate to question what preferences and values you have that gives you goals of having similar living patterns. Particularly when all the commentary just drips with selfish elitist sensibilities. (Frankly, I think a lot of it is just not knowing any better for a whole lot of reasons, which arguably is less damning if not more easy to accept, but the "we" you allude to will have to demonstrate that lest critics be accused further of unfair attacks).

By the way, there is a lot of I find to approve of in European society, just not the history of a lack of respect for individual liberty, and the continued acceptance of inherent class distinctions that in some ways continue to be the key values that distinguishes us from European societies. And that actually are much more shared by a lot of NWers and Oregonians who believe they are progressive, but really are just self-indulgent to the point of believing everyone should just naturally share their views as being the most enlightened and preferable.

Although I don't think I agree at all politically with Karlock (I gather he is Libertarian?), since the "we" you allude to has cited aspects of European society approvingly it is quite legitimate to point out all the contrary facts as evidence of the merit of certain goals. And raise questions why those societies were dedicated to meeting certain goals and not meeting others, as well as what that says about the actual preferences and values at work in the framing in both sets of goals. As already noted, it is quite legitimate to call the preferences and values of "we" into question, since the societies you cite approvingly have very dark parts of their histories as a consequence of those same preferences and values.

Wantananswer:

"Tu quoque (Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions." from wikpedia

I'm a simple soul. I just want to find out how 3540 undermines Measure 37. I want to engage in a discussion of whether what I advocated for 30 years ago was a bad mistake. I want someone to tell me that Oregon is a good place for reasons other than the land use values we put into place then and then to prove it.

Thirty years ago we looked thirty to fifty years ahead. Today, with all of those who think 37 is such a good idea, all I can discern is that they think what is good for them is good for Oregon. I lived through a period in which a Secretary of Defense argued that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. I live now in a world in which what is good for one congregation is supposed to be good for me.

I lived in a world and still live in a world in which the value of where I live is contingent upon the setting of where I live. I once lived where community mattered and that extended to how land could be used.

I now live in a world in which "land use" means something more than how the land is actually used and means something more like what it will be worth when I elect to sell it for some other purpose. I'm not here to defend anyone's right to make a profit from their investment. You take a risk; live with the consequences, and that extends to what you intended for some piece of property in the future.

I read Dorothy English's ad in Sunday's Oregonian. She talked about "the good gentlemen" who came to her aid and helped her enact 7 and 37. Sorry, folks, but Dorothy and all the rest of you who think 37 is such a good thing, made a bargain with the devil. And when you look at the claims that have been filed, especially in Washington County, look at the number filed by those "good gentlemen" and you, if you are not too thick, will see the Faustian bargain Dorothy and her ilk made.

The question boils down to a simple one: can the community determine how land will be used? The answer is "yes" and it is not a taking unless use is denied.

Okay, I now have to admit, veeper and doretta, that I am very confused as to the points you are trying to make.

Veeper, Beats me what your point is in quoting a definition of "tu quoque"

"Tu quoque (Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions." from wikpedia

that doesn't apply to the fact set you cited about the arguments of critics, or if you actually feel this is saying something substantively different from my definition, intentionally put in the vernacular so it is easier to understand:

your argument is invalid because it you are ... hypocritical"

Note this is not saying that a hypocritical argument is uncritical, but that it is a fallacy to argue that one's argument is invalid because they are hypocritical. And this is quite different from saying one's advocacy is unpersuasive because one is hypocritical. There is nothing in the facts you cite that those you view as critics were leveling charges of hypocrisy, much less that they said arguments you agree with were false because of hypocrisy.

With regard to your final statement,

The question boils down to a simple one: can the community determine how land will be used? The answer is "yes" and it is not a taking unless use is denied.

I agree in the simple and limited form you state the proposition. As you'll see in my response to torridjoe, however, I think the 1000 FoO camp of the anti-Measure 37 crowd privately takes a very different reading of this than this simple and limited reading. Also, there is interesting detail that you have to grapple with here. It is long-standing law that zoning laws creates a vested property right for the property owner: If a property is re-zoned for a lower value use, the property owner does have a cause of action at the time of re-zoning for lost value. So your view about the community's rights and obligations needs to accommodate that fact.

In Oregon the legal landscape, not to mention the emotional landscape, would be quite different if this legal precept had been properly observed when the land-use laws were put into place. After all, the owners did receive years of benefit in the form of lower taxes in exchange for their loss-of-value and for the infrastructure costs they did not have to bear for a level of use that could not occur. It would have been a lot cheaper to compensate for lost value, and the anti-Measure 37 side would have had a lot stronger case, if things had been done right when the land use laws were put into place.

Measure 37 in part is the inevitable backlash some of us were predicting at least 15 years ago when it was apparent that 1000 FoO and their strong-land-use laws, anti-growth allies went way off into goofyland and lost any sense of the tenuousness of the merit of their position. I blame the legacy of Tom McCall and the cult-of-personality he built as a large reason for that. As a result of that stupidity and arrogance, the reality is that we now have one of the most chaotic land use regulation systems and it sure seems like it is going to leave us much worse off than we would have been had maturity and intelligence prevailed.

I'm answering you in a separate comment doretta so people who now fail to detect any coherent argument in your comments, as I do, can skip this if they don't care about the critical question of why folks like you brought up European living patterns in an irrelevant context. Frankly, it is beyond me why you would be so adament in your arguments that started with a comment that illustrated your illogical, but didactic argumentation style:

History and Europe clearly shows that the reaction to expensive gasolene is to get more fuel-efficient cars, not to move into some Homer Williams condo jungle in the polluted, crime infested city center.

Have you ever been to Europe? Europeans rely much more heavily on mass transit than we do even in smallish cities They are significantly less likely to drive a car to work than we are. Middle class Europeans are also more likely to live in multiple family buildings as opposed to single family housing than we are. I'm not sure where you are really getting the ideas you are promoting but it's clearly not from the Europe we have on this planet.

Karlock stated a fact that was about purchasing and engineering development patterns for a consumer product that has been available for about 100 years. You cite living patterns that predate those circumstances by at least 300 years (and nearly modern public "mass" --- at least for that day --- transit by at least 50 years in London), and therefore it is simple causal reality cannot be a response in reaction to them.

You follow up on his responses with three sniping comments which have no factual content addressing the central argument, but that I feel confident you threw in for what you judged to be their rhetorical effect on an audience by which you want to be seen as having status:

Snark 1: Ah, JK pulls out the planner bogeyman. I'm not a planner. I don't hang out with planners. I don't get my facts or ideas from planners. Snark 2: JK, you cherry picked one number you liked and you ignore everything else, including that the number you chose to share does not contradict anything I said. Snark 3: I've not only read plenty of stats from the European Union you wouldn't like, I've been there and seen how it works. I lived in Europe for a while, even. I stand by my previous comments.

(For veeper: Snark 2 - demeaning the value of a verifiable statistic directly on point to the argument without proof, claiming that his argument refuting hers is false because he doesn't cite some vaguely defined set of all the evidence she claims exists, evidence which she must be implying she knows even if he doesn't - is in fact falsely accusing him of the fallacy of "Misleading Vividness", a variant of the fallacy of "Burden of Proof", and something approaching the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority", respectively. Snark 3 - saying his argument is not true because she has been there - is quite indisputably the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority").

At the end of the day, European living patterns are the solution Europeans arrived at starting 400+ years ago how to live to satisfy their preferences and values. They are not the solution to the problem that arose 300+ years later of the high price of gasoline, which happens to include high taxes to support their living patterns. In fact, the high price of gasoline in many European countries is due to taxes on the gasoline that are also part of their solution to the problem of how to live to satisfy their preferences and values. Just as a lot of the land use planning in Oregon that Measure 37 overthrew was a "solution" to the problem of how to live to satisfy the preferences and values of what we may be learning are a more self-serving segment of the Oregon population than previously thought, and contrary to Sadler's weakly argued thesis.

So I admit it is unclear to me why you threw in what indisputably are unresponsive comments, as they are stated, about European living patterns to Karlock's point. And why you have made the subsequent arguments you have. But it is certain that you had some reason for doing it, as did others here also cited Europe as an example of a solution, even though European living patterns are indisputably a solution to a different problem. Unless, as I suggested, for those bringing it up, this truly is about seeking living patterns in accordance with the preferences and values they share with the preferences and values of Europeans that have determined their living patterns, starting long before there were personal automobiles. (Funny thing, though one of the aspirations of most of Europeans I know always has been to buy a single family get-away place in the country, or on the sea, or even in another country. That's an anecdotal observation NOT an assertion of fact offered to back an argument.) That may not be the reason, but now the stage is set to tell all of us whatever the real reason is that heretofore certainly has not been prominently mentioned.

Finally, I think a hint of how you may get by using your verbal skills rather than critical thinking is found in this comment:

It is an objective fact that the several comments you chose to make had as their point precisely the character that was illustrative.

The best answer to this is: What comments? What character? Facts and quotes please, and not just didactic accusations. I think it is clear why you and veeper would not be the advocates anti-Measure-37 proponents would want to put forward to argue their case to those who aren't already in the choir.

In response to torridjoe, we need to keep in mind here there really are two issues on the table: The first is his claim:

There was no other rational way to decide Kelo other (sic) than the way it was decided.

The second is whether the arguments he cites by the justices show they in fact had no choice, or if they dishonestly choosing assumptions and making arguments that led to a conclusion the majority desired, and that betrayed liberal Democratic values.

The first issue is easily disposed of, and at least we know now that torridjoe probably wasn't paying attention in civics.

The most direct response is that nearly 100 years of precedent mandated the ruling.

The Supreme Court is not mandated to do anything by precedent, they create precedent. Furthermore, they are free to strike down precedent without remorse when the law that has built up through precedent, in response to the political pendulum swings back and forth over the years, has drifted from core Constitutional principle to the point it is absurd or shocks the conscience. Both of which are true in this case. Some of the most modern examples are Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Roe v. Wade. So I don't know if you came up with this patently false comment yourself, or if someone gave you your talking points. Either way, It is pure ignorance in the dictionary sense of that term.

Now the utter deceit of this substance of the decision, and why the Democratic appointees who joined the majority betrayed liberal Democrats is found right in the quote torridjoe cites:

Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized.

As I have already noted, the Court is not bound by precedent. When precedent reaches the point of absurdity and shocks the conscience as it does in this case, the Court is constitutionally and morally bound to evaluate the case and reverse precedent under principles of equity, law or both as it chooses. Over the 100+ years of precedent torridjoe and the Court cites, successive Courts have twisted the theory of eminent domain in step with the political swings of the country to which they are extremely vulnerable and responsive (particularly when it suits individual justices). To claim that "Public Use", with the clear meaning expressed in political writings of the day across the political spectrum is equivalent to "Public Purpose" as represented by Kelo is absurd, and the Court was overtly dishonest in not addressing the issue from the perspective the interpretation of the equivalence between "Public Use" and "Public Purpose" in the meaning of Kelo has reached the point of absurdity.

Beyond that, this Court continued twisting the theory of eminent domain to the point it shocks the conscience: As in depriving working people of the single most important asset they hold, for less than they actually may have invested due to mortgage interest and therefore may not actually be willing to sell and thereby actually establish real market value, to give it to other privileged private parties for their private, for-profit use.

The second deceit of this court though, is the cowardly retreat into a didactic, but wholly baseless, claim that "a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use" is not supported by logic. Nothing could be more dishonest. Logic is the mechanical process whereby conclusions are derived by certain rules from assumptions. The assumptions they dishonestly chose to make may have circumscribed the outcome, but that does not mean those were the assumptions they were bound to make, nor that their assumptions were valid. I have already argued why some of their assumptions were both absurd and shocked the conscience, and therefore why this claim about logic is nothing short of deceitful.

More importantly there something significant this decision reflects about the personal character of the majority and those who endore the outcome that bears condemnation in it's own right. It is a simple truth that any conclusion one arrives at through a chain of logical reasoning can be traced back to it's roots in the assumptions one makes. When logic dictates an absurd outcome that shocks the conscience, as Kelo is, an unwillingness to accept the absurdity and outrageousness of that outcome, and then trace it back to what would then be revealed to be absurd and outrageous assumptions, raises reasonable questions about the quality of the values held by the supporters of this decision.

torridjoe's final comment,

Finally, the overarching message of the ruling was that it is not within the Court's purview to administer the rules of eminent domain,

being his words rather than the majority's returns us to the first issue, his factually false comment that the majority had no choice but to rule as they did. First, the Court has discretion to declare within it's own purview any aspect of a dispute it wants to, and those aspects it does are far more due to the personal views of the justices and the political climate than any high school civics representation of how the justices do so by the dictates of logic and intellectual honesty in the perfect spirit of the Constitution. Second, the Court has authority to decide whether any rule of eminent domain is a matter of law (meaning it violates the Constitution) or offends a sense of equity, and rule as it wants based on any combination of those. The majority turned this over to local jurisdictions simply because it served the individual interests of values of each of the justices to do so.

I think torridjoe actually has highlighted the signal issue in the ongoing battle over Oregon's land use laws. It is not overreaching to argue that there are those who like the outcome of Kelo and therefore will mainly argue as apologists for the majority, and that there are those who recognize that Kelo is evidence of a Court and a segment of our population that has gone off the rails because the decision is both absurd and shocks the conscience. In politics, it is quite fair to challenge the values of those who want to revise Measure 37 based on their views of Kelo and consider the arguments one makes based on that. I argue that those who want to revise Measure 37 and who believe Kelo was wrong need to part ways with those who want to revise Measure 37 but approve of Kelo. I want to know exactly where each and every organization involved in advocating for revison of Measure 37 stand on Kelo, including each individual and organization in 1000 FoO.

I have no problem saying I want to revise Measure 37 and believe Kelo is an intellectual, legal, and moral abomination. And I have no desire to be associated politically, and probably personally, with anyone who wants to revise Measure 37 but believes Kelo is a good decision, or argues it was inevitable as a way to weasel out of having to make the direct claim it was a good decison. Beyond that I would work with those opposed to Measure 37 revisions against any proposal to fix Measure 37 that reflects values that are supportive of Kelo. Such a proposal, in my view, would be morally and politically bankrupt. I'm fully confident that this is in keeping with the best principles for which liberal and progressive Democrats stand.

Hope that helps...

It sure does, but I'm betting not the way you thought it would.

WantAnAnswer:

We are talking at cross-purposes. Karlock and/or others rebutted assertions made by others by calling into question the policy or value by stating the values were not lived up to by the proponents, e.g. travel patterns in Europe. It is too easy in forums such as this the get into p---ing matches when the the discussion spins off onto a tangent. I was not even referring to comments you made. I reacted to comments that followed a line of reasoning: someone, possibly moi, suggested that Europeans had a better grasp of what we need to do as states, societies, or civilization than we do in this country. Karlock, or someone, ripped that argument by pointing out that they don't even live up to that value. Such a response has nothing to do with the argument, and is a version of a tu quoque fallacy which one should awake to in debate, analysis, and criticism (in addition to not falling into that trap yourself [myself or oneself, if the pronoun misleads you]). I am certainly not saying that one's argument is invalid because of the hypocrisy of the arguer. Whoever made the argument is saying that Europeans are hypocritical to have one policy and to practice another.

I do not think you are correct when you state that "zoning laws creates a vested property right for the property owner: If a property is re-zoned for a lower value use, the property owner does have a cause of action at the time of re-zoning for lost value." There may be cause of action if the re-zoning eliminates any reasonable use of the land. I do not think this is in any way settled law, and it varies from state to state. In Oregon, Measure 37, as it is written, provides that any loss in value opens up to the property owner the opportunity to develop the land to any extent permitted by law at the time the property was purchased. Measure 37 shuts out any right of action for neighbors if a neighboring claim results in lower property values for neighbors, who as you point out, have a vested right to their property based upon the zoning scheme at the time they made their investments. It is the broad concept of what one can do in Oregon under Measure 37's application of loss of value that lies at the core of the problem. It effectively undermines land use planning and makes further planning all but impossible. It freezes land use in a patchwork manner. I did not buy it then, and I do not buy it now. I do not care if 99 and 44/100 percent of the voters approved it. It is bad law as written.

You also state: "Measure 37 in part is the inevitable backlash some of us were predicting at least 15 years ago when it was apparent that 1000 FoO and their strong-land-use laws, anti-growth allies went way off into goofyland and lost any sense of the tenuousness of the merit of their position. I blame the legacy of Tom McCall and the cult-of-personality he built as a large reason for that. As a result of that stupidity and arrogance, the reality is that we now have one of the most chaotic land use regulation systems and it sure seems like it is going to leave us much worse off than we would have been had maturity and intelligence prevailed." I do my best, in reasonable discussion, to avoid use of terms such as you have. It offends me as a 1KFriend, as a supporter of Tom McCall, and as a sixth generation Oregonian to be told that I am goofy, stupid, and arrogant, and immature and lacking in intelligence.

WantAnAnswer wrote: "At the end of the day, European living patterns are the solution Europeans arrived at starting 400+ years ago how to live to satisfy their preferences and values. They are not the solution to the problem that arose 300+ years later of the high price of gasoline, which happens to include high taxes to support their living patterns. In fact, the high price of gasoline in many European countries is due to taxes on the gasoline that are also part of their solution to the problem of how to live to satisfy their preferences and values. Just as a lot of the land use planning in Oregon that Measure 37 overthrew was a "solution" to the problem of how to live to satisfy the preferences and values of what we may be learning are a more self-serving segment of the Oregon population than previously thought, and contrary to Sadler's weakly argued thesis."

You make a comparison between European policy decisions and Oregon's land use system. You state that Measure 37 overthrew what you place in quotations as a "solution" Oregon came up with to "the problem of how to live to satisfy the preferences and values of what we may be learning are a more self-serving segment of the Oregon population than previously thought, and contrary to Sadler's weakly argued thesis."

This gets us back to Sadler, who wrote: "The debate is really about the shape of our housing and land use patterns at the end of the Era of Cheap Petroleum. Measure 37 in any form -- the original or “fixed” -- is an attempt to lock in the post-World War II suburban land use patterns that were created by the existence of abundant, cheap fossil fuels. "The conditions that supported our present patterns of suburban “sprawl” -- cheap land, cheap money, cheap petroleum and a large, affluent middle class that made its living manufacturing things -- are rapidly disappearing, making the land use patterns of the last 50 years increasingly unsustainable.

"This reality frightens many of the interest groups that profit from the present patterns. Measure 37 is one of their efforts to perpetuate their increasingly unsustainable gravy train or get public compensation when land use patterns are changed by elected public officials responding to the changing times."

I'm sorry, I have to agree with his conclusion that Measure 37 seeks to perpetuate a pattern that is unsustainable. Further, I hold that our land use sytem looked to the future, looked to the very conditions he discusses. Some of those circumstances have been raised and some of the readers have expressed contempt for the validity of those concerns, which led to another p---ing match over competing web-sites.

veeper <blockqoute> I reacted to comments that followed a line of reasoning: someone, possibly moi, suggested that Europeans had a better grasp of what we need to do as states, societies, or civilization than we do in this country. Karlock, or someone, ripped that argument by pointing out that they don't even live up to that value. Such a response has nothing to do with the argument, and is a version of a tu quoque fallacy This is not a proper version of tu quoque, and I believe the fact that you apparently believe it is (note the double level of "believe") is reflective of what you are failing to grasp in the arguments made here. A hint of this is in your lead statement:

We are talking at cross-purposes. Karlock and/or others rebutted assertions made by others by calling into question the policy or value by stating the values were not lived up to by the proponents, e.g. travel patterns in Europe.

The proponents here are Oregonians, the travel patterns are those of Europeans. Two different subjects, which prevents this from being any version of tu quoque. You and others made a statement of your beliefs of a deduction about European beliefs based on your observations. Karlock said the other facts of European behavior contradicted your observation, explicitly or implicitly calling into question your belief/deduction (which in fact is a fallacy of asserting a conclusion really just based on an observation). That is quite valid argumentation. There must be an element of "hypocrisy" (in the vernacular, as in "do as I say not as I do") somewhere in the argument for this to be tu quoque, as well as a claim that the argument is false because of that. This would occur in this case if he were talking to a European, or if you were relating to him a criticism about him from a European and he referred to Eurpoeans as doing the same thing, etc. That is not the case here.

Your summary "begs the question" of proving it is tu quoque because it misstates the case as I have just explained:

Whoever made the argument is saying that Europeans are hypocritical to have one policy and to practice another.

No one said anything about the "hypocrisy" of Europeans, nor was addressing Europeans. And as a statement of fact, it is not that they have "one policy and practice another". They have living patterns and they have driving patterns. Their living patterns predate their driving patterns and therefore are not a response to those, period. It is the question of why you and others cite them admirably here that is the matter of debate.

It offends me as a 1KFriend, as a supporter of Tom McCall, and as a sixth generation Oregonian to be told that I am goofy, stupid, and arrogant, and immature and lacking in intelligence.

Sorry to say, but it is time to look in a mirror and come to grips with the reality of the facts on the ground. We are living now with a failed approach to politics, based squarely on the failed political and intellectual abilities of the proponents. I think you're scrambled understanding of why your claim about the fallacy of tu quoque is wrong, hinging on the failure to understand the argument was about your beliefs as it does, is the evidence of this.

And by the way, I remember testifying to the Multnomah County commission as a citizen about 13 years ago to the points I made here and in contradiction to some rather stupid 1000 FoO reps in the context of housing affordability for working and low income people, and the values in that regard their positions reflected. Several of us warned them at the time their smug arrogance, and their intellectual and political limitations in grasping how far they were heading off the rails on a path McCall sent us down the wrong way was going to eventually result in having our land use laws more or less completely gutted. To this point 1000 FoO and their proponents have been part of the problem, not part of the solution, because they took exactly the wrong approach in dealing with something that requires building broad consensus based in large part on values they chose to emphasize over other values.

You make a comparison between European policy decisions and Oregon's land use system. You state that Measure 37 overthrew what you place in quotations as a "solution" Oregon came up with to "the problem of how to live to satisfy the preferences and values of what we may be learning are a more self-serving segment of the Oregon population than previously thought, and contrary to Sadler's weakly argued thesis."

Yes I did, I think the first question is whether you debate the formulation of that European living patterns are a 400+ year long solution to their problem of how to live according to their preferences and values, just as Oregon's land use patterns are a 20+ year solution to the problem of how to live according to the preference and values of the proponents?

If you do, frankly I doubt you and those of you who agree with are genuine in the seeming regretful sentiment expressed in so many ways here

I'm sorry, I have to agree with his conclusion that Measure 37 seeks to perpetuate a pattern that is unsustainable. Further, I hold that our land use sytem looked to the future, looked to the very conditions he discusses.

I think you are kind of happy with what you and Sadler hope and believe to be the situation. You believe his assertions, which is different than saying it is logically proven or politically inevitable, because it provides the justification and hope for what you have wanted to see for 20+ years. However, I believe humans are ingenious and we will solve many of our cost and resource-driven transportation problems through efficiencies and need-driven alternatives in accordance with the living patterns we have chosen in response to our diverse preferences and values. Just as Karlock pointed out that Europeans did in their own way for their own circumstances. And as a liberal Democrat, I believe that is in the best interest of people down the economic spectrum rather than what a bunch of folks like 1000 FoO up the economic spectrum want to see as a reflection of their own preferences and values.

I fold my tents; I fade off into the night. Not from any sense of defeat, but from your mind-boggling line of reason - so quick to point out what may or may not be a description of a logical fallacy, and so quick to make other attributions and to draw conclusions that rely on name calling, whatever.

There is no point in a debate in which you suggest I am happy with Sadler's view of the future.

Your closing sentences: "I believe humans are ingenious and we will solve many of our cost and resource-driven transportation problems through efficiencies and need-driven alternatives in accordance with the living patterns we have chosen in response to our diverse preferences and values. Just as Karlock pointed out that Europeans did in their own way for their own circumstances. And as a liberal Democrat, I believe that is in the best interest of people down the economic spectrum rather than what a bunch of folks like 1000 FoO up the economic spectrum want to see as a reflection of their own preferences and values."

I am glad that you think our ingenuity in the future can reverse or make better what exists today, and that no policy action is required except the market-driven solutions without having to address the living standards we've chosen.

This is not the forum to debate the merits of that, though it does at least let me know where you are coming from.

I thought I could fold my tents, but, after reading Doretta's comments, I have to add my own.

It all began with anon talking about the "abject moral failure: of "smug, self-centered, white baby-boomers."

Great start, a real basis for informed debate. Never says what his or her values are as an informed rebuttal to Sadler. A sophomore in a graduate seminar. Never explains how the numbers lead to a conclusion that "Oregon will continue to be a follower." What we are supposed to be following is not set out.

I then tried to offer a suggestion about the importance of some of the issues Sadler raised, and to suggest that some do not like some types of agriculture in Oregon.

Then comes Karlock. He takes my references to local agriculture and urban environments and suddenly it becomes "some Homer Williams condo jungle in the polluted, crime infested city center. " We don't know anything about what Karlock believes; he'd rather belittle than contribute.

YoungOregonVoter, offers that "On the contrary, gutting Measure 37 and sending it back to the voters will propel subsequent measures just like Measure 37 or stronger in the next elections," indicating he hasn't read the Bill and is merely parroting what he or she has heard elsewhere. DemVoter takes him to task for individual rights.

Doretta responds to one of the more egregious statements by Karlock. She offers observations contrasting urban Europe with the US.

Red Cloud tries to identify the distinction between liberal and conservative and points out that the real issue is HB 3540. No one discusses that at any point because it probably would involve setting out what it is the writer(s) believe.

Ross Williams offers some sensible criticism of 1KFriends and of Measure 37 supporters. He concludes that he thinks 37 went too far in the wrong direction. He got ignored for his observations.

Then Karlock goes on the attack, again without ever letting us know what it is that forms the basis for his objections. Where do you stand on 37? On land use? No, he directs us to lala land.

Kari Chisholm tries to get the discussion back on track.

Janice then offers a cogent intellectual critique: "Liberals can't stand people, not government planners making the calls. And all the hysteria since M37 got on the ballot and passed has been nothing but liberals stomping their feet and screaming like brats."

Then Doretta and Karlock go at it, debating statistics. Karlock makes the following statement: "Not exactly the model of transit usage that the planners trout out to convince us to live like rats in cages." From that discussion I began to see what I called the tu quoque at work, running down the policy concept because the adherents weren't living up to it, the consequence of which would be for us "to live like rats in cages." High quality, that.

I vainly try to get the discussion to address the pros and cons of land use as set out in HB 3540.

Then WantAnAnswer comes along and observes that Doretta and I betray our "self-centered narrowness." WantAnAnswer does make a good point about obnoxious self-assuredness but fails to follow it up with an explanation of what he would do.

And it goes on: Janice rips me because "not a single M37 development has occured yet." See, we can't criticize until it actually happens. Sorry, don't buy that.

I then again ask if anyone has compared the words in the Bill with 37 and can they offer a critique? No one does.

And it goes on and on, continually skirting the issue and not being willing to do anything other than toss epithets at each other.

WantAnAnswer: I have no idea what your question is. I've set out that land use in Oregon has made this a better state; that M37 undermined that system; and that HB 3540 brings the equity to the process. You haven't addressed that; Karlock hasn't addressed that. So, with that . . . we have gone exactly no where.

Late to the party, I am, but I find Russell right on target. It's pretty clear that suburbs, as we know them, are on the way out with cheap energy.

It should be noted, though, that the way Oregon's land use system has been administered is also in step with the cheap energy unsustainability of the 20th century. It's likely that expensive energy will send many people back to the farm - small subsistence and truck farms. Now, much of Oregon is not amenable to this because of low water supply that will become lower with global warming, but the Willamette Valley is prime farming ground. So, while we need to protect this land from asphalt, we need to make it possible for people to "return to the land" to get a start on the sustainable farming we will need in the future when fruit from Chile will run about $25 per pound. In order to prevent rural trophy estates, present land use makes it difficult for small scale farming. This needs to change before all the cheap food goes away.

Tom: How refreshing. I was reviewing the blather from this and other Blue Oregon postings, and would like to quote one by Ray Hutette. He wrote this, commenting on a guest column by Gre Macpherson.

He wrote:

"If HB 3546 [I think he meant 3540, and will use 3540] passes, it will completely clear the decks on the meddy debate over 'what the o voters intented.' It will undeniably turn Oregon in to 'regulatory takings' state, ACHIEVING A KEY GOAL OF THE DEVLOPMENT INTERESTS THAT FUND THE 'PROPERTY RIGHTS' FACTION [caps added]. This would freeze the current system into place, at least until a new effort comes along to rehaspe the Oregon land use process, because under the HB 3540 approach, the prospect of even a handful of 10% loss claims would politically neuter almost any new land regulation.

"That kind of chilling effect would hold back our development as a state."

None of the blovators ripped him on this, and none of the rest of us followed up as we should have done.

What Huette wrote is right on point with this article by Sadler. As I reread what Huette wrote, I have some grave concerns about 3540, but like Huette, the damage has been done, and this may be the best compromise of a bad series of options.

If you got this far, holding any opinion which requires introspection regarding decisions of our generation and prior generations that in any way suggest that we need to modify our lifestyle gets the you know what from the peanut gallery.

<h2>Thanks for taking the time to read through this.</h2>