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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This sure sounds like the socialist mantra.
Anonymous knows little about regulations in this here good ole U S of A, where we have many laws that protect neighborhoods and the community from pure economic motivation.
At a stretch, one could suppose that any form of zoning is a form of socialism, in that it does not allow unregulated use of land by the land owner. But we know of no serious voice in the debate that advocates this, even the OIA's David Hunnicut, or Loren Parks, or Howard Rich, or Mark Hemstreet, or any of the rest of that gang.
Managed growth, zoning, may or not be a good idea, depending on your politics. We believe it is, and that zoning protects private investment, protects schools, allows for a better use of public facilities, promotes healthier and more stable economic microclimates, and is one way to avoid cost shifting by developers of unecessary infrastructure costs onto the backs of tax payers.
It is not socialism.
By the way, Eye is a market-oriented fiscal conservative who believes government is often the least efficient player in the game, but that government does have a role to protect society as a whole and the weak from the strong when society deems it in the greater interest.
Yes I agree, this is a case of the vocal few taking from the many with property rights without just compensation. It is just plain stealing.
Exactly: The vocal few developers who want to ram through strip malls and subdivisions helter skelter everywhere and get the many, the rest of us, to pay the cost of their sprawl. Property rights have never been absolute.
You just want to take those rights without paying just compensation. You want them for free. That's stealing. If open space is for the public benefit, why not have the public pay for it instead of penalizing the property owner. That is only fair. It is not fair to steal.
Too simplistic. No, it is not stealing. What is stolen? The land is still there, the owner still owns it... nothing is gone, nothing missing, nothing is "stolen."
"Rights" are different. "Rights" change and the "loss" of a "right" is not theft.
I used to have a "right" to carry a knife on an airplane. I used to have a "right" to discriminate against blacks wanting to rent my house. I used to have a "right" to use laudenum. I used to have a "right" to store explosives in my warehouse next to the church. I used to have a "right" to build my house out of scrap wood and wire it with coat hangers.
Where is my compensation for the loss of all those rights?
Like it or not, Anonymous, you live in a community. That community also has some "rights" relative to the individual. The argument now is over which rights prevail.
SB 10 and then SB 100 redefined rights concerning the use of property, and were passed by a legal process representing a majority. With subsequent case law, they represented a change in "rights."
Measure 37 was another change in "rights." It was not compensation for theft. Measure 49 is another attempt to modify the balance of "rights."
That's all. As a community, we are just trying to figure out where to draw the line.
That sure sounds like the socialist agenda again. Perhaps you might be more at home across the Berring Strait.
It's "Bering Strait."
I invite you to go there.
America. Love it or leave it. Damn commie bastard!
For beautiul, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain...
Oh, shit, that sounds just like that Socialist Mantra! Maybe we should re-write the song.
Formerly beautiful, now obscured skies, for acres of concrete....
Man, now I feel better.
Post a Comment