Brian Clem explains the Measure 37 fix (video).

On Wednesday, House Bill 3540 - the Measure 37 fix - finished its long path through the Oregon Legislature. In November, it'll head to the ballot for voter approval.

From the Statesman-Journal:

The House approved an amended measure on a party-line vote Wednesday, 31-26. Three Republicans were absent. ... It would allow landowners as many as three homes on a single rural site, and more if they can demonstrate losses in property values as a result of land-use restrictions. But it would otherwise restrict development, particularly on high-value farmland in the Willamette Valley and in areas with limited groundwater supplies.

The most powerful speech on the floor came from freshman Representative Brian Clem (D-Salem). Check it out:


  • (Show?)

    A voice of reason, a pragmatist and a Democrat. Well done Brian Clem.

  • wow (unverified)

    Brian Clem - "I don't know how much ire is going to be risked by a ballot measure, people can vote for themselves, they can decide for themselves..."

    Wow...did he really say that? Last time I checked, the people already voted on this....twice. Democrats are going to get crucified on this. The public loves it when judges and elected officials tell them they "didn't know what they were doing."

  • (Show?)

    Democrats are going to get crucified on this.

    I have seen this threat/prediction from numerous sources--I don't believe it will happen. This reform measure is going to pass, and the D's will retain the House and Senate after the '08 elections.

    IMO, M-37 passed at the tail end of what will be known as 'high time' for anti-govt. conservatives. Bush and M-37 both won out in Nov. '04--we shall see how history treats them.

  • (Show?)

    I have no doubt that anonymous "wow" (who, far from standing on the floor of the House in Salem and offering his honest views, elects not even to mention his name) skipped the clip. Unwise. This is going to go to the ballot, and derisive dismissals do not a winning effort make. Listen to how Clem, as if anticipating this kind of silliness, answers the question*:

    "I'm going to vote in favor of the motion and I'm going to do it with great pride. I'm not worried about taking responsibility for the consequences of my vote and risking the ire of the electorate. I went to 11,000 doors; I talked to many people about Measure 37 as passed and as it played out. [I am] completely comfortable talking to them about preserving the farmland in Marion County, the groundwater-limited areas in Marion County, the district I represent."

    Wow, did you talk to 11,000 people about how they feel, or did you just listen to Lars tell you how they feel?


    *My transcription; listen for yourself.

  • wow (unverified)

    Jeff -

    1. I do not listen to Lars.

    2. No, I did not talk to 11,000 people about how they feel on measure 37 - and neither did Brian Clem.

    3. I voted against Measure 37 and will vote for the reform.

    4. There is recent and reliable polling data floating around, which suggests voters will reject the reforms.

    5. The antedotal evidence from my own life suggest voters will reject the reforms.

    6. It is my opinion that when campaign season arrives, Measure 37 will be used against Democrats with a high degree of effectiveness. I think Democrats will retain control of both Houses, but my prediction is that they lose a couple seats because of the Measure 37 issue.

    7. The public voted for Measure 7 and saw it overturned by the courts. The public voted for Measure 37 and now Democrat legislators are implicitly sending voters the message "you didn't know what you were doing" by pushing out a referral that largely dismantals Measure 37. Is it unreasonable to suggest this message may not play well with voters?

  • (Show?)

    "4. There is recent and reliable polling data floating around, which suggests voters will reject the reforms."

    Where? I only recall three surveys by three different outlets, all of whom found the same thing--2/3 of Oregonians want it either changed or repealed.

    Given that this bill changes M37 but validates the concept it was based on, I think the presumption is more accurately that it will pass.

  • sadie (unverified)

    When you consider that this measure has flooded local courts with lawsuits that could bankrupt cities and counties throughout the state, I say the voters may feel differently this time around. Even those who agree that landowners should be able to do what they want with their property can understand the problems with Measure 37.

    If the Democrats do a better job explaining the issue and taking a stand this time around, I think this election could have a much different outcome.

    Speaking as a former Southern California resident, I enjoyed Rep. Clem's argument quite a bit. I spent 20 years in San Diego between the 1980's and early 2000's. In that time we saw canyons turn to houses and roads. We watched as our local high school went from a few hundred students per grade to about 1,000 per grade. We saw neighborhood roads turn in to highways. Our beaches crowded and polluted. Our skies became dirty and the air unhealthy to breathe. Growth is fine, but uncontrolled growth is a disaster

  • Red Cloud (unverified)

    One of the favorite mantras of the Measure 37 folks is the "bundle of sticks" analogy; property rights as a bundle of sticks, which various entities "take." The analogy works as far as it goes, but misses a point. Some of those sticks are held by the property owner at one end and by neighbors and the rest of us at the other.

    That is what comprehensive planning and zoning accomplished - recognize the uses to which land could be put, while protecting the rights of neighboring property owners. Those who live in towns and cities have lived with this for centuries; the concept is new for rural landowners. What 37 did was to break those shared sticks, and in so doing, and unless addressed, fatally compromise the principles of land use as an umbrella for rational zoning.

    As a constituent of Rep. Clem, those of us who helped him do not doubt his numbers. He flat out out-campaigned Dalto.

    Maybe the Dems will get "crucified." Those seeking a correction to the extremes of 37 while retaining the spirit of the Measure cross party lines. This is not going to be a general election, remember.

  • LT (unverified)

    We live in an urban/rural mid-Willamette Valley district where our Republican state rep. faced an underfunded candidate and still had the victory margin cut down to roughly half the number of voters not registered in a major party---hard to call it a partisan district.

    Recently a friend sent me a transcript of our st. rep's speech on 37 referral. Here is an excerpt:

    The, the main thing I support about this particular bill is the referral. We aren’t deciding it. We’re asking the voters to decide it.

    That being said, there’s some, still some real poison pills in this thing. The commercial industrial thing is still left out for no good reason. The notch claimants and other, um, provisions could adversely affect forest industry, uh, and that bothers me. Family property transferability….<<

    Where in the text of Measure 37 was there mention of "The commercial industrial thing", whatever that means? Seems to me it was sold to voters as "those poor older couples who bought their property decades ago and now can't build on it due to government restrictions". NOT that developers could buy up prime farmland and build commercial developments.

    Brian Clem is an uncommon young man and I've been proud to know him for many years. Given his agricultural connections and his "here is what I stand and here is why" attitude, I doubt he will be crucfied ---esp. given the large margin of his election victory last November.

    Recently I was talking to someone who remembers when LCDC was first created back in the McCall years. We are both old enough to have memories of both early LCDC activists and people who began what became OIA. We talked about an early activist in one group being amazed he could know anyone who was a family friend of a person in the other group. This issue has been polarized for a long time.

    There have been comments on other BO topics related to this whole Measure 37 issue here--people who read the actual measure and were concerned with what the wording actually said, or who discussed what the actual wording of court decisions says. As I recall, there have not been court decisions which say it is simple and OIA gets everything they want. Could it be that this is a complicated subject which will never be reduced to sound bites?

    One detail illustrates this. Some of us are old enough to realize that couples who bought property in the mid-20th century may just have had the deed in the husband's name--even fair credit reporting laws and other women's economic rights taken for granted today aren't more than 30-35 years old. Much of the rhetoric of proponents of Measure 37 was that couples who had owned their property for 40 years or more deserved better treatment than the LCDC system was giving them.

    Nothing illustrates the polarized debate on this issue better than that simple detail: Either a)the language of Measure 37 says that widows who inherit property which their own name wasn't on when the property was bought are "new" owners when they inherit, or b)their rights go back to the day their husbands signed the papers to buy the new property.

    It seems there are legislators who can't agree on whether a) or b) is true. Are widows treated better under the original Measure 37 language, or does the ballot measure treat those widows more fairly? If 90 legislators can't agree on that basic issue, it is hard to see that voters will punish Democrats---especially that group not registered in a major party. That "fastest growing party is no party at all" decided the membership of the legislature in 2004 and 2006 elections.

  • (Show?)

    I'd be interested to hear from our Dem leaders in Salem how they chose the makeup of the committee members.

    My rep (Patti Smith-R Corbett) sat on the committee while an LLC made up of her family members has a huge M-37 claim in Corbett at the west end of the Gorge.

    Her family has run an aggregate operation there for decades and they now want to install several hudred houses.

    We will undoubtedly hear much from Patti and her good friends in the Farm Baureau about how this plucky girl worked tirelessly in "our" interests in this session in Salem.

    The entire state wasa out watching the recent Betsy Johnson train wreck (plane wreck?) but Patti parties on with never a whiff of impropriety being attached to her shenanigans.

  • nutmeg (unverified)

    I'm just glad to see and hear a legislator stand up and really say what they think. Good for Brian Clem. Bring the M37 reform before the voters, let them decide if it is real 'reform' or special interst groups from the NIMBY side trying to gut M37.

    There will be political backlash - there always is. as we can also probably enjoy the charade of the ultra christian conservatives attacking the new domestic partner rights bill, they will tend to also vote against anything to do with changing M37.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    Democrats Gut Measure 37

    Salem, OR – For the second time this session, Senate Democrats voted along party lines to repeal Measure 37. Rather than working with Republicans on a bi-partisan plan that would implement the will of the voters, Governor Kulongoski and legislative Democrats have fast-tracked House Bill 3540, which repeals Measure 37 and leaves many Oregon land owners out in the cold.

    “Of the over 1,000 words in Measure 37, almost 900 are gone,” said Senator Roger Beyer (R-Molalla). “You can change terms, deadlines and groups affected, but at the end of the day this is still a repeal of Measure 37.”

    House Bill 3540 changes the basic structure of voter approved Measure 37. The bill takes a three page law passed by Oregonians and turns it into 24 pages of new regulations and red tape. House Bill 3540 is so complex, a new state bureaucracy is established in the bill to administrate it. While Measure 37 restored the property rights of all Oregonians, this bill sets up different classes and groups that have access to different development rights. Claims that have already been approved and started down the development process are retroactively canceled. Oregonians are sent to the back of the line and some will be told “tough luck” and left with nothing.

    “Everyone knows, House Bill 3540 is poorly drafted, full of unintended consequences and will lead to years of litigation,” said Senator Larry George (R-Sherwood). “In pursuit of the American dream, people spent hundreds of thousands of dollars buying property. Government took away their right to develop, so voters twice gave those rights back. Now they have spent even more money getting approved, only to have government say ‘sorry, do it again.’ When will it stop?”

    “This is more of the same: another attempt to dismantle Measure 37, which voters have twice approved,” said Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day), Senate Republican Leader. “With Measure 37, voters fixed a broken land use system. House Bill 3540 just

  • Wow's worst nightmare (unverified)


    You are way out in left field. You are woefully naive and painfully ignorant, implying that Rep. Clem lied on the floor of the House of Representatives. Is it too hard to believe that our legislators really do this job to represent the people in their district, and go to great lenghts (sacrificing extensive ammounts of personal and family time) to meet those people face to face, and find out what they want on important issues? You might be surprised at the great lengt

    Brian Clem ran the best field campaign in the state of Oregon (I would contend that it was one of the best field campaigns for a state house race in the nation) last election cycle, and could certainly produce the data to back it up, along with the 54,000 other doors the volunteers and staff hit. Wake up, and give the man (who is a State Representative by the way) some respect for doing the job the right way. Go out into his district, and you will count thousands of people who say he came to their door personally, often chatting with the upwards of 15 minutes.

    Also, how can D's loose a couple of seats and maintain a mojority when it is 31-29 now??? I can't get past the fact that many people are calling this a "repeal," and clinging to the fact that the legislature is overturning the will of the voters. It is a REFERAL, and refines M37 to reflect voter intent. A repeal would maintain land use regulations and allow ZERO houses and lots. The referral will allow 1-3 or 4-10, given that a true loss can be prooven. How is this an outright repeal?

    And Mary Messenger, nice little Republican news release, straight from the spin machine. And as always, very poorly written. Keep up the good work! If you want arguments based on reason and logic, come on over to our side.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    "And as always, very poorly written. Keep up the good work! If you want arguments based on reason and logic, come on over to our side."

    You must be an expert. I'll bet you thought Judge Mary Merten James' M37 ruling was brilliant, well written and based on reason and logic.

    "and refines M37 to reflect voter intent"

    That's your opinion. What will be your opinion when the voters reject the "refinement"?

    The entire campaign will come to pass without so much as single example of development harm done to the State. All your side will do is recycle the same campaign which already lost twice. Subdivisions are happening all the time within the planning world so you shouldn't get so hyped up about the voters rejecting M37 subdivisions with this new refinement.

  • Red Cloud (unverified)

    We get your message, Mary. We must be different over here. I listened to what the Republicans you cite said in their testimony. I was sitting there in the gallery with HB 3540 in front of me (I'd read it through probably ten or fifteen times) and I wondered whether they had ever looked at it, or were they just taking Ross Day's word for it. They danced around on the floor, and they looked like so many marionettes (are you a marionette?)

    And then you say "the entire campaign will come to pass without so much as single example of development harm done to the State." Nice judgment, there; short on facts, but nice judgment nonetheless. DLCD already shows something like 27,000 acres already at post-waiver development stage. And then you conclude the statement that "Subdivisions are happening all the time within the planning world so you shouldn't get so hyped up about the voters rejecting M37 subdivisions with this new refinement." Ummm, excuse me, but the rules of the game changed with 37; this growth is now much harder to stop. I get this argument all the time: nothing has happened yet. Well, when I meet a thug in the alley who threatens to rob me, do I rely upon the evidence, or do I wait for it to happen.

    But what we really want to know is what you believe. You haven't read the bill, and if you have, tell us, pray, what is it that you don't like about the Measure? What policy is taken away from 37 that was argued for in the proponents voters' pamphlet arguments? They all talked about small farmers wanting to build one or two homes. I, for the life of me, couldn't find any reference to the sorts of actual claims that have been filed. So what is it that you believe about property. Tell us what you think about comprehensive plans and zoning. Tell us how you would define diminished value. You don't like the way diminished value is calculated? Well, neither do I; I think it is far too generous. The entire issue turns on diminished value and I as an Oregonian want to make damned sure that number is accurately determined - I've already been screwed by Enron accounting strategies, I'm not about to accept what Ross and Dave float as being "fair."

  • (Show?)

    I've already been screwed by Enron accounting strategies, I'm not about to accept what Ross and Dave float as being "fair."

    Amen to that!

    But wait--dontcha know that OIA is looking out only for grandmothers and kindly couples that have been hosed over by the eeeeviilll guvment? I pray they can't sell that s**t sandhich to Oregonians again...

  • jim Gilbert (unverified)

    Thanks to you all for your committment to Save our State! After months of hearings and work we finally have a bill that will fix the worst of Measure 37. I'd love to get back to work on the farm, but now we have a campaign to win. Oregonians in Action (OIA) has deep pockets and will work hard to frame the debate (witness the full page Oregonian ads). We have to do better! All of us who deeply care about Oregon! We have to contibute, hit the streets, talk to people, pass out info, put up yard signs, let Oregonians know how much is at stake in this upcoming election.
    Check out and Right now on the fix 37 site there is a dated petition you can sign. Soon we'll be posting campaign information. On November 7th or soon after, let's celebrate Oregon with a big Victory Party!

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    Red Cloud, Have you read the bill and M37?

    HB 3540C makes the following dramatic changes to Measure 37:

    If you have filed a Measure 37 claim, HB 3540C requires you to start all over again. Your claim, along with the time and money you’ve spent, will be wiped out, unless you can vest your rights to use your property before December, 2007.

    If you choose to refile your Measure 37 claim, you will be limited to a maximum of 3 new homesites, and you might not even get these! LCDC will decide how many homesites you qualify for, if any, will tell you where those homesites will go on your property, and will not allow homesites larger than 2 acres.

    If you choose to refile your Measure 37 claim, anyone can challenge your claim for any reason, no matter how frivolous, and even if you win, you will not recover your costs and attorney fees. The special interest groups that have made a living by suing property owners to stop them from using their land will have a field day with these amendments.

    If you have industrial or commercial property, or if you want to make a commercial or industrial use of your property, your claim is wiped out, and you get nothing. Not only that, you lose all protection against new land use regulations. It will be back to the old days, where your property could be taken without any opportunity for you to do anything about it! If a new land use regulation is adopted that takes your property, you will have to pay for lawyers and appraisers and jump through every hurdle the state and county can throw at you to get your property back. But what’s worse, you will also have to pay for the state and county’s lawyers and appraisers to try and defeat your claim! That’s right – they’ll take your property, and then charge you tens of thousands of dollars to give it back!

  • Red Cloud (unverified)

    Yup, Mary, that's what it does. It is limited to residential development. And you know, I don't consider those changes to be dramatic. If you do, then you are part of the greed factor. And as much as I know Measure 37 to be a disaster for Oregon, I will take Mesure 39 any day to the world you seem to want.

    You only have to start over if you want more than three homes. Big deal. You have to show you have a loss and your gain cannot exceed your loss. Do you have a problem with that? I do not. I have argued for two years that the fast and loose definitions of "loss" are destroying land use and zoning. So, I have no problems in requiring claimants to show a loss. Like I said, I got screwed by Enron accounting once, I am not about to let Oregon suffer to OIA's ideas of loss again.

    And as to anyone challenging? That merely restores what 37 took away.

    Jump through hoops? No more so than you had to do prior to Measure 37.

    I smell greed and selfishness. Thanks for giving us your vision.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    "And as much as I know Measure 37 to be a disaster for Oregon"

    Red Cloud that is bunk and so is your Enron analogy. Dishonest really. Just because YOU don't consider some of the changes dramatic doesn't mean they are not.
    There is no disaster for Oregon in M37. You are off your rocker. "Greed factor" ?? Who cares if "YOU have argued for two years that the fast and loose definitions of "loss" are destroying land use and zoning". You're simply wrong. And you have poor judgment. There hasn't been any problem showing losses. It's just your pandamonium
    making up problems where there are none. You "got screwed by Enron accounting once". So What. Your mentioning that just shows how bad your judgment is.

    And as far as you "not about to let Oregon suffer to OIA's ideas of loss again" ? You'll do exactly what the law says. " No more so than you had to do prior to Measure 37"

    I see. Then this reform, taking the system back to prior to M37. is a repeal.

    You also have problems with your smelling and perception.

    Earlier you said, "DLCD already shows something like 27,000 acres already at post-waiver development stage" OOOOOHHH!

    27,000 acres? Big deal. How much of the 27,000 will be built upon? About 1/10th of the 27,000? Probably, and it will be far more preferable than the haphazard junk Metro and other planners mandate.

    But then you probably think they are doing a fine job?

    I would wager that if the planners had come up with the exact same M37 development you would be praising it as good planning.

  • LT (unverified)

    " it will be far more preferable than the haphazard junk Metro and other planners mandate. "

    As I was telling someone today, Blue Oregon is a great blog and sometimes does a valuable service.

    But the above remark illustrates a drawback, a Portland-centric view. If someone is living in counties like Marion/ Polk/ Yamhill, or Coos/ Curry, or Linn/ Benton, or Crook or Baker, why would their views of Measure 37 be based on the actions of Metro?

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    "Metro and other planners mandate." as in other counties and municipalities

    The above remark illustrates a problem about as much as M37 illustrates a problem for agriculture. We've seen the Metro and other planner mandated subdivisions crammed up against the Urban Growth Boundaries. A sea of urban roofs, concrete and asphalt on one side and a farm on the other. Some people objected over the years but since it was government planning so be it.

    Along comes M37 and all of a sudden allowing subdivisions of any density any where near any farming and all of a sudden it's a disaster? Never mind that many of the M37 claims are 1 and 5 acres parcels with much less impact on the area. But no, we are to believe that anything the planner's model spits out, no matter how poorly it fits or how many housing units are crammed together it's all good. M37 bad. The real threat M37 opponents see is the idea that Oregonians may want to preserve suburban living in Oregon. That less dense suburban livability has been under attack by those seeking to force the urbanization of our suburbs at all costs. Fanatics who preach extremism such as "single family homes on large lots are obsolete", are pushing to force all expansions of our cities to be higher densities than comfortable suburban living would prefer. Existing suburban neighborhoods are seeing infill alter their livability with no concern for traffic or any other impacts. And there's no limit to the regulations, mandates and tax dollar expenses they'll use to make it so. M37 effects a proportionately tiny portion of Oregon with a little relief from the attack on traditional Oregon suburban living. A relatively small amount of rural development will mean a few more Oregonians can live in and experience rural Oregon. The above remarks by M37 opponents illustrates a drawback from Oregonians having a few more choices which M37 will provide. Oregonians in city after city across Oregon need only look at the planner's outcomes over the past 20 years to recognize we can do better.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    The Urban Growth Boundary and Metro area planning has not, does not and will not work. As this editorial explains we need to try "something different". M37 could easily be a part of something different but this editorial follows the same path that gave us the current mess. Supporting a new bill that would allow Metro to designate rural and urban reserves will only add to the current dysfunction. If Metro were able to adequately identify needed land and move it through the bureaucracy to make it buildable this problem would not exist. So as this editorial recognizes the UGB is not working it then supports more of the same which fails miserably. More labels on more land will only add more inflexibility. Yet this editorial calls this new "first step", "trying something different". It's not. Most important in this editorial is the acknowledgment, by this M37 opponent/land use planning supporting newspaper, that the current planning model is broken. Since it's been broken for a long time, they're a lttle late. But better late than never.

    Editorial Bill could mean smarter land use The Times, Jun 7, 2007 Over the past few years, expansions of the Portland-area urban growth boundary have added more than 20,000 acres of land for future housing, public services and jobs. But for the most part, these expansions have done only one thing exceeding well – please no one.

    The list of those disappointed is diverse and long:

    Some city and county officials say future growth is being focused in areas where cities will be hard pressed, if not unwilling and unable, to provide urban public services. Farm groups are concerned that past urban-growth decisions foretell that even more farmland will be lost in the future. Business and industry groups aren’t happy. Some say the large urban expansion in Damascus is years away from being ready for development and is too far removed from existing industries that need more land for jobs right now. Certain environmental groups have said recent urban expansions have not sufficiently protected environmentally sensitive landscapes and wildlife habitat areas. Washington County has been at ground zero when it comes to the debate over expansion of the UGB. A few years ago, Tualatin residents rebelled when they heard that their city was proposed to be the major location of regional expansion for industry and warehouses. For more than a decade, farmland alongside Tualatin Valley Highway in Aloha owned by the Sisters of St. Mary has been caught in tug-of-war over being brought into the UGB. The land is bordered on three sides by urban development but has been a poster child for not letting development occur on land that has rich soil for farming. Cornelius has been at the center of controversy over efforts to expand the UGB to provide land for jobs so that fewer local residents would need to commute long distances to work. And in the UGB housing expansion area called North Bethany, Washington County faces a $200 million expense to provide traffic connections with Highway 26. Given such a track record and obstacles, we think it is reasonable to try something different. That’s why we support Senate Bill 1011, which would allow Metro and local counties the authority to designate lands that over the next 40 to 50 years would be protected as urban reserves for jobs and housing, and designate other lands to be protected as rural reserves for agriculture, forestry or environmental needs. This legislation already has passed the Senate and likely will be voted on later this week by the House. Senate Bill 1011 is not the complete fix for a 30-year-old statewide land-use system that is in need of an overhaul. But we do support the creation of rural and urban reserves. One reason is for certainty. Farmers, businesses and city leaders need to know where the region anticipates growing and where other activities, such as farming, still can occur. In return, we think it reasonable that planning for where the urban growth boundary will be expanded for housing and jobs will not be decided primarily, as it is today, by the quality of soil for farming. The reserves legislation is supported by a coalition of city, county, Metro and state agencies, by businesses, real estate and homebuilder associations, and by land-use watchdog groups. But not everyone is sold on the notion. The Oregon Farm Bureau will remain neutral on the concept. The Washington County-based Westside Economic Alliance has questioned whether reserves would be too restrictive if economic or growth patterns change in the future. Meanwhile, state Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood, has said the legislation may result in the loss of even more farmland, not less. We think what’s largely missing from this debate is something you can’t require in any form of legislation: trust and confidence. We believe all those interested in better managing urban growth expansions should commit to work together to build more trust among themselves. They should confidently give the notion of urban and rural reserves a chance — knowing that such reserves are but a first step toward reforming a land-use system that can better serve this state, its citizens and its diverse economy.

  • (Show?)

    sure looks like it's working to me--a central city that's thriving, and mitigated sprawl around it. Score!

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    "sure looks like it's working to me--a central city that's thriving, and mitigated sprawl around it. Score!"

    Of course it "looks like it's working" for those only interested in obstructing expansion and growth. But the UGB was and is supposed to do much more. Like, provide a 20 year supply of "buildable" land for all uses. Instead it has been a tool to block land development and to perpetrate a false impression of compliance. So no it does not work as intended and does not help accomodating growth at all.

    And inner city folks who tout it's use could care less what is happening in the suburbs and seemingly don't care about managing growth as long as it can be blocked.

  • red Cloud (unverified)

    From Mary's post:

    "We believe all those interested in better managing urban growth expansions should commit to work together to build more trust among themselves. They should confidently give the notion of urban and rural reserves a chance — knowing that such reserves are but a first step toward reforming a land-use system that can better serve this state, its citizens and its diverse economy. "

    I can certainly agree with that. That is what the Joint Land Use Committee was working toward, but the R's wanted to adhere to the OIA version and stonewalled.

  • Red Cloud (unverified)

    Mary, like another poster from her end of the continuum, likes to say OOOOh, and dishonest and bunk. That establishes her credentials and gives her credibility, maybe at her end, but not at mine.

    She also doesn't understand analogies very well. I made an analogy about Enron accounting and in her rush to spite, she replies: "You "got screwed by Enron accounting once". So What. Your mentioning that just shows how bad your judgment is."

    The reference was with respect to how their accounting practices affected all users of their utilities. In their greed we all lost. In a property owner's greed to maximize the appearance of loss, all neighbors suffer. And that, Mary, is the Message I want to convey. If you have a loss, prove it in a way that is fair and objective and takes into account how you gained as well as how you lost. I have no use for the concept of a partial taking, something you could never convince the courts of. So you had to convince voters of a concept that is next to impossible to determine in jurisprudence, which you effectively did by making a "taking" appear to be a "theft." Thus all regulations become theft because we all give something in order to get something.

    The more I read from you and your ilk, the more convinced I am that property in land is something you can mistreat the way you can anything else. And that is where we disagree.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    Red Cloud, Back at you with YOUR "ilk".

    Your stance that M37 is greed driven says much about your poor judgement. That's a narrow minded political position that fails to consider the fairness inallowing a proerty owner to simply do what his neighbors have been allowed to do. By your logic all those not effected by restrictive land use zoning must have all been greedy people.

    Your other notionS that "we all lost" and "all neighbors suffer" boggles logic as well. You are simply an extremists fanatic bellowing out completely concocted nonsense. There isn't any outcome from M37 in sight that is any different than every day development happening now. Yet because M37 facilitates it then we all suffer a loss?

    You are just full of BS. And I noticed you don't care to address the failure of the UGBs to do what they were intended.

  • (Show?)
    "sure looks like it's working to me--a central city that's thriving, and mitigated sprawl around it. Score!" Of course it "looks like it's working" for those only interested in obstructing expansion and growth.

    ...or those interested in a central city that thrives, and mitigating sprawl around it--which is most people. Which of course is why the state land use plan remains popular with a majority of Oregonians, even as they endorse changes to it.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    Sprawl isn't possible in this state with or without the UGB? Sprawl is the unlimited, unregulated and unrestricted spread of suburban and urban development.

    Few places have such an unregulated system. Oregon would not without UGBs. Our UGBs are excessive and are not being used as was intended. There is plenty of rooom for land use regulation without UGBs.
    You're just a narrow minded sap who spreads misinformation every time you post.

    Well reasoned and regulated expansion without UGBs would be far preferrable.

  • Red Cloud (unverified)

    I do have an opinion about UGB's. If you would take some Malox for your bile, perhaps we could have something of use to say>

    Urban Growth Boundaries, Rural Zoning, Island Annexations, and Algebra

    And algebra?

    In algebra, one of the first things you learn is the golden rule: do unto one side of an equation what you do to the other. That lesson applies as well to land use issues. The public policy of Oregon is straightforward:

    Uncoordinated use of lands within this state threaten the orderly development, the environment of this state and the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and welfare of the people of this state… Senate Bill 100 (ORS 197.005)

    In order to assure the highest possible level of livability in Oregon, it is necessary to provide for properly prepared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities and counties, regional areas and the state as a whole… Senate Bill 100 (ORS 197.010)

    On rural lands outside of urban growth boundaries, land use is restricted by zone and it can be seen just by looking at the landscape that it is possible to follow the spirit and intent of our land use policy (Measure 37 notwithstanding).

    On the other side of the equation, the spirit and intent of land use policy is not followed. We have created a ring around our urban areas that sometimes results in behavior more associated with a prison yard than with the goals of our land use system. In rural areas, farmers and ranchers grow and raise what they can given the geography and soils of their properties. Within UGB's, the geography seldom plays a significant role in development decisions. There may be comprehensive plans, but the goal of town and city councils seems to be directed at finding ways to avoid the words of the goals and of the policies.

    Salem's consideration of annexing the entire UGB is an excellent example. A farmer makes prudent decisions about what his ground can produce and seeks to husband his or her resources, having learned the hard way what can happen when the same crop is planted over and over until the soil is exhausted. Instead of using prudence to determine what land will be developed and how it will be developed, we seem to assume that the supply of land is inexhaustible and that you can waste land by reputedly claiming that this is what the public "wants."

    Perhaps we need to turn the process on its head. Require a hard and fast inventory of permanent agricultural land surrounding communities. That inventory would form an inflexible barrier to development. The UGB would cease to be a belt; it would become a ring. That would force cities and towns to practice density rather than sprawl. It bothers me to read comprehensive plans and the goals contained of providing for low cost and moderate housing and how blithely and cavalierly these goals are treated by developer-dominated councils. Blithe and cavalier because the process of using and developing the inventory of land available within the UGB seems to be one of squandering rather than husbanding; of selfish growth without adequate consideration of the consequences for those living within the UGB and the threat to those outside that they will eventually become fodder for further market driven development.

  • Mary Messenger (unverified)

    It's real warm and fuzzy to go back and enamor over the objectives of SB 100 but in practice the implementation has been sorely retarded. The UGB and other regulatory contraints has meant marginal land inside and outside the UGB sits idle and unbuildable for many years. 2002 expansions in Damascus, North Bethany and area 63 and 64 etc all sit idle without any ground braking in site. North Bethany is in today's Oregonian with Wa. County planners looking to call the rolling farm hills area "blighted", establish an Urban Renewal District, spend $300 million and break ground sometime in 2009.
    That's seven years after the UGB was expanded there, it will now require $300 million in tax subidies to develop. At the same time there are countless acres all over the county which could have been developed long ago without subsidies.
    SB 100 did not envision this quagmire. Furthermore it sought to provide land supplies for all types of development including homes with large lots. Something which Metro quietly removed from the vision. Now we have this lengthy, and costly form of growth mandating the high density, mixed use model only.

    Although they're still a pleasant read, neither SB 100 or our UGBs are panning out as envisioned or intended. Yet those still enamored with the concepts insist we need much more of what we have been doing. High density centers, TODs and rail transit. Never mind it isn't
    "working" as viable planning to accomodate growth. Despite the delusion spawned by pockets of Pearl District central city shine. Any honest and thorough review reveals that for the most part this region wide experiment has been an out of control and a haphazard making of chaos. Sticking things here and there without any cohesive and or comprehensive plan to truly meet the needs of growth. Requiring cities to meet density targets any way possible, spending huge public sums on all sorts of mini schemes, calling anything "blighted" and diverting basic services property tax dollars into enabling private development. While at the same time viable land and development throughout the region, with infrastructure and closer to many jobs, is restricted. Why? Because the UGB-North Bethany-Damascus etc approach is better? Nonsense. Metro didn't even consider how these UGB expansions would actually become buildable when they adopted the new UGB. This new Urban Renewal scheme for North Bethany aside they still don't. Yet there are many other parcels which developers could break ground on relatively soon without public subisidy and provide housing and businesses for our growing region. Metro, SB 100 and the UGBs are dysfunctional. Those who support and perpetuate them are the problem and should not be viewed as having any remedies.

in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon