Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/2/2007 10:38:44 AM EST
We see the signs & bumperstickers & commercials every day...which side is right? The "yay" side or the "nay" side?

It seems to me that Measure 37 (before I was an Oregonian) guaranteed that people can use their property for their own legal purposes. Now it seems like 49 is trying to limit that freedom. But I could be wrong, too.

What's your stand?
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 11:27:28 AM EST
There certainly are arguments both for and against. The problem is that when the initiative was passed it had a lot of holes in it. There needs to be some details added regarding implementation.

Measure 49 may go a bit too far but the idea is good.

Personally I think the original idea of measure 37 has been restricted too much. So much so that it doesn't and most likely won't ever apply to me. Sounds a bit selfish but I don't care either way on this one.

Basically measure 37 didn't give us the right to do whatever we want on our property. It gives a person the right to do what they could have done when they purchased the property. If laws were passed after a person bought a piece and those laws limited the use of that property (i.e. prohibited subdividing the property)and the property owner wanted to do what the new law restricted then the new owner could claim that it was a taking by the government of a certain value. That would mean that the government would have to pay for the taking or allow the use.

If you bought property back before the formation of the LCDC (read implimentation of marshal law in Oregon) then you are in good shape. If you bought property in the last few years it is unlikely there is any measure 37 claim.

Of course the government is against it because it might make some land use planning a little more efficient thereby reducing the beurocracy. The liberals are against it because it would mean that progress could occur.

The short answer is I don't think it matters too much unless you have some property bought many years ago, stand to inherit property that was bought many years ago, are a land use planner, or atty.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 11:29:40 AM EST
You should be able to do what ever you want, as a matter of fact I just got a phone call from some lobby on measure 50. God damn socialist pieces of shit.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 11:38:10 AM EST
Good question.

Measure 37 was essentially the right idea. the implementation (described in the law) was faulty.

The problems with measure 37 were:

* There was zero chance that government would take the "pay restitution" option. In every case they have excluded the affected property from the land planning rules.

* It creates a practically unworkable situation with a patchwork of excluded land. Its unfair to other property owners who can not get relief simply based upon the date of their purchase. (Yes, I know that they "knew" about this when they bought).

* The threats of overturning this measure by its opponents practically forced anyone with a brain to apply for their relief, and then for planning permission for the most financially rewarding use of the land. If they didn't do this, they risked losing the possibility of financial advantage if they waited to long.

IMHO a better solution would have been to present government with two options:

1) Repeal the WHOLE of the land use change.
2) Pay restitution - this could be done by relieving the property of (some portion of) property tax for as long as it took to make up the difference. they could also pay a lump sum if they wished.

Measure 49 is not reasonable. It allows only a small percentage of the property to be developed. Fine for small property owners. Not at all acceptable for large property owners.

Much as I hate the thought of Yamhill County being turned into a sub-division, the government has to lear that it CANNOT take without making market price restitution.
It should also learn from the experience that threatening people with repeal of the law only made the situation MUCH worse by forcing them to take immediate and drastic action.

Vote no on measure 49.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 11:41:21 AM EST
my .02:

Property rights issues are tough issues.

Zoning ordinances date back at least 80 years in OR. The 1970's in particular saw a flurry of zoning laws that regulated land use statewide.

Common zoning classifications are industrial, commercial, residential, rural residential, agricultural-only, and timber/grazing.

This state was effectively parceled up along those lines by the 70's, and with only moderate resistance. For the most part, the zoning classifications were accepted because:
1 - they represented the highest best use of the various parcels. (Rancher Joe didn't protest his land being zoned ag-only because the land wasn't worth developing for any other purpose).
2 - people saw merit in zoning laws that ensured preservation of open land parcels and various lifestyles (ranching or winemaking or logging or mining or whatever), and restrictions on unlimited subdivision / urban sprawl. The term urban sprawl is used frequently in the 1970's legislation.

At the end of the day, zoning laws make sense. They represent a balance contrived by society that weighs the individual rights of landowners against the general wellbeing of the entire society. This society, over a period of 6 years or so, has clearly decided that the benefits offered to society by land-use regulation outweigh the harms to individual land owners.

Measure 37 threw all that out the window. It simply said that if you owned the land prior to passage of a land use regulation, you could petition the gov't for either compensation for devaluation of land caused by the regulation, or exemption from the regulation. The law did not contain provisions for funding, or define how the "devaluation" was to be calculated. So each county in Oregon proceeded to grant full M37 exemptions to every landowner who applied for one and met the criteria.

How did we get M37?

A lawyer employed by a land-rights advocacy group called Oregonians in Action wrote it in 2004. OIA circulated a petition with the draft of M37 attached, obtained 1000 signatures, and thereby became eligile for a referendum vote. OIA then bought a bunch of TV commercials and billboards portraying Dorothy English, a 92-year old granny who only wanted to build a 2nd house on the farm for her kids, but couldn't do it because she was on ag-only land. OIA also tapped into the anti-big-government crowd (us included) by ranting about how no gov't should be able to regulate what anyone does with their own land.

The OR voters passed it with a 61% vote. Landslide.

Things went south quickly.

Timber companies who had owned coastal lands for decades started filing claims and laying out huge subdivisions on pristine coastal land. Some farmer woke up to a gravel pit next to his farm, virtually overnight. etc etc. According to the Oregonian, "Measure 37 resulted in 7,500 claims to build subdivisions, malls and industrial development on about 750,000 acres, most of it on rural farm and forest land."

M49 is the result of 3 years of effort by other political action groups to rescind or revise M37. It's stipulations are pretty straightforward: no more than 3 houses can be erected on M37 land if you want the quickie route. You can build up to 10 houses if you take the slower route and prove that your land was actually devalued by land use regs. Commercial and industrial development are prohibited.

So all the TV ads and bumper stickers are a repeat of the original strategy: get Oregonians fired up about Granny Dorothy's property rights, then con them into voting for a privately funded and privately written law that allows big money to rape the state's scenery.

The sides in this fight:

For M37 & Against M49 = Oregonians in Action, primarily funded by logging companies and real estate developers. Very good at tapping the anti-govt sentiment.

Against M37 and for M49 - 1000 Friends of Oregon and YesOn49, both primarily funded by residents of OR, including farmers, ranchers, and joes.

Whew, that took almost my whole lunch hour!
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 11:58:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By justinwb:
You should be able to do what ever you want, as a matter of fact I just got a phone call from some lobby on measure 50. God damn socialist pieces of shit.


That's the sentiment that resulted in M37 passage by a landslide. The problem is, it's onl;y the surface of the issue.

I live on 10 acres in rural baker county. I have 12 neighbors in my neighborhood. The zoning here is rural residential. That means you cannot subdivide to smaller than a 5 acre parcel.

That zoning ordinance is one of the main reasons we live here. We'll always be "in the sticks" even though the big ranches on either side could make hundreds of millions of dollars by subdividing into 1/8 acre lots and building a giant subdivision here. They can't beacuse they're ag only or timber/grazing.

Zoning laws, even though they restrict rights, are by and large a good thing. It's what prevents your next-door neighbor from running a pig-farm or a gravel pit or a whorehouse or a low-budget trailer park right next to you.

If you're okay with the pig farm or the trailer park, then you ought to be pig farming or making plans for your big move from a single-wide to a double-wide after you retire.

I lived in a double-wide for two years after school. You can't give me crap about abusing the poor people stuck in trailers. i was poor. But I was also self-employed and I worked hard to get out of there, and I damn sure don't want a trailer park springing up next to my place.

Zoning laws are mostly a good thing. M37 gave people and corporations an end-around all of them, and started a development mess.

I can't say that M49 is the best option, because i believe the best option is to repeal M37 and start over from scratch on this property rights issue.

One of my neighbors is a third generation rancher. his grandparents built a successful ranching business, and his parents improved it. He on the other hand is a fat loser, and is running the ranch into the ground.

Why should that guy have exemptions to land use regulations that I must follow, just becuase he was born into that family?

M37 = bad idea.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 12:28:14 PM EST
The problem with Measure 37 (which passed twice) is that the government refuses to inact it. It was passed twice as is. Measure 49 cuts the balls off of it. That doesn't sound nice.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 12:30:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hartmann:
Where do you stand on Measure 49?

No
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 1:21:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By DCS:
I live on 10 acres in rural baker county. I have 12 neighbors in my neighborhood. The zoning here is rural residential. That means you cannot subdivide to smaller than a 5 acre parcel.

That zoning ordinance is one of the main reasons we live here. We'll always be "in the sticks" even though the big ranches on either side could make hundreds of millions of dollars by subdividing into 1/8 acre lots and building a giant subdivision here. They can't beacuse they're ag only or timber/grazing.


And one day, the city/county/state can arbitrarily decide to re-zone you to an industrial estate, or to high-density housing. You have no say. Is that a good idea?

Link Posted: 10/2/2007 2:17:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2007 2:17:59 PM EST by Hartmann]
DCS I see what you're saying, but hear me out. I stand to gain in no way from this issue, I bought here 2 years ago so I'm out any "compensation."

But part of what drove me out of CA was zoning, or "greenbelt" laws that the people voted in. Sure, it gave us a nice feeling to drive along I-580 and see some green patches of land. But the unintended consequences were:

1) Pretty soon there was NO land to build houses on within a normal commuting distance to SF or Silicon Valley, yet
2) People kept moving to CA anyway, so
3) House prices skyrocketed - far more than the rest of the country (due to low supply & high demand of housing)

80 year 2 bed/1 bath 800 sq ft. crack houses with prostitutes outside during the day in Oakland, on faulty foundations that the city has condemned, will fetch $600,000 easily in the worst parts of the city. Most houses - also over 8 years old - will easily sell for over $1,000,000. And the prices keep rising. It is a place that only the incumbent and the very wealthy can live anymore.

And that is the result of overzealous zoning.

I am an outdoorsman and I love being in the woods. And I too cringe when I see another subdivision go up, knocking out some local woods. But then, I live in a subdivision. And so do many other people. Who is the government (or voters for that matter) to step in and say that someone shouldn't sell their parcel of land to a developer, for him to create homes and sell to new homeowners?

I don't believe gov't has the right to interfere in that transaction, so I am leaning toward a "no" vote on 49. It isn't perfect but it gets us a little closer to Liberty and that is about all I can expect as a voter.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 3:03:46 PM EST
IMO the problem with M37 was that it was applied retroactively. It should have started when the law was enacted. Doing it the way it was just made a mess of things. Anytime the Gov. makes a land use ruling/ change they should pay for any loss. But why pay now for something that was done 30 years ago?
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 3:11:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2007 3:14:16 PM EST by OregonForester]

Originally Posted By Hartmann:
We see the signs & bumperstickers & commercials every day...which side is right? The "yay" side or the "nay" side?

It seems to me that Measure 37 (before I was an Oregonian) guaranteed that people can use their property for their own legal purposes. Now it seems like 49 is trying to limit that freedom. But I could be wrong, too.

What's your stand?


I've no truck with you Hardmann, you seem like a nice guy, one that I would not have any problems with as a neighbor, except for the fact that you move into MY state and then claim to be an OREGONIAN.
In my humble opinion, you are are an Oregonian, if, and only if, you were born here.

Am I an asshole? Well, hell yes, I'm happy to admit that, but I am an OREGONIAN, you are not.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 3:37:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2007 4:40:40 PM EST by kaizoku]

Originally Posted By OregonForester:

Originally Posted By Hartmann:
We see the signs & bumperstickers & commercials every day...which side is right? The "yay" side or the "nay" side?

It seems to me that Measure 37 (before I was an Oregonian) guaranteed that people can use their property for their own legal purposes. Now it seems like 49 is trying to limit that freedom. But I could be wrong, too.

What's your stand?


I've no truck with you Hardmann, you seem like a nice guy, one that I would not have any problems with as a neighbor, except for the fact that you move into MY state and then claim to be an OREGONIAN.
In my humble opinion, you are are an Oregonian, if, and only if, you were born here.

Am I an asshole? Well, hell yes, I'm happy to admit that, but I am an OREGONIAN, you are not.


Is that a joke?

I moved to Oregon when I was 8 years old and, aside from my time in the military and one year in Kansas City, have lived here since then.

By your (flawed) logic that still makes me a Californian.

My mother was born in Canada, emigrated to the U.S. (legally) and then applied for and received her U.S. citizenship. Does that still make her a Canadian?

ETA: I'm voting no on 49.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 3:39:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2007 4:09:48 PM EST by cwayburn]
against it.

I'm all for land use planning, it's part of how I make my living.

But I've very much against the gubmint telling me what I can and can't do on my property and with my property, after I have bought my property and live on my property.

It used to be that this country was built on the concept of property ownership and personal wealth was based on property assets. Now a government can devalue your property and your assets with impunity, with no compensation. People buy land as an investment, and the government, through land use regs, devalues that investment. Land use planners are often unelected officials, and untouchable by the election process. M37 put the brakes on that, though the democratic process. It's the people speaking against government overreach.

M49 supporters are taking the typical sky is falling approach, pass our measure or those greedy landowners will pave Oregon. That's BS. Especially in light of the Kelo decision, I think property rights advocates have more to fear from a greedy government than the state has to fear from "greedy" landowners. I also suspect the various counties and local governments dealing with M37 claims have taken the paths most likely to result in public outcry, in order to make this into an election issue again. So here comes M49, giving the legislature the power to override M37 claims, to restart them, to delay them. It puts the power back in the hands of the state.

And I believe the state has the interests of its incumbents rather than its constituents and landowners at heart. Power begets power, and M49 ensures the power stays in Salem.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 4:00:10 PM EST
Fucking agrarian reformers in Salem still don't get it, and they won't until it cost them something.

Just something to ponder, most of the state of Oregon is ran by the valley. So when some eunich with money from a big city gets a bad idea and convinces most of the Willamette Valley to vote for it it fucks over the people that live in the other 3/4 of the state.(like making it illegal to hunt bear and cougar with dogs, or measure 5 the all transfers at a gun show in OR must have a blue form) And when voteing doesn't work the policy people in most of OR goverment just delay or blatantly ignore the law, like with measure 37, or school districts saying they will have you arrested for CCW. Everyday people are getting frustrated.

One more thing to think about. Metro and Portlands anti car policys, OR land use laws from the 70s, and ODFW continueing to shut down more of the wilderness to human use is very similar to the U.N.'s Wildlands Project for the Western U.S.

Link Posted: 10/2/2007 4:32:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By OregonForester:

I've no truck with you Hardmann, you seem like a nice guy, one that I would not have any problems with as a neighbor, except for the fact that you move into MY state and then claim to be an OREGONIAN.
In my humble opinion, you are are an Oregonian, if, and only if, you were born here.

Am I an asshole? Well, hell yes, I'm happy to admit that, but I am an OREGONIAN, you are not.


If it makes you feel any better, I am not (nor have I ever been) a Californian.

And I don't think you're an asshole. Just very passionate about who was born here and who wasn't.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 6:00:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2007 6:00:28 PM EST by Gunhobbit]

Originally Posted By Hartmann:
We see the signs & bumperstickers & commercials every day...which side is right? The "yay" side or the "nay" side?

It seems to me that Measure 37 (before I was an Oregonian) guaranteed that people can use their property for their own legal purposes. Now it seems like 49 is trying to limit that freedom. But I could be wrong, too.

What's your stand?


Measure 37 got passed because Salem was tone-deaf to what the people wanted.

I went to a "What Does Measure 37 Mean" seminar after it had passed. The last speakers up were from the state - and they were STILL tone-deaf to what the people wanted.

I don't think 37 went far enough is where I stand.

Link Posted: 10/2/2007 6:02:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hartmann:
I live in a subdivision.


And I remember when where you live was fields with just three roads across them, which all met at six ways -- where the Sherwood shopping center is now.

That was all protected agricultural land. What happened was that developers persuaded the land owners and city (Ha! ... village ...) that there was "money in them thar fields".

It seems that for the right people, zoning was flexible. Of course, if any of the landowners had wanted to build a house for their grown son/daughter to live in, there would have been no way.

None of this is your problem of course -- just pointing out that the zoning laws never did stop sub-division sprawl. Just slowed it down a little.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 6:29:15 PM EST
I noticed that the dirty commies at the PCC union put a "Yes on 49" sticker on the window of their office. That makes me immediately suspicious.
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 9:59:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
And one day, the city/county/state can arbitrarily decide to re-zone you to an industrial estate, or to high-density housing. You have no say. Is that a good idea?


Mebbe one day the county or municipal zoning committee here can propose to change my current zoning classification, but I and my neighbors can work to petition or vote or litigate that issue to death. Of course I have a say. Your comment has nothing to do with M37 or M49.

M37 provides zoning-law exemptions only to landowners who demonstrate unbroken chain of ownership dating to before passage of the zoning law. If you bought a ranch in 1976, you get almost nothing from M37, because although zoning law details have changed quite a bit since the early 70's, the meat remains the same. They defined and mapped the zoning classifications we have today, way back in the early 70's.

If you bought your house in the middle of a city neighborhood in 1967, M37 does nothing for you either, because even though M37 allows you to become exempt from any zoning laws passed after 1967, big whoop, you're still just a house in the middle of a neighborhood. What are you going to do with that? Start a pig farm? Or, just enjoy your house and your neighborhood like the rest of your neighbors?

All M49 does is heavily restrict the type of non-residential development that thousands of M37 claimants have already started.

M37 provides no benefit to the vast majority of Oregonians. None. It only benefits a tiny minority who have owned chunks of property for decades.

M49 is simply a measure to regulate how the new priveleged few use their new-found exemptions.

I have read all the replies here. Most have nothing to do with M37 or M49. Most are just a bunch of guys describing how they don't agree with the idea of zoning.

Okay! If you don't like zoning or any kind of land use regulation, then you should do something about it!

M37 does nothing about zoning or land use regulation EXCEPT grant exemptions from those laws to a small minority. It is a statistically safe bet to say that almost no one posting here has owned land long enough to benefit from M37. That makes you all bystanders.

You holler support for M37, but the only benefit you get from it is a frikkin mall in your old hunting grounds.

Chew on that for a while. You don't get any benefit from M37. You only get to watch your old neighbor subdivide his ranch for millions while you are stuck not being able to subdivide your ranch because you haven't owned it for 35 years.

M49 also does not affect zoning in Oregon. It only regulates the development activities of the certain priveleged few who have just become exempt from those laws.

So once again, if you don't like land use regulation, then you should do something about that. However, you should also know that fighting for M37 or against M49 does not change how you are impacted by zoning laws even one little bit. The zoning laws are still there, still saying what you can and can't do. Only now, with M37, a few of your neighbors can laugh at you while they ignore them laws.

I have beat that damn horse to death.

If you don't like zoning, then come up with a way that all of us are exempt from it, not just the people who have owned land here since before the 70's.

DCS OUT!

Except for one more thing, which i should just let go, but what the hell...

That shit about you can't be an oregonian if'n you warnt bern here is straight out of a lame movie. Honestly, shut the fuck up!
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 10:25:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By OregonForester:
Originally Posted By Hartmann:
...you move into MY state and then claim to be an OREGONIAN.
In my humble opinion, you are are an Oregonian, if, and only if, you were born here.

Am I an asshole? Well, hell yes, I'm happy to admit that, but I am an OREGONIAN, you are not.

You can kiss my fat Kalifornia born OREGONIAN ass!
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 11:41:43 PM EST
Make sure you vote NO on Measure 49...

That's all I have to say, I think everyone else covered it!

Taking back the farm my ASS!

What a lie.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 7:16:14 AM EST
I'm voting yes and one reason only.

I live on a 10 acres family cherry farm. Yeah measure 37 was a good idea. Digged it to death.

What I did not like is what my neighbors have done with theirs.

I have last counting where I live near Illahe Hills Country Club, 48 McMansions sprawling all over the area where I live.

I have neighbors next door to me selling theirs and building 6 house and 8 house sub divisions.

We are in a limited ground water area and that doesn't seem fair.

Yeah yeah yeah...boo hoo me....like I'm sounding like some socialist pig but until you own, run, manage a farm like my family does, you'll never understand the impact this is having on us.

Already,for shooting, I've been called by my NEW COMMIEFORNIAN neighbors, already they are complaining that our farm is stealing all the water.

FUCK THEM My family has been here since 1983 running by proxy or somehow managing to run our cherry business with ease until the encroachment. Here are several of my neighbors who continuously complain from the subdivision.
The sheriff came 3 times but does nothing because we are not violating anything.

My last complaint was that another neighbor of theirs on the subdivision left their pitbull loose and my dad shot it when it was in the hen house and it killed one of our piglets.
He threatened to sue, we sued him for the loss of the hens and piglets and won..and we currently still have a civil suit against him. BTW.... if anyone lives in Salem, he is the manager and owner of the largest plastic surgeon hospital factory on River Road South. Also a doctor from Beverly Hills. You will notice him when you see that he drives in the New Ferrari Enzo which I heard is the only one in town.
my next door neighbors


I've read measure 49 and it seems fair to me. All I want to do and my parents want to do is let me and my brother build 2 houses. Measure 49 says it can be done with no problems. Of course, we can't build a fucken subdivision with 50 houses like others have done on River Road South.

That to me is fair......but this free ranging unrestricted sense of property rights and freedom is rather ridiculous. All rights have responsibility. Just like our 1st amendement rights doesn't give us the freedom to cry FIRE in a movie theatre or conduct character assasinations.

I challenge anyone that plans to build this or that subdivision to actually LIVE there. I've always challenged developers and builders..but its kinda funny that it never happens that way.
The developer is not gonna deal with the traffic, the crime, the sprawl because he liives somewhere else. NEVER AT THE AREA HE BUILT.


What's so funny about those housing divisions on River Road South is that they border the most busiest Railroad traffic in the Willamette Valley and it runs all night. I've laughed at city council meetings and county meetings where residents from California whined and complained about the railroad.

This is a danger dude and it encompasses many kinds of encroachment.

Measure 37 can mean that they can build next to shooting ranges and in the midst of it, shooting ranges always lose when standing up to subdivisions...YOU KNOW... TAXES RUN THIS COUNTRY and shooting ranges don't give much taxes but a subdivision with 50 houses... Think of the revenue there boys

There is already encroachment happening to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, there is development surveyors wandering around the I-5 area near the last Albany exit and if you ever notice that bridge that crosses over to the shooting range...it is being readied for an exit and expansion?

Several shooting ranges have closed in Southern California due to urban sprawl and in the end the ranges loose even if they were there for 80 years or 1000 years...it always lost against a housing development.

ALWAYS.....

I'm voting yes....because this will fix the original ideas of 37.
Read it carefully....and if 49 doesn't agree with you, so be it.

It's not jealously and its not envy, its not anything at all....I just want fairness that's all.



Link Posted: 10/3/2007 9:36:03 AM EST
Ya do have water rights ya know.

Fairness!?

So, it's fair that the gubmit overzones property so the people who own it can't do with it as they could when they bought it.

When your folks bought the 10-acres in 1983, ya coulda built a lot on it. That (all the development) could have happened then. Gubmit overzoned everything locking it down. You're happy cause now they (the gubmit) has made your little sliver of section "out in the country" permanent... it would seem.


Originally Posted By PRDUBI:
It's not jealously and its not envy, its not anything at all....

It’s greed!

Now Measure 37 comes along intending to let things be the way they were, and ya'll are pissed somebody is gonna get their rights back.

That house you linked to, 4859 Circuit Rider Ln. S Salem, OR (WVMLS No. 584661) was built in 1996, a bit before Measure 37 ever came along.

As for shooting ranges and the ARPC, the ARPC has known what is going on for a long time and has had ample opportunity to buy up the property around them, they haven’t.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 10:07:35 AM EST
fair enough, My neighbors house was built in 1996 and the only way he could build it was that the city limits was extended to his neck of the woods.


Come complain to me in ten years..when you're open shooting ranges are shut down and same with Albany..

Come complain to me when the people you have as neighbors don't like you because you hunt, fish, or shoot.

All in the name of capitalism and letting people do what they want with their property. Fine. Let's bring on the strip malls and mcmansions. It creates jobs and its good for the economy.

The zoning for my area has been in place since the late 30's when the original owners took it and before that it was homestead propert dating back to the creation and rezoning of the county lines. The whole area in south Salem was the largest cherry farming operation in the Willamette valley. Not much of us left anymore.

Not greed....dude.....it's heritage.....



Link Posted: 10/3/2007 10:29:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By PRDUBI:
The zoning for my area has been in place since the late 30's

No it hasn't.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 10:32:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2007 10:34:48 AM EST by ch139]
Look, you have your property and can do with it what you want. Why is it such a difficult thing to let others do with theirs what they like? It's not like they’re not allowing you to run your farm.

It's bullshit that because you have yours and don't want anyone else to be able to change, you get to tell them what to do with their property.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 10:35:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By ch139:
You can kiss my fat Kalifornia born OREGONIAN ass!


Spit, and give me a clue.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 10:55:06 AM EST
I live in some sort of urban reserve so it's still rural. We are not allowed to develop, subdivide, or pretty much do anything new. However, do to new developments a couple of miles away, one future plan includes putting a road right through my house so the californicators will have a straight road to get to 99w instead of the curving country road we have had since the pioneers settled the land.

When that development was going in, the neighbors complained in meetings that the roads could not handle any increase in traffic. The developer said they were going to build new roads on the other side of the development so no one living there should ever being using the old roads. Yeah, right, they didn't build any roads. But they did sell a new choice house to the mayor (caught red handed) and who knows what else behind the scenes. Now they are planning hundreds of more houses, but we are not allowed to do anything except wait for being buried under asphalt.

Now to what I have learned:
Planning commission meetings typically start at 7pm. The newspaper reporter will leave at 8-8:30 with the version of events that gets published in the paper. By 9pm everything has changed so the story will not be accurate. At 10pm the meeting adjourns and most people leave. At 11pm the meeting starts again and everything previously decided upon is thrown out. This goes on until 1am at which time they adjourn a second time and everybody else remaining leaves. Then with no spectators left the real meeting begins and they do whatever they want to do, and are done by 2-3am.

That's the reason why they don't record these meetings.

When they claim they don't have the technology for this, here is another factoid. If you want you can go listen to 4 hour long city council meetings that are held in the same building. It's posted on the web within minutes of the council meeting adjourning.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 11:02:32 AM EST
You're not getting it..

What they do with theirs EFFECTS mines!!!

People building houses all around with subdivisions and sucking the ground water effects my farming operations which has been running just fine since 1937.

Already there is noise ordinance and field burning ordinance due to livability issues in the areas where I live. We are restricted due to housing in the areas where my neighbors have built subdivisions.

This area is rural for a reason, ever wonder why there are wineries all around and fruit and vegetables growing in the area????

Nah you're not a farmer and you don't get it so go Maomart and get your shopping done with out of state out of country products.

I'm leaving it as is, I won't be able to convince you my argument has merit and you'll never in a billion years ever convince me that unrestricted DO WHAT YOU WANT free ranging and building a gazallion houses in the name of I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY PROPERTY including denuder it until its another urban sprawl.

I sincerely believe those that are against it have ulterior motives at hand, They are either a contractor, developer, or in some kind of cahoots with them because it benefits you to KEEP ON BUILDING AND BUILDING.

If they want to build strip malls in the middle of town, so be it and I am all for it but unless there is some kind of sustainable development within the area they are building like stores, schools, local businesses, I am all for subdivisions but I am not for the way they are building it right now.. Making them into little island fiefdoms where everyone has to commute out of the area creating traffic jams and bottlenecks.

There are model communities in various parts of Multnomah county where it was built on a sustainable level and all variables were taken into consideration.

I am not for property restrictions or seriously bothering with property rights. But it does not make sense when my neighbor builds 12 houses on his 5-10 acres and then ordinances and zoning start to change and quality of life factors start to dig in.

Believe me..I've been through it already....

The only people I am seeing until someone points to me on what I am reading on the anti 49 websites that its going to seriously hinder the mom and pop who wants to sell the property. All I am seeing on the pro sites is that it will offer limitations but it will not hinder it. It will allow the building of some houses but NOT A GAZILLION houses.

prove me wrong, please and I will reserve my judgment.

Link Posted: 10/3/2007 12:21:38 PM EST
How much of the building around you has to do with Measure 37 claims?


Originally Posted By PRDUBI:
People building houses all around with subdivisions and sucking the ground water effects my farming operations which has been running just fine since 1937.

Well, first off, you DO have water rights.


Already there is noise ordinance and field burning ordinance due to livability issues in the areas where I live. We are restricted due to housing in the areas where my neighbors have built subdivisions.

...and this is since Measure 37 has passed?


Nah you're not a farmer and you don't get it so go Maomart and get your shopping done with out of state out of country products.

That's pretty presumptuous.


I sincerely believe those that are against it have ulterior motives at hand, They are either a contractor, developer, or in some kind of cahoots with them because it benefits you to KEEP ON BUILDING AND BUILDING.

I'm not in cahoots with anybody. Just think it's bullshit that people think it's alright to deny others their rights (or what is rightfully theirs). Just cause you got yours, doesn't mean it's OK to deny others.


I am not for property restrictions or seriously bothering with property rights. But it does not make sense when my neighbor builds 12 houses on his 5-10 acres and then ordinances and zoning start to change and quality of life factors start to dig in.

...and when it affects your quality of life, it's OK to infringe on other's rights.


The only people I am seeing until someone points to me on what I am reading on the anti 49 websites that its going to seriously hinder the mom and pop who wants to sell the property.

So, it's OK then to screw over the little guy (mom & pop).


All I am seeing on the pro sites is that it will offer limitations but it will not hinder it. It will allow the building of some houses but NOT A GAZILLION houses.

And you seriously believe that!? Good God man, have you lost your beans!? This IS arf.com, a GUN site, where we see our Second Amendment rights attacked almost on a daily basis. You really think it's going to be limited?


Link Posted: 10/3/2007 12:27:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 12:43:29 PM EST
Gonna be hard.....its really hard...with the commercials and campaigns by big business preaching against it.

I'm calm...but my family has had enough lands taken away, eminent domains and forceful evacuation from our property from 2 other continents that its kinda ingrained in us that either development, the government, or a combination of both will take it away somehow.

Link Posted: 10/3/2007 6:53:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By PRDUBI:
I'm voting yes and one reason only.

I live on a 10 acres family cherry farm. Yeah measure 37 was a good idea. Digged it to death.

What I did not like is what my neighbors have done with theirs.


That about sums up the "modern American attitude" right there.

So here ya go, simple solution: Buy their property and do what you want with it, including not developing it. Don't steal it by legislating or regulating and then pretending that you're somehow virtuous because you're deciding what somebody else does with HIS property.

That's called "socialism" and trust me - it sucks.
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 5:30:44 AM EST
If it makes me a socialist communist fucktard so I can continue to farm in peace so be it.

If it stops my idiot neighbors from building a chemical plant/ strip mall/ a gazillion mcmansions/ nuclear power plant in a rural area that has been farm land for nearly 150 years than sell me down the river. I will do whatever it takes whenever it takes, however it takes to keep my farm going short on selling my soul.....and if the measure fails... I will continue to farm on this 10 acres and my kids will continue it just like it has been since 1937.

Sorry..end of story........

But I warn you, even if a thousand measures are passed to open it up or implements more property rights....its good....but it always ends up bad in the end for farms. Always....

Link Posted: 10/4/2007 6:27:35 AM EST
I'm stepping out of this conversation. We are all friends here(pretty much). I'm not going to convince you so I'm not going to go off on you.

Have a nice day, I hope no matter what happens with measure 49, you can continue your family tradition of farming in peace.
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 6:52:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2007 7:31:15 AM EST by petagunner]

Originally Posted By OregonForester:

Originally Posted By Hartmann:
We see the signs & bumperstickers & commercials every day...which side is right? The "yay" side or the "nay" side?

It seems to me that Measure 37 (before I was an Oregonian) guaranteed that people can use their property for their own legal purposes. Now it seems like 49 is trying to limit that freedom. But I could be wrong, too.

What's your stand?


I've no truck with you Hardmann, you seem like a nice guy, one that I would not have any problems with as a neighbor, except for the fact that you move into MY state and then claim to be an OREGONIAN.
In my humble opinion, you are are an Oregonian, if, and only if, you were born here.

Am I an asshole? Well, hell yes, I'm happy to admit that, but I am an OREGONIAN, you are not.


IM was sent, you lost your chance for the edit. <peta>


Link Posted: 10/4/2007 7:26:30 AM EST
I just want to farm in peace, shoot at my place in peace, and for people to just LEAVE MY FUCKEN PLACE ALONE
While I was tolerant of my neighbors and being free what they want to do with theirs.. it's just kinda gotten out of hand....literally....


Link Posted: 10/4/2007 7:32:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 4:44:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2007 4:47:57 PM EST by Gunhobbit]

Originally Posted By petagunner:
I'm gonna say this one more time, so please take note.
Discuss all you want, that is what this forum is for, but.....
I will not tolerate any more name slingin, any more instigating or crap like that.
It will get locked if you cannot keep it civil, period.


Can we at least still run in the forum with scissors?
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 4:56:14 PM EST
measure 37 might not be perfect, but 49 SUCKS

and 50 is a fools errand- amending the state constitution for cigarette taxes? no way.


Link Posted: 10/4/2007 5:05:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By PRDUBI:
You're not getting it..

What they do with theirs EFFECTS mines!!!

People building houses all around with subdivisions and sucking the ground water effects my farming operations which has been running just fine since 1937.

Already there is noise ordinance and field burning ordinance due to livability issues in the areas where I live. We are restricted due to housing in the areas where my neighbors have built subdivisions.

This area is rural for a reason, ever wonder why there are wineries all around and fruit and vegetables growing in the area????

Nah you're not a farmer and you don't get it so go Maomart and get your shopping done with out of state out of country products.

I'm leaving it as is, I won't be able to convince you my argument has merit and you'll never in a billion years ever convince me that unrestricted DO WHAT YOU WANT free ranging and building a gazallion houses in the name of I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY PROPERTY including denuder it until its another urban sprawl.

I sincerely believe those that are against it have ulterior motives at hand, They are either a contractor, developer, or in some kind of cahoots with them because it benefits you to KEEP ON BUILDING AND BUILDING.

If they want to build strip malls in the middle of town, so be it and I am all for it but unless there is some kind of sustainable development within the area they are building like stores, schools, local businesses, I am all for subdivisions but I am not for the way they are building it right now.. Making them into little island fiefdoms where everyone has to commute out of the area creating traffic jams and bottlenecks.

There are model communities in various parts of Multnomah county where it was built on a sustainable level and all variables were taken into consideration.

I am not for property restrictions or seriously bothering with property rights. But it does not make sense when my neighbor builds 12 houses on his 5-10 acres and then ordinances and zoning start to change and quality of life factors start to dig in.

Believe me..I've been through it already....

The only people I am seeing until someone points to me on what I am reading on the anti 49 websites that its going to seriously hinder the mom and pop who wants to sell the property. All I am seeing on the pro sites is that it will offer limitations but it will not hinder it. It will allow the building of some houses but NOT A GAZILLION houses.

prove me wrong, please and I will reserve my judgment.



yup, you got a point there. maybe several.

but the oregon land use laws that helped protect your farm do nearly nothing good or appropriate on the east side of the cascades. If i've got 80 acres ( i do) i can't build one house on it until i prove i am farming it by an income test of over 33,000$ for 2years (total) or the same amount for 3/ 5 years. I can't grow cherries, i can barely make two cuttings of hay. there is no way i'm gonna make that money criteria, unless i go buy some million dollar horses and have them make baby horses. how much fun is that if i have to live in town and commute to my fancy horse ranch?

i've already lost 8 sheep from a single coyote attack. how much money would i lose if a horse broke its leg or the neighbors dogs got in a pack and attacked my million dollar horsies?

my dad owns 350 or so acres outside of culver, some of the best ag land east of the cascades. if there hadn't already been 3 houses again we would be limited to only one house.


If oregon's land use laws were so great pre -m37,

HOW COME NO OTHER STATE COPIED US?


its not like they haven't had enough time, DLCD and the LCDC have been restricting what you can do with your & mine land since '73

that was the year after i was born.

Link Posted: 10/4/2007 5:14:52 PM EST
hmmm reading it and scanning it again dude you're right.

That does not make sense at all. Yes I can agree now that people should have the right to do what they want with their property but I'm still arguing to what is reasonable.

But yeah East of the Cascades, hot dain a different story.

Link Posted: 10/4/2007 5:40:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By olwen:
If oregon's land use laws were so great pre -m37,

HOW COME NO OTHER STATE COPIED US?


Because nobody else is quite that stupidly socialist, though some of the East Coast states come close in other areas?
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 8:28:52 PM EST
Yea, I hate sprawl too, but everyday people like you and I will suffer if 49 passes.

People from other states can make a complaint during the permit process that they visit that area and development would ruin there experience and appeal it.

That's RIDICULOUS!

It's like a 3rd party sexual harassment suit.
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 9:45:02 PM EST
Maybe I'm missing something here, but i don't think so...

All states have zoning laws.

Maybe OR zoning laws are crappy compared to other states.

But this thread isn't about zoning laws or land use restrictions.

It's about M37, which allows "old" landowners a loophole that only they are entitled to. Nobody else gets that exemption. M37 isn't a new zoning law. IT'S AN EXEMPTION FROM ZONING LAWS, available only to people who have owned land since before the laws were passed.

And this thread is about M49, which proposes to limit the development activities of the priveleged few who are eligible for the M37 exemption.

That's all M49 does: it limits M37 claimants.

It has no effect whatsoever on existing zoning laws in OR. It doesn't change them or make them worse or better.

If you're a member of a family who has owned land in OR since before the 70's, then you probably like M37 because it makes your family exempt from the zoning laws passed in the 70's and later. You probably hate M49, because it intends to limit the extent of any development you might wish to pursue with your M37 exemption.

If you don't own land purchased prior to the 70's, then you need to get your mind around the following simple facts:
1 - M37 doesn't affect you. It doesn't change how you can use your land.
2 - M49 doesn't affect you. It's only a limitation on M37 claimants.

(note - I'm using "the 70's" as a general era during which the meat of our OR zoning laws were passed on a county by county basis. The era may vary considerably between counties. The principle however, is unchanged. M37 makes a landowner exempt from any zoning laws or land use regulations passed after he bought his land.)

Back to my point:

If you think "older" landowning families should have a right unavailable to anyone else to develop anything they want anywhere they want, then vote No on M49.

If you think it's crazy for OR to have a law that gives your old neighbor unlimited development rights while you get squat, then vote Yes on M49.

If you think all the zoning laws suck, that's a whole different fight. Go for it. Just don't confuse it with M37 or M49.
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 10:19:49 PM EST
Well, it's not about what I get or don't get, cause I don't get anything.

It's about state taking people's rights away. The people that have owned that land since the 70s.
Link Posted: 10/5/2007 7:32:19 AM EST
Up the road from where I live an old family homestead from the 1800s is a good example of what is going on. It's been split up several times over these many years, but always in the family.

The one decendent who has moved away wants to cram 700-800 houses/apts/duplexes on his piece of the old homestead. The ones who still live there don't want this next door to them. It's quite the family fight between the people that live there, raise their children there, and want to pass it down to their children, and the one guy that left the area and only wants cash out of it now.
Link Posted: 10/5/2007 8:33:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2007 8:39:37 AM EST by intoodeep]
height=8
Originally Posted By Gunhobbit:
height=8
Originally Posted By olwen:
If oregon's land use laws were so great pre -m37,

HOW COME NO OTHER STATE COPIED US?


Because nobody else is quite that stupidly socialist, though some of the East Coast states come close in other areas? howThe land-use laws are very much like gun rights when you start chipping away at the peoples rights it has no end.
M-49 is no fix for the peoples concern over taking by the government. M-37 made the government notice it's the people who have rights in this game...I think they often forget.
Remember what's good for one will not be good for all....is owning property a right, or a privilege given to you by the government?
Link Posted: 10/5/2007 9:24:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By ch139:
Well, it's not about what I get or don't get, cause I don't get anything.

It's about state taking people's rights away. The people that have owned that land since the 70s.


No offense, but that's not really it at all.

"...the state taking people's rights away" could maybe describe what happened to everyone during the 40 or more years that zoning laws were being debated and passed.

In 2004, M37 gave back all of "those rights"; but not for everyone, only for a select few. The majority of OR residents didn't get any "rights" back.

M49 now is proposed as a bandaid to M37, because a diverse group of people realized that M37 was a "blank check" being fully utilized not only by Farmer John to build a house, but by Stimson Lumber Company to claim 35,586 acres in the Coast Range in Washington County, all abutting public land. Stimson just gave $200,000 to fight M49. (Stimson is a favorite press example of "M37 abuse".)

If the zoning laws are too restrictive and take away too many rights, the solution is not to pass a bad law like M37 that gives back those rights only to some of the people. That just makes the situation worse. A better solution would be legislation that restores property rights equally for all landowners. "Seniority" is a bad line to legislate along if you intend for your legislation to be founded on equality.

M37 has no balance. It never intended to have a balance, where equal rights for all residents are considered. It only established rights for a select few.

An underlying current of opinion in M37 debate has been the sucker phenomenon. M37 had a lot of money behind it, and made good TV ads about the Granny. Everyone got pissed and voted yes on M37. The sucker theory is that nobody really stopped to consider what M37 would really do, they just got suckered in by the ads about poor granny and too much government and too few rights for landowners.

Why are we debating M49 instead of debating a total repeal of M37? Well, because i was too busy to start a M37 repeal campaign last year. Apparently, so were you. So the only current choice we have now is vote on a lame fix to a bad law.

It's sort of like the 1st GW Bush election, where you had Gore and Bush to choose from, but no Truman or Reagan or Kennedy or whatever. It's a lesser of two evils kind of thing.

I keep writing these long friggin posts because i keep seeing people get on here and post M49 SUCKS and nothing else. I'm quite sure they have no idea what they are talking about. I'm quite sure they're being suckered again by brilliant TV ads that tap into the anti-govt sentiment while hiding the truth.

CH139 - just curious, are you in the real estate business?
Link Posted: 10/5/2007 10:54:00 AM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By DCS:


An underlying current of opinion in M37 debate has been the sucker phenomenon. M37 had a lot of money behind it, and made good TV ads about the Granny. Everyone got pissed and voted yes on M37. The sucker theory is that nobody really stopped to consider what M37 would really do, they just got suckered in by the ads about poor granny and too much government and too few rights for landowners.



I could not agree more the whole debate on both sides is the "Sucker Phenomenon"; one side uses the scare tactics of how bad M-37 is to your neighbor, community and framers, the other side uses too much government and too few rights for landowners. That's how politics are played.....isn't it?

The sad thing is the folks who would have you believe M-37 is bad or goes too far hide the truth or fails to acknowledge reality. Just because a claim under M-37 is approved it does not mean it will be possible to be built it only preserves the right, you still must go through and meet the land-use requirements. It's better headlines to claim the sky is falling.....
The claims came flooding in based on the fact if you did not submit your claim by the set deadline you would have to jump through a bunch of hoops down the road and spend tens of thousands of dollars when it would be feasible to build on your property. The mad rush of claims amounts to people preserving their rights in advance of dealing with the claim and a land-use application together. It's good to know what you could do with your land prior to dumping tons of money into a land-use application and required studies.

In the end a fix is needed for the whole land-use game. The people who were working on the "Big Look" fix just got all their funding cut. Why do you think that is...Hhhhhhhhhmmmmmm were the folks in Salem not getting the outcome they wanted?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top