I was driving down Dodge Park Blvd the other day and noticed one of those "Yes on 49" signs-- it read "Cornfields or Congestion?"

Now I guess a sign like this would make sense parked up in front of a cornfield, but it wasn't-- it was in front of a 3500+ square foot "McMansion" atop a landscaped 5 acre lot!

The hypocrisy gets even deeper when looking around the neighborhood-- most of the same types of development with the occasional Christmas tree farm. No cornfields. No food crops what-so-ever.

"Out of touch with the electorate" is very true. For the past few years before and after the passage of 37, Anna Griffith and other O reporters "attempted" to be fair by their interviews with parties contrary to the O's editorial slants on 7, 37 and now 49. But many points, examples, arguments given by those of us that have actual, concrete evidence that is contrary, those opinions are not reported by the O. If they are, many times they are slighted, exaggerated, miss quoted, editorialized, you name it. The O doesn't report the issues, every article is an editorial. Just look at the recent deluge of "editorial reporting.

"The hypocrisy gets even deeper" when you have pro M49 ads with people standing in front of massive housing developments on the fringes of the tri-county area that occurred BECAUSE of METRO and our present state-wide planning. For example, its okay for the beautiful, rolling farm lands of Bethany on the outskirts of our urban area, or the Villabois outside of Wilsonville, or Sunnyside, Damascus, Happy Valley to be developed; but it is not okay for a property on Skyline, or Oregon City, SW Humphrey Blvd. that are all surrounded by urban development-to be developed, because the heavy hand of government dictates that it shall not be developed. That is the "hypocrisy".

No food crops what-so-ever.

Better Villabois then the Dundee Hills, which is why Oregon wine growers --a not insubstantial part of our agricultural community-- supports Ballot Measure 40.

You need to get out in the country more, Lee, and recognize all the farmland that's managed to remain so thanks to the "heavy hand of government." Planning really isn't a dirty word.

Frank Dufay: Better Villabois then the Dundee Hills, which is why Oregon wine growers --a not insubstantial part of our agricultural community-- supports Ballot Measure 40.
JK: Commiss Sam tells us to expect 300,000 new people in Portland (about a 50% increase in population) in the same area. So, do you want your neighborhood trashed by one skinny house for every two current houses just to be able to sip little grape juice produced by rich Oregon farmers who probably use more chemicals and water per acre than homes would.?

Every home built in a new neighborhood is one less high density unit in my neighborhood.

Thanks
JK

Urban hi density has become a tenet in the Portland religion of population control and the O knows it's got the pulpit.

Frank you are just plain wrong is youthbnk M37 threatens the Dundee Hills or Yamhill county wine country.
And I'm sure Lee gets out there plenty.

The fact is M37 is not qualified on nearly enough land to make a dent on any part of the state. Despite the deceit from M49 proponents and the Oregonian.

"Planning really is a dirty word" as it has become nothing short of fraud and abuse of the definition of "ploanning".

What you call planning is nothing but blind and irrational obstruction and regulation.
There hasn't been any legitimate planning
in decades with the exception of the heavily subsidized pockets of Municipal schemes.
There is no "plan" for either traffic, affordable housing, industry, jobs, basic infrastructure or funding of basic services.
You seem to be proud of "planning" because of imaginary ploans and fabricated evils from M37 freedom.

I'll take support for M49 from the O. They have a large audience.

That's what Nick Fish said.

Frank, now you are pitting one kind of farmland against another. Villabois sits on class 1 soils while the hills of Dundee are 2 and 3, has considerable water sources vs the grape hillsides, logically is easier to farm than hillside grape property, is closer to infrastructures (I-5) to get products to market, and closer to markets vs Dundee.

But I don't mean to pick one area of farmland over another in deciding who gets to farm, live where. You are a reasonable person that can see that Villabois-Wilsonville has just as much agricultural resources as Dundee. Why do we let heavy handed state wide planning determine who will be the have and have nots? There needs be be some reasonableness in state wide planning.

Better Villabois then the Dundee Hills, which is why Oregon wine growers --a not insubstantial part of our agricultural community-- supports Ballot Measure 40.

More misinformation from one of those who, no doubt, "know the voters intentions when they voted for M37".

The OWA (Oregon Winegrowers Association), which has come out in support of M49, represents less than 1/3 of the 787 total wineries and vineyards in Oregon. I'll hazard a guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that, of the 250 members of the OWA, not all support the measure. Extrapolating from such a small sample works both ways; Perhaps the rest of your "...not insubstantial part of our agricultural community" does NOT support M49 at a 4 to 1 ratio.

How about channelling ALL of your agricultural pals, Farmer Frank, not just those who agree with you.

PS: "Strawberry Fields or Strip Malls" in a public right of way is visual blight - I have just done my part to eliminate it.

Just curious Frank; how many wineries are threatened by M37 claims? How are they threatened? If vineyards are so valuable, wouldn't they be protected from being sold off for development?

If our farm land is so valuable, then why is it in danger of being developed?

M37 threatens the status quo, which threat, NOW, is a dire hazard to all of us, don't you know?

Fairness and the fact that regulatory bodies can choose to pay to preserve the status quo, are peripheral to the real agenda of the M49 folks - they want something for nothing.

Why SB100 and subsequent land use and regulatory restrictions weren't so threatening over the past 36 years and didn't arouse the same passion in these same folks is probably simply due to the fact that they probably didn't live here and, therefore, didn't have a vested interest in the status praevius.

I'm sure Jack can give me the correct Latin for that.

Frank, more questions.

When most wineries have homes built on their properties and sometimes more than one for relatives, caretakers, etc., then why can't an adjoining farm property that wants to build a few homes or even twelve homes on a 160 acre parcel do so?

What is the threshold number in country homes that makes wineries fail?

Doesn't Oregon's "right to farm" laws protect wineries too?

Don't wineries qualify for farm tax exemptions that help them stay in business?

Why is it okay to build swank, tourist hotels, spas in wine country with all the accompanying traffic, etc. but not homes on the only few M37 claims that are really nearby/adjacent to existing wineries?

Frank, I am wondering if the results from the 7000 state wide M37 claims will be as much as the claims request, and what is the total land area that would be "destroyed".

Since over 70% of the claims are from people over age 70, one would think by the time all the legal, public review, permitting, development time settles, that many claims will not be executed because M37 rights don't extend to survivors.

I know on advice of attorneys, land planners, etc. that most claims were filed asking for a higher number of development rights than what is desired by the applicants. I know of several family trusts who filed M37 claims requested the maximum sensible amount because of legal fiduciary requirements. Most pro 49 advocates cite the claimed numbers, and not the reality of what is likely to be built.

I know that state, county, and city requirements concerning water, necessary infrastructure, health/public safety, and sanitary septics/closed systems will and has limited M37 claims from what has been proposed and accepted. The pro 49 voices are not citing these reduced amounts.

The 7000 claims throughout Oregon must constitute a very small portion of all the individual property parcels in the state-maybe 7000 compared to 10 Million parcels. Then the land area must even be even a more insignificant portion since over 80% of Oregon's land is owned by the Feds and the State, not counting all the other public owned open/park lands. Then the land area of each M37 claim doesn't mean all of the land area will be developed. Many small and even the few large M37 parcels doesn't propose development throughout the whole parcel because of environmental, septic, access, etc. requirements. This all means the M37 claims are actually only a very small percentage (1/1000 of one percent) of our now total urbanized area which is only 3% of our whole states land area.

I don't see the doomsday. Remember, 1000 Friends and other anti M37 people claimed M37 as "doomsday". It didn't come to pass and the electorate saw through the "doomsday" rhetoric.

I don't see the doomsday. Remember, 1000 Friends and other anti M37 people claimed M37 as "doomsday". It didn't come to pass and the electorate saw through the "doomsday" rhetoric.

This argument, that will be used by OIA, is dishonest. Large property developments can take years under the best circumstances, which M37 isn't. It will take 10 years for Oregonians to see how that measure will play out, and I predict we would be sickened by what it would produce.

Not nearly as sickened at the sight of what our planning has produced and will for decades to come.
In fact, proportianatley there won't be any sickening M37 effects.

There are so relative few parcels that qualify for M37 and very few more will arrive that the pandamonium is ridiculous.
The oppostion to M37 is all super exagerated nonsense portraying the claims as sweeping destruction. Yet our planning arena continually mandates large subdivisions right next to farms all the time.
The pics of tightly packed houses in subdivisions next to farms we see in Yes on 49 commercials are All from the planners and UGB. None of those pics are M37 subdivisions and very few, if any planned M37 subdivisions are that damn ugly as the stuff we have witnessed from the planners.

How dishonest is it for the Yes on M49 campaign to use the pics of Metro subdivisions to suggest M37 causes them?.

Jimbo: I know of several smaller M37 claims that when accepted by both the state and their immediate jurisdictions, that not one building permit has been issued. You would be hard pressed to name one building permit yet issued after approval. Most county governments have placed many obstacles in front of even small developments (In my examples I'm talking about one to three lot subdivisions that received M37 approval) to stall development. Lane Co. and several others even put approval processes on hold for different reasons, like "reviewing Attorney General Hardy Myers' Opinion". It was only an "opinion" and not a court order.

One would think that concerning these small one to three lot subdivisions under the M37 scenario would be approved and built by now after three and 1/2 years, or at least underway. That is what 1000 Friends and their friends are now saying they want. But why have 1000 Friends, their friendly courts, planners, counties not allowed even these small approvals to proceed forward? I think the electorate has figured it out-they know that even those developments are not wanted by 1000 Friends and the American Land Institute (essentially a one-man pony show run by Henry Richmond, former 1000 Friends director and Neil Goldschmidt cohort).

There are many modifiers that I have pointed out that fairly protect neighbors and the state from the "wanton destruction" that pro 49ers claim. Yes, there are probably some exceptions where we as a majority might say "that project was not desirable", as we get from our present state wide planning. But the same "exceptions" have also applied to 30 years under 100s' state wide planning. There have been many landowners who have suffered, not fairly treated under 100; and no one listened or cared in government.

M49 is really a reversal to M37 and not a compromise. Those of us that have studied both measures, experienced first hand the M37 process, know that M49 is even 100 times more arduous, and in many cases impossible to acquire approval and at tremendous costs.

The 49er spinmeisters will try to sell the electorate that approval is easy, not costly, and almost a given. Not true as careful reading of M49 proves. Most of the electorate hasn't even personally experienced even the so-called easy process of getting a remodeling permit. M49 is 100 times more difficult and rigged not to be given in most cases.

There's a destination resort planned for the agricultural land right above Domaine Drouhin --who makes some of the best Pinot Noir in the world-- thanks to Measure 37. Do we really want chem-lawns on our beautiful, productive wine country land?

I don't see how anyone can argue that the Oregon Winegrowers Association doesn't speak for Oregon wine growers.

The farm where Forward Stride keeps its horses for its therapy for children and disabled adults --and where my wife volunteers and where we keep OUR horse-- is being booted out by Villabois' less than artlfull sprawl. I'm no fan of sprawl...nor do I think that there's no answer to urban density other than ugly, badly- planned-for infill. Don't offer false choices.

The Dundee Hills have awesome soil, though I'm no Farmer Frank. Similarly, you don't water grape vines the way you do corn, and many growers don't water their vines at all to futher stress them and produce better product...and we have some of the finest product in the world.

Measure 49 brings balance and fairness, not just uncontrolled growth. Uncontrolled growth is a cancer, be it on SE Division, or in Carlton.

"Do we really want chem-lawns on our beautiful, productive wine country land?"

Fine, then the developers will just have to buy the commissioners more lunches to let them change the zoning if 49 passes. Then they can build over farmland just like in Bethany (pre-M37.)

The issue isn't what land owners are doing as much as the small number of people mking zoning decisions is doing.

Frank,

Come on Measure 49 isn't about "balance and fairness" and M37 does not equal "uncontrolled growth" or "cancer".

If every M37 claim in Wine country resulted in a house and lawn it wouldn't even dent the wine industry or wine soil at all. There's not enough claims that qualify to amount to anything like what you mistakenly envision.
Furthermore, the constraints of remaining regulations and permit requirements will make all M37 construction jump through every single hoop that nonM37 construction does. Moreover, I have yet to read about a single M37 claim subdivision that is as bad as the ones we get from Metro-like, forced, ugly density next to farms all around the UGB.
THAT is the worst kind of sprawl possible yet it gets a pass from all those falling prey to the anti-M37 blitz.
And Frankly, I'm sick of the daily anti-M37 campaign advancing their propaganda with help from our newspapers.
It's dishonest, unethical and without regard for any balance or fairness.

Yeah--where is one to turn for balance and fairnes, besides FNC?

Frank, it seems like you just don't like the idea and look of the resort, not that it really has any negative environmantal impact on Oregon wine country. Quite the contrary, I bet the resort will attract more people to enjoy that industry.

I feel your attitude smacks of elitism -- just like the snooty pourers up at Drouhin's massive, environmentally unfriendly tasting room.

And can you quantify the 'fairness' innate to M49? How is it fair to deny someone the use of their land?

There's a destination resort planned for the agricultural land right above Domaine Drouhin --who makes some of the best Pinot Noir in the world-- thanks to Measure 37. Do we really want chem-lawns on our beautiful, productive wine country land?

Glenora Wine Cellars in Dundee has its own Hotel. Are people worried about farmland or competition?

you don't water grape vines the way you do corn, and many growers don't water their vines at all to futher stress them and produce better product...and we have some of the finest product in the world.

I shouldn't have called you Farmer Frank. It should have been M. Dufay, viticulteur.

Je suis de'sole'.

However, you must have raised a good crop of something to have the straw to stuff this guy with:

Measure 49 brings balance and fairness, not just uncontrolled growth. Uncontrolled growth is a cancer, be it on SE Division, or in Carlton.

Is that the M49 version of Dorothy English - minus the real person?

Frank, it seems like you just don't like the idea and look of the resort, not that it really has any negative environmantal impact on Oregon wine country.

Domaine Drouhin is downhill from the proposed resort. Any chemicals used on their chem-lawn goes, uh, where?

A large resort at the highest point? Ever hear of light pollution?

I bet the resort will attract more people to enjoy that industry.

No doubt. I've talked to winemakers in the area who consider it a mixed bag...a loss of good vineyard land but, sure, it will bring well-heeled business.

I feel your attitude smacks of elitism -- just like the snooty pourers up at Drouhin's massive, environmentally unfriendly tasting room.

I'm a member of Domaine Drouhin's wine club...so color me "snooty" I guess. I do like my Oregon Pinots, and they make some of the best.

I think the issue is scale. My wife and I have stayed at the bed and breakfast across the road from Domaine Drouhin...and the one not too far below. It's a matter of scale. Resort though? Why not build it on the flats below? I've no issue with a resort where it makes sense. Building it on awesome farmland is a waste of that farmland. And if you haven't been on the "road" that takes you up the hill...how long will folks that want resort amenities tolerate that dusty, gritty country road?

Pave paradise, put up a...whatever?

"Any chemicals used on their chem-lawn goes, uh, where?"

Into growing nice lawn.
Just like the farmers use fertilizer to grow nice crops.

Come on Frank you're killing me.

"Building it on awesome farmland is a waste of that farmland".
No it isn't, it helps utilize the farmland for farming by helping the wine industry.
No different than building out building and processing facilities.
Big deal. It doesn't equilat to paving over the wine country.

And any construction will have to comply with all sorts of building permit and inspection requirements including the containment and midigation of runoff.

"Building it on awesome farmland is a waste of that farmland".
No it isn't, it helps utilize the farmland for farming by helping the wine industry. No different than building out building and processing facilities.

I may not be Farmer Frank, but I believe there is a major difference between building "processing facilities" for grapes...and a destination "resort" that doesn't have anything to do with agriculture. And is built for "the view" for its patrons, to the detriment of everyone else.

What's so bad about building the "resort" on the valley floor? And save the good soil for what brings visitors in the first place...exceptional, extraordinary, vineyards?

Once again Frank, if that land is so valuable for vineyards, then why is a resort going there? BTW, some of the best farmland in Oregon has been developed under Metro's 2040 plan.

And just how is that resort to the detriment of everyone else? Seem the only people upset about it is Domain Drouhin and a few other wineries. It's becoming more obvious that they just don't want anyone else to enjoy their little slice of Burgundy.

Selfish.

Voting for M49 does three things. One: It sends a message to government that we, the people, are ok with allowing the rules to be changed on us after we have acquired property. Two: It sends a message to our government that we are OK with them making us vote on issues time and time again until we arrive at the outcome "they" desire. Never mind what the people voted for the first two or three times. Three: It opens the door to allow government to dictate what you can or cannot do with your personal property, even though you had the right to do what you wanted with it previously. Today it is "planning" and land use restrictions. Tomorrow it may be determined that the 2007 SUV you just bought is causing too much pollution. You can own it as long as you like, but you cannot drive it!