Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

The Daily Score


Share | |  Email Post

Measure 37 To Oregonians: "Shut Up"

Posted by Eric de Place
01/10/2007 11:55 AM
Pay or waive leaves no room for discussion.

You see, this is what I was talking about.

From today's Oregonian:

The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners decided Tuesday to speed the processing of claims made under Oregon's Measure 37 property rights law by preventing residents from testifying about filings. The commissioners will approve valid Measure 37 claims without question or public comment.

The Commissioner's callousness to public sentiment is not because they're die-hard "property rights" activists. It's because they simply cannot afford the time and money even to allow hearings for all the changes to land use laws that have been proposed. And the Commissioners are worried that if they don't get busy waiving the laws -- laws created by democratic means -- that taxpayers will get stuck having to compensate tens of millions of dollars worth of claims.

Pay or waive schemes like Measure 37 are a dagger at the heart of basic democratic institutions like local government. They are much less about property and planning than they are about silencing communities.

Residents of California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington -- states that rejected, or legally invalidated, Measure 37 copycats last fall -- should breath a deep sigh of relief. Residents of Arizona should hire lawyers.



Comments
Posted by Bill LaBorde 01/10/2007 01:29 PM
I think the best course of action for Oregonians at this point is a new ballot initiative that would repeal Measure 37. The best language for the initiative- straight repeal, or new regulatory scheme to replace what was taken away by 37- would depend on polling. But, it's hard to imagine that an overwhelming majority Oregonians would not vote for a repeal given all the all problems that have surfaced since it passed in 2004.
Posted by Arie v. 01/10/2007 07:21 PM
A straight repeal would likely widen the rural\urban divide and create an ongoing and expensive property rights battle, much like we have here in Washington. I don't believe voters realized what they were getting into with M37, but they were voting for a 'fairer' system.

Simple solutions don't work with land use laws. Deals need to be brokered involving all interests and it's likely to get down to hard gritty bipartisan political work. I'm not sure if Oregon has what it takes to pull this off - nor if we do.
Posted by Dan 01/10/2007 08:36 PM
I have two questions:

1. How can we get Arie a wider voice?

2. What are Private Property Rightists changing their strategy to now that the entire country can see this is a loser?

DS
Posted by Thom Egys 01/29/2007 02:43 PM
There are two types of zoing law. One is regulatory, which is generally practiced in the United States. Then there is discretionary zoning, which is practiced in Vancouver, B.C. and Germany. Discretionary zoing is a much fairer system. Two things need to happen in Oregon: 1) A moratorium on M37 is a must and 2) The Big Look needs to finish its study, which it plans to do so by 2009. Every Oregonian should take the time to read two Supreme Court cases: 1. Dodd v. Hood River County and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Oregonians need to redefine what is a "takings" before any repeal or amendment to M37. We also need to reexamine zoning policy. Citizens of Oregon need to better undertand land use regulation and then tell their represenatives what they want.
Posted by Arie v. 01/29/2007 06:05 PM
As for getting a wider voice, I have pinged a few groups lately to see if anyone is interested in real discussion and compromise. Some results:

1. Futurewise doesn't return mails.

2. CAPR does, but they come off as a bit defensive and I don't get the feeling they represent the spectrum of rural interests and political beliefs.

3. The rural majority www.ruralmajority.com also doesn't return mails, but I am less offended as they no longer appear to exist.

It's a shame, that third group seemed poised to lead a middle path and perhaps actually advocate for all rural citizens.
Posted by Dan 01/29/2007 07:32 PM
Thom:

Lucas is relevant because some uses were left on the parcel and thus isn't a full taking. The Private Property Rightists respond to Lucas with 'partial taking'. There is a full spectrum of federal and state Supreme Court decisions that help us illuminate why the Private Property Rightists have play. These decisions also inform us why the Private Property Rightists ultimately cannot win - they only will have a voice for a short time and will fade once rational beings find their voice.

This is not to confuse the Private Property Rightists movement with legitimate uses on rural land, for these two are vastly different.

I suggest (ahem...Eric...I didn't recommend one to you) that anyone wishing a good background on the Private Property Rightists movement should try this book [review]or this one (written for planners).

Arie:

Futurewise doesn't know you. Go up to someone (older) at a meeting you go to and start a conversation. CAPR is as you say; they don't really have anyone educated in land use law or planning on staff - kinda hodgepodge.

Don't give up. Someone will hear your voice.





Add a Comment

Name (required)
Email (will not be published) (required)
Website
See a list of html tags you can use in your comment.
(required)
This check is used to prevent comments by spammers.


Sightline Daily brought to you by Sightline Institute.

ORGANIZATION'S NAME GOES HERE!!! It will be hidden by CSS; we need it only for hCard compliance.
1402 Third Avenue, Suite 500 | Seattle, Washington 98101 | tel: +1.206.447.1880 | fax: +1.206.447.2270