This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 5, 2007 2:52 PM. The previous post in this blog was Where the rubber meets the -- no, wait. The next post in this blog is Hana ho. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, February 5, 2007

Q & A

How long did it take the new Democratic majority in the Oregon Legislature to do something dumb and insure that the Republicans will get back at least one house in 2008?

Thirty-six days.

Comments (65)

I have no problem with retooling a deceptive bill that was bought and paid for by rich out-of-state developers who want to pave Oregon and make it look just like the worst parts of California.

Me neither. But there are a lot of other things that need attention, and after this plays out in the hinterland, it will be back to a Republican house and resumed gridlock. Better get everything done in the next two years, people.

Jack, so you're supporting measure 37? Or are you saying that the two-tiered system is the snafu and should be handled in an alternate approach?

I disagree, Jack. The hinterland is where many of the problems are surfacing most acutely, with property owners and neighbors realizing M37 is unworkable. Prineville can't even provide water to new developments they've planned for inside their urban services boundary, let alone for new M37 development, for example. Jackson County's approved 150 claims, but none of them can be built because banks won't issue loans to build subdivisions that aren't served by roads, water, or sanitary, and because the people who wrote M37 didn't write in a transfer rights clause. I hope to see bipartisan support for putting a hold on claims until a land use and property rights system that can be fair to all parties is worked out.

I'm saying that M37 is the third rail of Oregon politics right now, and Ted and the gang are about to step on it. It may be the right thing to do, but it's political suicide.

The public has not been sold on the evils of M37 yet -- far from it -- and even an off-year ballot measure that tries to cut back on it in any meaningful way is going to go down hard. Along with Democratic control in Salem.

I hope to see bipartisan support for putting a hold on claims until a land use and property rights system that can be fair to all parties is worked out.

Dream on.

I hope you're right, Jack.

But I'm concerned that most of the single issue voters (and many of those with strong feelings about M37) already picked their state senators & reps.

It is unlikely to emerge as a wedge issue in the next election (except to push the R's further to the right).

It will certainly make campaign fundraising easier, at least for the R's

I'm saying that M37 is the third rail of Oregon politics right now, and Ted and the gang are about to step on it. It may be the right thing to do, but it's political suicide.

What is the evidence that this is the 3rd rail/political suicide? If the gov. and legislature don't step up now on this issue, when? I have said this commenting on other blogs, but I don't know what made me more ill in Nov. '04, M-37 passing with a 61% margin, or W. getting re-elected. coin flip.

I have looked at the demographics and the voting patterns the past several years. And I can tell you that there are at least 5 Democrats who are EXTREMELY vulnerable on this issue if they go south on M37. South meaning a repeal or suspension.

One legislator from the coast is already hearing from COUNTY representatives that he/she better not mess with it.

Another Democratic House member did not even know about the legislation until TWO HOURS after the press conference today.

Like M37 or not, Jack is right. This will be a dangerous issue for them.

Doing the right thing in the face of political winds is admirable. I may be unreasonably hopeful that voters would reward a party for leadership, but the party will be better off in the long term leading with what's right than "winning" by sticking to safe, meaningless, initiatives. This is a temporary hold, meant to give time for a real solution. It is not a repeal. Who will remember the 5-month hold by the time the next election rolls around? Inaction on this issue would be the worst they could do, and they would certainly be punished for that.

The fact that it took them 36 days surprised you how? That it took so long or was so short? Depends upon your point of view.

I was very disappointed when the republicans were the majority but messes made by the democrats is totally expected (by me). So to me, it was a surprise that it took so long.

More and more it's looking like it really doesn't make any difference who is in power, we citizens get screwed no matter what label the politicians wear.

I wonder if progressives would respond differently if a Republican Governor of Oregon were taking a "go-slow" approach towards implementation of a "same-sex marriage" amendment following it's passage?

I fail to see how the things you point out are problems with Measure 37. An approved claim that can't be built because of lack of infrastructure is hardly a problem.

Measure 37 doesn't pretend that every claim will result in public dollars funding the development allowed in the claim. Nor should it.

Before Oregon's land use system was established, those Jackson County landowners had the right to build those subdivisions. And because of lack of roads and water, banks wouldn't lend them money to develop the land.

Then, for 34 years the right to develop the land was taken from them. Now that they have that right back, banks still won't lend them the money.

Why is that a problem?

The transfer issue is totally bogus. No transfer clause was put in the measure because its writers underestimated how much the AG would torture common sense to kill it.

M-37 passing with a 61% margin,

OK..guess that may be a reason it is a 3rd rail. Guess I get fired up over this.

One would think they would pick a better issue than something that was approved by 61% of voters. Like maybe they could work on a rainy-day fund instead of spending every penny of the 20% budget increase.

Then again, since a lot of people like to call the pro-M37 votes duped and easily fooled voters, maybe this is the attitude of the legislature toward the voters. How about just finding why the thing passed and trying to follow the spirit of M37?

Mr Tee,
Imagine what you want. However the truth is that same sex marriage FAILED after Oregonians had a chance to vote on it.

And... M37 passed TWICE after Oregonians had a chance to vote on it.

More to your point about the "hinterlands," as they relate to Jack's point about the 3rd rail.

If I am not mistaken the counties you mention are already represented by strong pro M37 Republicans. If you are going to use political examples you should at least use examples where Democrats are in vulnerable districts.

One is down in Coos County where the county commissioners are already giving their Democratic Representative an ear full about leaving M37 alone.

House Democrat
Hard Place

My family had it's beloved family compound stolen through eminent domain. My unsophisticated family received approximately $20,000 for our share of (1/6 of) 25% of the shoreline of Blue Lake in east Multnomah County. (I bet some of you are snickering right now; shame on you.) The property sat vacant, growing blackberries, for about 10 years after the seizure. I ride my bike over it now. Big whoop. I remember the brick fireplace my dad and I built. I remember the dancing parties, the swimming and boating from our dock, the painted turtles, the cookouts, and the camping by the lake. My siblings' children have no such memories. And my parents were screwed with the "compensation" they received for their lake-front property. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY, EMPATHY, WHATEVER for gub-mint types who steal the "reasonable, investment-based expectations of private citizens in their property." For crying out loud, as if property is only about investment! Any of you who own ANYTHING know its much more than that. Dorothy English is my heroine. Fair compensation is not only fair, it's guaranteed in our Constitution(s). Why should one private citizen pay for the wants of the rest of us? If we want it, we have to be willing to pay for it. It is the cost of the acquisition, as much as the future improvements will be. And we have to have a legitimate reason to seize it.

"Inaction on this issue would be the worst they could do".

That may be your opinion but you are sorely without any basis for it.

Furthermore, the "5 month hold" you mention is nothing but a run up the "real solution" you speak of,,,which is nothing but a total repeal.
That's the anti-M37 solution, period.

The problem they have is they have NOT a shred of M37 the calamity to show anyone.
You don't either.
So instead you join the pandamonium call for M37 suspension because it's such a lovely liberal thing to do.

Should the repeal happen, I can already hear the chants about the Oregon doom that was prevented by those liberal democrats "doing the right thing".

Just in the nick of time!

What we're probably going to see sometime soon is the national Democrats doing something similarly dumb with regard to Iraq, Iran, etc.

That, I doubt. Most Americans want out of Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't think most Oregonians want out of M37.


I know a piece of property that would probably do well as an abattoir, or an auto spare parts lot...but the damned thing is zoned for residential. I could realize a much better return on my investment if I could turn it into a slaughterhouse or junkyard. M37 should let me do that, right?

So what if the neighbors don't want a slaughterhouse in their little residential community. The persnickity little snots. If it's my property, I should be able to do with it as I want....right?

Unfortunately, I don't think most Oregonians want out of M37.

It appears we will find out soon...I hope you are wrong on this. We will see.

rich out-of-state developers

Xenophobic Portland's boogey man rears its ugly head again!

How is it that at this juncture in the M37 discussion can anyone still bantor those falsehoods which have so many times been debunked.

No where in Oregon can a slaughterhouse,
pig farm, smelter or other imaginary horrors be placed in any residential community because of M37.

You made that up or you have been duped.

Can you please share with us where you got that idea?

M37 does not repeal all zoning and protections.

You are misleading people.
It's not true.
Why are you posting it?

Once again we come across another Democratic Party problem. In this case it's M37, but feel free to insert any number of other measures from Oregon.

A. An issue is taken before the people about a real problem inflicted on real people.
B. The measure is approved by the people of Oregon.
C. The Democratic Party (and a few Republicans) now scream that the people of Oregon are TOO stupid to know what they were voting about.
D. The Democratic Party then makes outrageous claims that the approved measure will cause a bottleneck in our county courthouse, around the state.
E. Democratic Party members (who serve as County Commissioners, County Planners, etc.) then implement a strategy to delay and cause stoppage of any and all claims.
F. The Democratic Party members then go public claiming that the measure has caused SIGNIFICANT DELAY AND CONFUSION, so the Oregon State Legislature, MUST FIX THE PROBLEM.

Observation: Wake up Ted, you are contributing to the problem begun by the above mentioned accomplices.

Conclusion: Governor Ted, I knew what I was voting on, it made sense then and it still does today.

Fair compensation is not only fair, it's guaranteed in our Constitution(s).

Tell that to the native Americans whose land we stole and lay claim to.

"Tell that to the native Americans"

Frank, Frank. All that was pre-Constitution. We stole it fair and square.

DE, I will remember the "5 month hold" and I will remember Senator McPherson's position on what ever comes down. If some of you knew what you were talking about concerning M37 and how it affects mostly the small property owners (review the M37 claims for each county), and stop taking the endless Oregonian and now the democrat legislature misrepresentations, then you would realize that your humping for Ted will not set well with voters from each side.

JK: M37 again! People voted 61% for it. In 2002, people voted well over 65% to limit density in our neighborhoods. There is a relationship!

* One way of forcing density on us it to restrict building in places other than our neighborhoods. That is what is happening now and part of why most Portland neighborhoods are getting their very own little condo farm. That is how M37 should be helping us - by allowing people to build somewhere OTHER THAN in our current neighborhoods.

* M37 also has the potential to return affordable housing to Oregon by allowing low cost land to build affordable homes on.

* M37 also has the potential to increase jobs by allowing low cost land to build new businesses on.

The only thing wrong with M37 is the time limits - they should be removed. Only then it can have the greatest effect in protecting our neighborhoods from further destruction by forced higher density and its higher congestion, higher expenses and higher pollution.

Note: 65% voted for Metro’s do nothing density limit measure. 43% voted for the citizen’s (genuine) density limit measure. The total number of people that voted to limit density by voting for one or the other measure will be higher than the 65%, perhaps 75% to 85%.


How long did it take the new Democratic majority in the Oregon Legislature to do something dumb...

Just to insert some facts here. Y'all should take note that the new legislative majority hasn't done a damn thing on this proposed legislation just yet. So, Jack's clock can keep ticking for a while.

Oregonian: oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1170390332278270.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

English and her husband bought their land in 1953 and lived in a rustic cabin for several years while they built a home. Two decades later, Oregon began drafting rules to protect rural land and concentrate people in cities.
JK: Notice this at the end: concentrate people in cities? Shades of WWII: Our cities are “concentrating people”.

When will they be considered camps?

That’s it ”concentration camps” to keep the dirty, filthy city trash our of the pristine wine country. (It was BIG $$$$ from the wine country that opposed M37 - followed by big money east coast environmental corporations - probably to continue “the Oregon experiment” being done on us.)


the dirty, filthy city trash our of the pristine wine country

The point, Jim, is there wouldn't be a "wine country" without the urban growth boundary. There would be "bedroom communities" from here to McMinnville.

Agriculture is an important industry in Oregon, and the wine industry is a huge contributor to Oregon's economy. You have a problem with that Jim?

"Long Island" NY, where I grew up --next door to Levittown, that prototypical suburb-- was a nice enough place to grow up, but, bit by bit, the corn fields, potato fields, duck farms --Long Island duck is awesome-- mostly disappeared. From "bread basket" to NYC...to mostly ugly sprawl. A new lane on the Long Island Expressway, for car-poolers, took ten years and a billion dollars. The Shorham Nuclear Power plant never opened when it was realized there was no effective way to evacuate Long Island's population on clogged highways. There's a certain insanity to the suburbs.

My son's a musician, and my step son's a barrista. They both live in Portland, and make a decent life of it. The idea that only the rich will be living in Portland in 5-10 years seems just a little over the top.

The idea that only the rich will be living in Portland in 5-10 years seems just a little over the top.

When new residential real estate in the "trendy" 'hoods (read: Condos) are going for $500-$700/sq ft, Im not that convinced...

And its only a matter of time before they start ripping up single-family homes for condos...

It's funny that the developer-and-Republican knee-jerk response is "[it's] "ill-timed" and "irresponsible.""

Actually, given the current state of Measure 37 affairs, this bill is both well-timed and quite responsible. Given that the bill provides fast-track support for families that want to build on their small piece of property, would the Republicans and developers really like to come out so strongly against this bill? I'd be happy if they did, since it would expose them for the frauds they are. They couldn't care less about the "little guy," and opposing this bill makes that clear as day.

Frank Dufay-"Tell that to the native Americans whose land we stole and lay claim to"

Who did they steal it from and lay claim to?

"The point, Jim, is there wouldn't be a "wine country" without the urban growth boundary. There would be "bedroom communities" from here to McMinnville."

That's just not true Frank. Why would you think a lucrative business like wine making needs some sort of government mandated protections?

Even if wine making never happened in Oregon (which would be a shame, although I think many Oregon wines are highly overrated. However, I'm not a huge Pinot fan -- but I digress) there's plenty other industries that would have taken its place.

Unfortunately, it seems Oregon's environmental, tax and land use policies are stifling any other industries from expanding here.

The notion that there wouldn't be any wine country without the UGB is nothing but an anti-M37 fabrication.

How would have all of that "county' diappeared? How did the UGB make it wine country? I contend it would have been wine country without the UGB. There would have been maybe a few more houses and businesses dotting the landscape. BIG deal.
Why is "wine" country so enamouring anyway? It's hardly any more natural than nursery country or Christmas tree country.
For some reason my friend Frank thinks without the UGB all of that land now "wine" country would have been swooped up by subdivision devleopers in a great Oregon land rush.
That's simply not the case and he needs drive around and see how much there really is.


I have been encouraged that the legislative land use and fairness committee (or whatever it is called) would parse the fact-laden issue of the reasonable exectations of property owners prior to 1973 and take an honest look at the constitutional paramaters/constraints that properly shape land use planning. But when I see phrases like "Portland procss whine" appearing in this morning's O article on Vicki Phillips, I am reminded of how things work around here, that fresh voices are so easily labelled "whining" and how the press parrots refrains of "crank, crackpot, conspiracy theorist, crazy, contrarian (English majors know their C words)to dismiss legitimate concerns about process, and my hope starts to wane.

That's process whine.

Back in the late '50's, early '60's it was widely understood that there would be a strip city running from Vancouver BC to Olympia and from Portland to Eugene by the year 2000. This wasn't some radical egghead conjecture - just an acknowledgment of the way things were going based on what had happened so far in the region and the examples of the east coast and Southern California. And this was well before we had the example of what massive development would do to the southern Bay Area.

I remember talking with my dad about this issue on several occasions back then as we used to hunt pheasant in the areas between Albany and Salem as well as the countryside out by Amity. It was around the time that I5 was being developed and so we had a pretty good example that change was on the way.

Fortunately, for the most part, those fields and open areas are still there. Sure the housing developments around the towns have crept out and there are a lot more farms and fences but the combination of UGBs and other land use restrictions enacted in 1973 have done what the citizens of Oregon wanted. Driving through Washington on I5 always reminds me of what Oregon could have become.


If you don't recognize hyperbole when you see it, don't ever try satire.

I introduced it because it is the logical conclusion of the whole M37 debate. Those who pushed through M37 whined about the fact that government measures, usually zoning codes, prevent them from realizing the maximum pecuniary benefit from their property...those who have R50 wanting to develop to R2.5 level. Well, if we continue the logic behind this move, we WOULD allow the location of noxious structures in residential areas. There are some out that who, having purchased R50 land, want it to remain that way, rather than having their greedy neighbor trying to turn the property down his driveway into a rabbit warren for ex-urbs. I happen to think that objection should have as much weight as not wanting a slaughterhouse next door. It's the same principle.

Oh, and Howard? If you give us some idea of where you live, we can focus on locating that slaughterhouse right on your street.

Won't that be neat? To see that property being utilized to its "highest and best use"?

Intersting that Ronald M complains that "Driving through Washington on I-5 always reminds me of what Oregon could have become." Interesting because they have a much more solvent state than Oregon will ever have. Sorry to tell you Ron, but Oregon is a backwater and will continue to be one as long as we have people with such low ambitions.

So, unrestricted land development automatically leads to financial solvency? Too bad our little backwater is such an unpopular place that it's only number 2 in the country for moving van destinations. Pull your head out Dave, it is possible to have both fiscal sensibility, limited government intrusion, and reasonable protections for our landscape.

So in other words you are simply making up a scenario where a slaughterhouse could be put next to an existing residential communnity.

"if we continue the logic behind this move"
That's all you got. The "if" continuation of your concocted interpretation of M37 logic.
Like so much of M37 opposition you can't point to a single REAL situation where a slaughterhouse could end up next to a residential neighborhood.
Why? Because you make everything up as you go.
Pull your head out of the fantasy bucket.
Quit making up things.
Pay attention.

I can't because up to the imposition of M37 changes, there were land use rules that prevented dumbsh*t moves like building condos out in the tulies, on land that used to be forest. That, in my estimation is as abominable as locating a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood...which is what zoning laws are supposed to do.

The same specious logic which underpins M37 also argues for anyone developing their land to whatever they wish, be it slaughterhouse, slag heap, or crappy snouthouses and Weston-special rabbit warren apartment buildings, their neigbhors and community be damned.

"...dumbsh*t moves like building condos out in the tulies, on land that used to be forest. That, in my estimation is as abominable as locating a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood..."

A slaughterhouse as bad as condos?

Wow, you've got some seriously messed up values there, Bud.

Well, Chris, since you think building condos on forested land that should be protected, then I guess we can send you the bill for the environmental damage it causes (excessive flooding, siltation of the water sources, contamination of the soil, etc.) and the excess costs in subsidized public services, huh?

My values are fine, because I would do neither. I think that, in most cases, land use laws, including zoning laws, perform the purpose for which they were brought into being. It's only when some big-time landowners think that they can cash in on the stupidity and greed of the average voter that they actively support ill-concieved and poorly-implemented means like M37 to get around land use protections they personally don't like.

Building townhouses on undeveloped forest land (or, even worse, productive agricultural land) IS just as stupid as building a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood.

Frank Dufay-"Tell that to the native Americans whose land we stole and lay claim to"

Who did they steal it from and lay claim to?

Y0ou're kidding, right?

May I recommend to you "Arrow in the Earth" about Oregon's role in extermining the native American population and moving the surviviors elsewhere.

It's actually a great read about Joel Palmer, who was a pretty honorable bureaucrat, caught between the Indian haters, and his compassion for what was happening to them.

His house, in Dayton, is now an amazing restaurant, built around a love of wild mushrooms. I never liked 'em...but their mushroom soup --let alone their multiple course mushroom dinner-- is amazing.

Why would you think a lucrative business like wine making needs some sort of government mandated protections?

I've followed the Oregon wine industry for over 25 years, since I was a wine steward back at the old Canlis atop the Hilton.

"Lucrative business?" You either forget, or didn't experience, the undercapitalized foundation of Oregon's wine industry. How many folks went broke. The tasting rooms in garages. I had a wine-making buddy who lived in his tasting room...an ex-attorney who gave it up to make some great wine, while living in near poverty.

The problem with the great soil that makes great Oregon wine is that its NOT good for growing much else. Good wine comes from stressed vines, growing in clay soil and worse.

Napa --like the Dundee Hills-- could have been a great bedroom community for San Francisco. Instead there, like here, people had the vision to save the land for what it was intended...incredible wine that doesn't grow just anywhere, like melons or wheat.

I love Oregon Pinot Noir, and, yeah, some of its gotten priced out of line, but we are making, an hour's drive away, some of the best wine in the world.

Frank Dufay: "Tell that to the native Americans"

Allan L.: Frank, Frank. All that was pre-Constitution. We stole it fair and square.


Americans of European heritage were still stealing First Nation lands long after the Constitution was framed and ratified. And it was neither fair, nor square. The US Supreme Court told the state of Georgia that they could not dispossess the Cherokees without just compensation. Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to go to hell, as they couldn't enforce it and thus the displacement of the Cherokees to Oklahoma gave us the Trail of Tears, one of the most obvious attempts at genocide.

Well into the 19th century, and nearly a century after the acceptance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Americans of European heritage were still doing things like selling them illegal liquor, giving them smallpox infested blankets, and forcing hunter-gatherers to become farmers against their will. Flim-flam men and con-artists followed in the 20th century...whenever the US Congress thought they could do the First Nations a favor by breaking up their reservation lands.

So, if you want to make it right for those who lived here before the land-use laws came into full effect, then it's time we turned it all back over to the First Nations....they oughta have one helluva M37 claim.

Last week I took 6 Boy Scouts to City Hall. That was scary enough. I wanted the Scouts to see the Council in action. We watched a M37 claim.

Of course the homeowner lost. The boys listened to all the testimony and came away with this conclusion: it was unfair.

The homeowner plainly said that the essense of the M37 is this: Is the regulation today more restrictive than when I bought the property? If yes, then you must either pay me for my loss of use or you must exclude me from that regulation. Even though the city will make 1/3 of his property unavailable to the owner or anyone else, the planners said there was no loss. The City Council voted was 3-0 against the homeowner.

How confusing can a measure be if a 13 year old First Class Scout with an honest heart can figure it out?

Godfrey, please give me one, just one case where a slaughter house can be located next to a residence, with or without M37? Name of town, street, address.

Now we are bringing Boy Scouts into the debate??....Mother and Apple Pie to follow soon so we all are clear on marketing this when it comes before the public again.

Ronald M: Back in the early 60s after I-5 was built through the Willamette Valley in early 1950, it was a common term project for the UofO architectural school to analyse the effect of I-5 on the urbanization of the valley. Several professors expounded the theory that the valley would be urbanized from Eugene to Portland, especially at each I-5 interchange, and soon.

One term, our project was to make planning/architectural assumptions of how the Junction City interchange would transform in the next 10 to 20 years. The professors were certain it would be totally urbanized with numerous uses. Even without Measure 100, and subsequent state-wide zoning inplace in 1978, this projected urbanization from 1954 (I-5 completion) to 1978 (M100 enactment) did not occur.

I am not claiming that there eventually wouldn't be some urbanization at these exits. But the Junction City exit is almost the same as it was in 1954, then in 1978, and similar today. Yes M100 has probably limited somewhat the urbanizaton at these exits. But like today, with all the absolute hype about how M100 saved the state, those who claim the state will be totally urbanized if M37 is allowed to continue in its present form are wrong, just like the professors claimed.

Economics has much to do with our land use patterns, even though we are dangerously altering the free enterprize system where economics may become secondary as the creator of our built environment. Politics, scams, planners are now becoming the makers of our state.

"The problem with the great soil that makes great Oregon wine is that its NOT good for growing much else..."

Using your logic Frank, you must support all the condo subsidies in Portland. After all, those condos wouldn't be developed without government 'help.'

It's a wonder any business has made it on their own in this state.

Godfrey, please give me one, just one case where a slaughter house can be located next to a residence, with or without M37? Name of town, street, address.

Hey, knock it off! Leave the guy alone! He's still smarting from the fact that all of his and his ilk's hyperbole and scare tactics didn't fool the voters or the Oregon Supremes. Also, of course, that a large majority of us misguided fools disagreed with him.

Traumatic, that.

I think its wise to return the discussion to what's actually, currently happening in the legislature regarding this law.

As someone posted, and most people are ignoring, the congress has taken action to suspend only those M37 claims that are, on the surface, scams to get around land-use laws.

All the people who's "rights" are being "infringed" upon by Oregons recent land use laws will still get their claims. Actually, they'll get them more quickly.

But the big-money landowners, intent on subverting public safey or environmental land use laws, will have the proposals suspended for proper review.

What is the problem here?

Are some of you seriously advocating an end to all land use laws? Not only the UGB, but environmental laws as well? Really?

It sure sounds like it by some of the comments I've read.

What is the problem here?

The problem here is that you and your like-thinking friends seem to want us to believe that, despite the margin of passage and the OSC decision, that the M37 doesn't mean what it says and that it needs filtering through you. All the phony wailing about abolishing "...all land-use laws..." is just histrionics. All the class-baiting rhetoric and patronizing "interpretations" of "what voters really intended" and the wishful assertions that there's been a a "what have we done?" reaction are simply fantasy. You're welcome to believe in the planning fairy but that doesn't mean everyone else does.

Your "planning" has been in effect for over 30 years and with its inflexible, elitist biases, it engendered M37 . Now, you're surprised at the reaction?


Nate, sorry, you have it wrong what is being proposed by Ted and the legislative committee.

Having twenty acres that you have owned for for six decades, then having homes built around your property on three sides on 1/4 to 2 acre parcels in the 60's and 70's, then being told by Ted after 61% favored M37 that you can build ONE, ONE house besides your original family homestead house, that Nate is a crime. It is an injustice, it is total disregard to M37. But you think that is very honorable of you to "grant" this right of ONE house, even though fifteen homes could easily be built on the twenty acres per M37.

That is my case, and there are many more M37 cases that are similar. Please apologize, or I am going to establish a pig farm next door to your home.

I think you just proved my point.

Obviously M37 was/is poorly worded.

However, I certainly don't agree that the intent of M37 was to allow you to subdivide your property in any way you choose, disregarding basic land-use laws that protect the public from subsidizing your personal ambitions.

Fortunatley, we live in a democracy with legislative and judicial branches. Our elected officials are working on interpreting and, possibly, ammending this law.

This is why I say, what's the problem? Let our civic leaders do their jobs.

Welcome to fourth grade sir.

Welcome to fourth grade sir.

Let those who are without misspellings cast the first stone.

Oh, and I can't resist...

Haven't they taught you about the use of commas in fourth grade, sir?


Considering I'm typing on a handheld I'm not overly worried about commas. This is, after all, a blog and not a newspaper.

Regardless, my point is, and has been: The current review of M37 is a predictable and entirely normal scenario for an expansive, poorly-worded and controversial measure.

Since no one is really sure *what* M37 does *exactly*, the state has to figure it out. And, I should add, at considerable cost to us, the taxpayers. A precisely-worded measure, with a clearly-stated purpose, would be an easier law to interpret and implement. I know some people think they know exactly what it does. Those people don't know much about our legal system.

Without trying to put words in voters mouths, I do believe a lot of voters "bit off more than they could chew" by supporting this measure. It is my *opinion* that people were hoodwinked. It is fact that a signiciant portion of the M37 claims that have been received flagrantly diregard the spirit of the law. This is part of the reason legislators are taking a closer look at this highly expansive and complex law.

nate said,
"The current review of M37 is a predictable and entirely normal scenario for an expansive, poorly-worded and controversial measure."

Hmmm, I don't recall the Oregon Supreme Court having to much difficulty with it.

But then you probably praised Judge Mary Merten James'rulings and now hide your own poor judgement behind an new batch of wrong headed thinking.

Clicky Web Analytics