This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 1, 2007 10:04 AM. The previous post in this blog was Grampy's payday loan. The next post in this blog is One of a kind. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, October 1, 2007

Quotation of the Day

"I think the impacts of Measure 37, if it's not amended, will be disastrous, long-term, for Oregon," [Eric] Lemelson said. "Filling up the Willamette Valley with subdivisions all over the place, even over 15 or 20 years, I think, is nuts. I don't know how else to put it."

Comments (25)

Filling up the Willamette Valley with subdivisions...

Oh, please - that doesn't go nearly far enough; people will surely be poisoned by RADIOACTIVITY if M37 isn't "amended".

$725K smacks of something other than altruism. Is that all Lemelson's money, or is he just a conduit for that old, evil, out-of-state moolah?

Hey, clearly we need to constrict the unbrideled devolpment aspect of M37. Does M49 strike the proper balance between development and appropriate restriction? I dunno. But I do know it will limit over-development driven by greed. For that reason alone, it has my support.

Well of course this is just plain silly as well as disingenuous.
Since so relative few parcels qualify for a M37 claim and even fewer involve any subdivision of any substance the M37 outcome Eric describes is impossible.
And of course he knows that to be the case.
Just as M37 is incapable of "paving over" anything including ANY Vineyards.

The biggest chunk of support for M49 comes from the continued free anti-M37 blitz from our distorting press. The value of that kind of near daily printing of Yes on M49 campaign material, masquerading as journalism, is enormous.

But back to the Valley.
Another reason M37 claims cannot fill up the Willamette Valley with subdivisions is that new claims won't keep coming. Too few people bought their land prior to the bulk of zoning labels appearing in the 70s. So for the most part those who haven't already filed claims wont be because they have no claim for a waiver.

Lemelson is reacting as if there won't be any land available for future vineyards and farming in general if M37 is not "Fixed" by M49.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Abundant land everywhere remains and will remain with M37. Even many M37 claims remove no more than a housing foot print or two on many acres leaving most of their land in current farming form.
Yet Eric would have voters believe any and all M37 construction removes forever that entire parcel from existence.
Or equalling a "paving over" in it's entirety.
I've seen others note the Yes on M49 campaign using and suggesting current NON-M37 subdivisions being built are what M37 will bring. Boy is that ever a clever twist.
Their story appears to be that we are to ignore the many NON-M37 densely packed subdivisions cropping up on and next to farmland at the direction of our planning bureaucracies but then find any kind of subdivision of lesser density and impact resulting from a M37 claim as horrific.
Therefor vote for M49. It's for our own good?
The density messes we see being built every day all around and in our cities at the direction of our "land use planning" agencies preferable and M37 must be stopped?
We MUST have more row houses and infill, more Beaverton Rounds, more South Waterfronts and more tightly packed subdivisions at every UGB expansions on and next to farmland?
None of those developments create any problems and relative few M37 less dense developments must be stopped?

This entire land use debate is about the status quo insisting the public accept higher densities everywhere most of us live while keeping the decisions to build an 800 acre (North Bethany) tightly packed subdivision/development on farmland solely in the hands of the same planners and politicians who promote and defend the deliberate overcrowding of every city in Oregon. At any and all costs.

I say stop THEM from ruining Oregon and NO to their current weapon M49.

"But I do know it will limit over-development driven by greed."

Well, before M37 the only thing a developer had to do was make a big enough contribution to the right commissioner and, voila, Bethany pops up on farmland. M49 will not change that.

M37 basically says if the zoning on a piece of property is changed and it affects value, the owner is due some recompense. I am not getting the all of a sudden a toxic dump will pop up next to a winery comes from.

Lemelson (the father) is interesting. He bought that winery by buying unenforced patents and then holding people hostage to use them. Real forward-thinking type.

Every new home in wine county is one less skinny house, row house, tiny lot or crappy condo in our Portland neighborhoods

M49 will just drive even more destruction of our neighborhoods.

The rich wine owner just wants to keep his private preserve at the expense of the destruction of our neighborhoods.

The other big donor against 37 was an eastern group, that buys land to keep people off of it. They want M37 to go away to keep land cheap so they can buy up more of Oregon. They are using the law to keep screw current land owners for their benefit.

It is not about saving “farmland” (that mostly grows plants, not food), it is about forcing 300,000 more people into Portland’s neighborhoods (see Sam’s city club speech), by denying them the opportunity for a real home on vacant land.

That’s why local developers are donating to pass M49 - they want their development gravy train to continue.


I'm tired of hearing about "saving farmland". Especially given the fact that so much of Oregon's produce comes from somewhere else. Do we really need to "save" the thousands of acres of hay, alfalfa, and grass seed? Or the additional thousands of acres of Oregon good for little more than seasonal grazing of cattle. Do keep in mind that less than 5% of this state is developed - no matter what the planner clowns would like you to believe.

Also, how many people actually think that putting up a subdivision in the middle of nowhere will actually sell? Please folks, let's get a grip.

Oh - and to that fat pig that claims to live on a farm and wants me to vote
"her" way. Go stuff it!

Obviously some very nice people on the anti-49 side, from the tenor of the posts. People do get their knickers in a twist when their greed drive hits a speed bump.

Who is Mr. Lemelson and what is his bias? The comments on this issue are the real insight into this issue.

"Another reason M37 claims cannot fill up the Willamette Valley with subdivisions is that new claims won't keep coming. Too few people bought their land prior to the bulk of zoning labels appearing in the 70s."

'Oh, please - that doesn't go nearly far enough; people will surely be poisoned by RADIOACTIVITY if M37 isn't "amended".'

According to my sources M49 was a back room deal by a group of legislators who rammed the measure through the legislature and referred it to the voters. Now they want to scare voters enough to vote for it. Just vote no.

He just wants to buy his neighbors land at "farm" prices, not market prices.

Here is a link for people wondering where the Lemelson money came from:

First let's move I5 out of the valley and run it from Klamath Falls into Bend then north to Spokane. That should take lots of pressure of the valley and move development east. Of course we don't need I84 coming into Portland either. That'll help keep the gorge pristeen and get rid of the port and move the whole damn thing to Coos Bay. Don't forget to move the airport to Pendleton and send all the whites back to Europe, or wherever. And pretty soon there'll be just you and me.


For those of you interested in facts - here is a website with maps of all Willamette Valley Counties except Polk, showing Measure 37 claims.

Admittedly, many of the numerous spots on these maps are not for larger subdivisions. But enough of them are to verify the accuracy of Mr. Lemelson's statement.


If we want to deny our neighbors their reasonable investment-based expectations, we should simply pay for the loss of value on the property. Development will only occur if we are unwilling to compensate our neighbors. In case I'm not being clear - we can stop unwanted development by paying the landowner. Ultimately, the landowner cannot stop us from limiting development. This entire argument devolves to the question of who should shoulder the burden of our desires - individual property owners or all of us.

"Admittedly, many of the numerous spots on these maps are not for larger subdivisions"

Yet the bureaucrat map makers blot out every entire parcel to exagerate the loss of land. If they were to place on a map only the footprints of homes businesses and infrastucture reality would reveal the insignificant impact on the Valley.

The real driving force behind much of the anti-M37 and Yes on M49 "fix" is our land use planning regime wants to block any and all spacious development. You know, 1/2 or 1 or 5 acres parcels or houses with big yards.

They must prohibit theses developments so they can contintue to allow only the tightly packed, heavily subsidized mess we see being built all over the
They're in charge of growth and if anything is going to be developed and built it will be according to their model and permission.
M37 is harmless compared to our planner's plans. Vote No on M49!

People need to understand why M37 is being squashed by M49.
Here's what we'll be forced to have instead of M37, as proposed by the anti-M37 Regime. "15 MPH or less".
This for Damascus but the same plan is for North Bethany and everywhere else.


"Street Design and Speeds The goal of preserving the rural character of the area can best be achieved by designing local collectors for vehicle speeds of 15 MPH or less.
At these low speeds autos and pedestrians can share a common right of way. They also allow for narrower streets, less than two full lanes in many cases, and much narrower right-of-ways"

Consider the extension of light rail or a non-urban streetcar line (such as the old interurban lines or the 'Red Line' in Los Angeles) south from Gresham, in addition to other connections. ,,, and the emphasis should not be on the traffic driving through the area. "

"I think the impacts of Measure 37, if it's not amended, will be disastrous, long-term, for Oregon," [Eric] Lemelson said. "Filling up the Willamette Valley with subdivisions all over the place, even over 15 or 20 years, I think, is nuts. I don't know how else to put it."

One of the best descriptions of 37 I have read.

"One of the best descriptions of 37 I have read."

Then you're totally clueless and have no inkling how M37 works.

Wow... just wow...

Are the anti-49 folks Google crazy or do that many lunatics lurk here?

It seems most of the "progressives" in Portland consider anything outside the city limits "farm land." And then the ones with homes already in rural areas have their little piece of earth, and they dont want more folk moving in next door. Its ok for them to live there, just not for you.

The couple next door to me have 5 kids in a two-bedroom apartment that is about 800 sq feet. Seven people! Is that the future of Portland? I mean if all we get to build is high rises downtown, it sure seems like it.

Also, does anyone know about a strip-mall being built on farmland from a M37 claim? Because I keep hearing that on TV...

The only strip-mall I know of that was built on farmland was built on land taken by eminent domain in Keizer. Right on I5 too.

There are no M37 strip malls or any other M37 developments being built.

But that doesn't stop the M37 opponents/Yes on M49 people.

They keep using pics of the higher density non-M37 subdivisions being built to scare people into thinking M37 is responsible for them and if not stopped will "Fill up the Willamette Valley".

There campaign is working as demonstrated by Jimbo being so impressed with the lie.

Jimbo, it is impossible for that outcome to happen. It is impossible for a fraction of that outcome to happen.

I want to know if the truth matters to you?
M37 claims don't and can't keep coming till the Valley is filled up.
Do you understand that?

When you start from the bogus premise that all M37 supporters are greedy bastards who want to pave over any and everything without regard to others, it's pretty easy to keep on truckin'. It's the big bold lie told early, it's poisoning the well and it's a hallmark of the elitists who hate M37 that they'll employ these tactics. They accuse others of greed because they judge everyone else's motivations using their own. All the "strip malls and subdivisions covering the valley" lies are easy after the big one.

Of course the big lie also obfuscates the possibility that greed may be a prime motivator for M49 folks. The Brian Hineses and Eric Lemelsons of the state are not poor folks - they're rich, they've "got theirs", they're politically connected, they have pantingly obedient allies in the media and government, and they don't care about anyone but themselves. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being wilfully blind.

As I've said before, if all the Lemelson's and Hineses are so sure that all this high-value farmland is so bloody important to Oregonians (who, oddly, require interpreters like the M49 folks to make their wishes known), then Oregonians should be asked to PAY to preserve them. The fact that, as far as I'm aware, only ONE claimant has been paid off tells me that governments KNOW they would never be able to convince voters to tax themselves to pay off these claims. That's the truth of the matter - when the real costs of regulation are known, people pay far more attention and make value-based choices based on common sense - not on some "free lunch" chimera like that inherent in SB100.

A real laugher was the article in today's Zero about lumber interests' contributions to the OIA. I'd bet anything that, after yesterday's article detaling the pro49 contributions of Lemelson et al., that the editorial board got an angry phone call from the M49 crew demanding "balance". What a joke. Reading those two articles side-by-side makes a mockery of any sense of journalistic balance from those lap dogs.

one Google crazy lunatic lurking here

My favorite pro 49 is: "apples or asphalt"

Well duh, I really like the taste of asphalt pie with vanilla ice cream!

This is all driven by simple demographics. The valley isn't going to fill up with subdivisions if the people don't exist. If the people exist then the subdivisions will be built regardless of any M37 or M49 or any other law. If the people show up in the future then there will be enough votes to change anything we put in place today.

Most of the anti-37, pro-49 platform is hysteria. I can just see Lemelson lying on his fainting couch clutching his brow at the thought of having some new neighbors. Oh, the horror of it all. What is the point of having all that money that Daddy extorted for you if you can't be free of neighbors?

Big deal that a bunch of M37 claims have been filed. Where I live there are M37 claims all around me. That doesn't mean anything will happen in the next decade or two since the market for 100,000 new homes doesn't exactly exist.

I voted for M37 on the principle of property rights and I'll vote against 49 just becuase I really don't like the bozos in Salem who hate me and my fellow voters. As soon as we pass something they kick into gear and try everything they can to protect their little club of professional land planners. (remember that idiot judge who thought M37 was unconsitutional?) The group in Salem hates voters, private property rights and anything that gets in the way of their viewpoint. So my vote against 49 is a vote against them. I don't really worry too much about farms vs. subdivisions. Demographics and market forces take care of that issue just fine.

"Demographics and market forces take care of that issue just fine"

Yeah, that, and the fact that M37 claims don't even make a dent on the valley or the State. Despite the lying wineries and 1000 Initiative Haters.

Clicky Web Analytics