"There is a shameless threat to our environment and to the whole quality of life, an unfettered despoiling of the land. Sagebrush subdivisions, coastal ‘condomania,’ and the ravenous rampage of suburbia in the Willamette Valley all threaten to mock Oregon´s status as the environmental model for the nation. We are dismayed that we have not stopped misuse of the land, our most valuable finite natural resource.
"We are in dire need of a state land-use policy, new subdivision laws, and new standards for planning and zoning by cities and counties. The interests of Oregon for today and in the future must be protected from grasping wastrels of the land. We must respect another truism: that unlimited and unregulated growth leads inexorably to a lowered quality of life."
Governor Tom McCall, to the 1973 Legislative Assembly, January 8, 1973.
Showing posts with label land use laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label land use laws. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Save Oregon
Measure 37 was sold with lies.
Few voters disagreed that if a couple bought a piece of land on which to retire, newer land use laws should not prevent them from building their home. Oregonians in Action used that to sell Measure 37 to voters in 2004.
The lie was that Measure 37 was actually written by OIA to overturn Oregon land use laws and benefit development companies. The largest contributors to Measure 37 then, and those who oppose Measure 49 now, were rich men, developers and timber companies.
It was a classic bait and switch. A political game played very well and unfamiliar in Oregon, where there was still a certain naive belief in honesty of the process and the wisdom of even uninformed voters. The effete running the campaign against Measure 37 were having a wine party in the Pearl District as they got crushed on election night and Oregon's land use system was destroyed.
Last week I heard “Why can’t I do what I want with my land?” from a woman in Sisters. She has filed a claim for a subdivision on the edge of that mountain town. The answer, pure and simple? Because she never had unlimited rights to do what she wanted. Because what she does on her land affects the rest of us.
Oregon Land Use laws weren’t just an arbitrary move by big government. They were a response by the people of Oregon to protect the quality of life in the state, when to the south, California strip malls were flowing across farm and forest. “Sagebrush subdivisions” near Bend horrified long time Oregonians. “Don’t Californicate Oregon, “was the cry.
So we in Oregon enacted land use laws. The public was involved then, and has been involved since in the zoning of land. Many zones were appealed and modified during that time. There was success. Growth occurred where it would do the most good, do the least harm.
It is not a wide open world anymore, folks. Water is limited. Air is limited. Roads are limited. Money for schools is limited. Unlimited sprawl has a very real cost to all of us. Supporters of Measure 37, who are now the wealthy opponents of Measure 49, want us to pay those costs while they make millions.
The woman I talked to last week could have built a subdivision on her land in the early 1970s, but all it was worth was to raise cattle. Even today she could build a subdivision if the land was incorporated into the growth boundary, if there were roads for the houses, stores for those houses, places for children to play.
The value of her land went up partly because of the very Oregon land use laws that she and OIA are trying to overturn. The protected views, the green space, the adequate transportation, and restrictions on her neighbors who bought their land in the 1980s have all made her land more valuable.
“If the state wants to restrict what I do, why shouldn’t they pay for that?" she asked. Because if she wants to turn her ranch into a subdivision, it is our right as neighbors to ask her to offset the loss to the rest of us. The process is there to assure that she will pay her share while making millions off land use laws that kept Oregon livable.
Few voters disagreed that if a couple bought a piece of land on which to retire, newer land use laws should not prevent them from building their home. Oregonians in Action used that to sell Measure 37 to voters in 2004.
The lie was that Measure 37 was actually written by OIA to overturn Oregon land use laws and benefit development companies. The largest contributors to Measure 37 then, and those who oppose Measure 49 now, were rich men, developers and timber companies.
It was a classic bait and switch. A political game played very well and unfamiliar in Oregon, where there was still a certain naive belief in honesty of the process and the wisdom of even uninformed voters. The effete running the campaign against Measure 37 were having a wine party in the Pearl District as they got crushed on election night and Oregon's land use system was destroyed.
Last week I heard “Why can’t I do what I want with my land?” from a woman in Sisters. She has filed a claim for a subdivision on the edge of that mountain town. The answer, pure and simple? Because she never had unlimited rights to do what she wanted. Because what she does on her land affects the rest of us.
Oregon Land Use laws weren’t just an arbitrary move by big government. They were a response by the people of Oregon to protect the quality of life in the state, when to the south, California strip malls were flowing across farm and forest. “Sagebrush subdivisions” near Bend horrified long time Oregonians. “Don’t Californicate Oregon, “was the cry.
So we in Oregon enacted land use laws. The public was involved then, and has been involved since in the zoning of land. Many zones were appealed and modified during that time. There was success. Growth occurred where it would do the most good, do the least harm.
It is not a wide open world anymore, folks. Water is limited. Air is limited. Roads are limited. Money for schools is limited. Unlimited sprawl has a very real cost to all of us. Supporters of Measure 37, who are now the wealthy opponents of Measure 49, want us to pay those costs while they make millions.
The woman I talked to last week could have built a subdivision on her land in the early 1970s, but all it was worth was to raise cattle. Even today she could build a subdivision if the land was incorporated into the growth boundary, if there were roads for the houses, stores for those houses, places for children to play.
The value of her land went up partly because of the very Oregon land use laws that she and OIA are trying to overturn. The protected views, the green space, the adequate transportation, and restrictions on her neighbors who bought their land in the 1980s have all made her land more valuable.
“If the state wants to restrict what I do, why shouldn’t they pay for that?" she asked. Because if she wants to turn her ranch into a subdivision, it is our right as neighbors to ask her to offset the loss to the rest of us. The process is there to assure that she will pay her share while making millions off land use laws that kept Oregon livable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)