Yes? Maybe
At first, I didn't give "reform" of Measure 37 much of a chance, but now that there's big, big bucks behind it, it looks as though it may actually have a shot at passing. In addition to a major campaign bankroll, Measure 49's got the benefit of asking people to vote "Yes" on something, and of course, there's the green. It will be close, but I spy a glimmer of hope there.
| Posted at 4:18 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (8)
Wow. I thought measure 49 was sure to pass because the ballot title creates such a warm and fuzzy feeling for the average voter. But you say it's going to be close. Thanks for giving me some hope measure 37 will actually hold up.
Go Cubs! Well, at least, win one playoff game, please. P.S. I tossed balls briefly in a baseball camp with "sweet" Lou Pinella back in my youth when Lou was briefly a PDX beaver.
Posted by Bob Clark | October 1, 2007 9:04 AM
One of the little-discussed effects of Measure 37 is to give renewed potency to the economic racism of bygone years. As Sean Cruz explains in his post referenced below, in order to be a M 37 claimant, you have to have had the ability to acquire land before land use laws were enacted. Those who had an advantage then, get that advantage amplified under M 37. Those who had a disadvantage then are shut out again.
http://blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com/2007/10/measure-37-and-case-for-affirmative.html
Posted by Sue Hagmeier | October 1, 2007 10:34 AM
I'm voting against measure 49 because it will restrict the supply of new housing for middle class families. A "no" vote also brings more integrity to the initiative process, and strengthens property rights. Talk about equity, measure 49 is less fair. It creates more 20 plus acre estates for the rich and connected class with no real competiton from the masses. Most middle class families won't be able to afford 20 plus acre plots whereas 50' by 100' lots they've a better shot at affording.
Posted by Bob Clark | October 1, 2007 3:41 PM
Stall, delay and deny...backed by lies. 1000 friends and their ilk need to go home. They are bank rolled by deep pockets out side of Oregon. Big bucks??? You bet the farm cartel is alive and well in Oregon and has been since SB100.
What better way to price fix land than to take away the rights the owners have? No one will buy it, they can't use it and the farmer slithers over the property line to rent cheaply so he can grow that federally subsidized grain.
If 49 passes then those who vote for it deserve what they'll get. Lost rights, then we'll see who's unhappy and who's saying...I told you so!
Posted by Debbie | October 1, 2007 4:24 PM
If 49 passes then those who vote for it deserve what they'll get. Lost rights, then we'll see who's unhappy and who's saying...I told you so!
Debbie, I own a house in Portland. I can't trim a branch off a tree without a permit. I have no rights left to lose.
But I do like being able to get out into open space in a reasonable amount of time. It restores my sanity, however briefly.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 1, 2007 4:53 PM
You do not need a permit to trim a tree. You don't even need one to cut one down.
Posted by paul | October 2, 2007 10:49 AM
Hear that, Jack?
Fire up the Stihl!
Posted by rr | October 2, 2007 5:37 PM
You do not need a permit to trim a tree. You don't even need one to cut one down.
If it's a street tree in Portland, you're 100% wrong.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 2, 2007 5:43 PM