I'm travelling, and logged onto Oregonlive.com to see what was news. I was treated to Monday's hysterical editorial on Measure 37.
The Oregonian editors see that time is running out. All the claims filed before the deadline are moving forward and will be processed on the six-month timeline set in the measure unless the legislature does something to stop them.
So, the Oregonian urges them to "postpone the deadlines."
It's actually kind of fun to watch them ramp up the hysteria as the six month clock ticks down. They know that the bulk of all Measure 37 claims were filed before the deadline last fall, and so the law must be "fixed" (read: gutted) before these claims mature, otherwise there almost is no point.
So expect more of these editorials, which will really serve only to further distance the Oregonian from Oregonians. Honestly, don't they think it's a bit risky to be telling us every day what dopes we are for passing Measure 37? Just look at the rhetoric in that one editorial:
"terrible problems Measure 37 has inflicted on Oregon"
"jeopardizes the future of the state's agricultural industry"
" threaten at least 132,346 acres of Willamette Valley's richest farmland"
"...how much damage these claims could do"
"interrupt the ruin of Measure 37.."
Twice Oregon has passed this measure, both times overwhelmingly, and both times in the face of a prolonged and strident campaign by the Oregonian against them.
Why is it they think voters will listen to them this time? Fact is, the Oregonian is increasingly irrelevant on issues such as this. The are way out of the mainstream, and the more hysterical they get, the further out they put themselves and the more they alienate their readers.
The question really is: can the Republicans in the legislature hold off the McPherson-led effort to "fix" Measure 37?
I'm just glad Larry George is there in the Senate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Rob,
The Oregonian has never been in step with Oregon. The paper takes the same attitude as the city in which it is published. Both the paper and the city believe Oregon revolves around their myopic view.
"The ruin of Measure 37"? What a pile! About the only thing it's going to ruin is the ability of a very few to dictate how a landowner uses his private property.
If one were to investigate the 'problems' with M 37, it is clear that all the hurdles have been raised by those 'control freaks'. For instance: tranferability(an invented word)- M 37 is clear in that context. If one had the right to sell off portions of his farmland in 1970, those rights would be considered restored by M 37. The idea that M 37 meant anything else is total fabrication, designed to delay, obstruct, and keep the freaks in control of land use decisions (someone else's land).
Legislators, restrictive land use proponents, the gov, and the Oregonian need to keep in mind.....what goes around, comes around....be sure about that!
Actually M37 has one flaw that can readily be corrected by removing paragraph 3E.
Thanks
JK
The State is trying to say that a M 37 waiver is personal property and can't be transfered. Everyone needs to be watching this! Personal propert is transfered from a seller to a buyer in real estate transactions daily...think window covers, spa, fridge. Hummm....waiver?
Remember to email, fax or call your State and County representitives. They have to continue to hear from us.
There should be no questions as to exactly what a M 37 'waiver' means.
It is a waiver of any and all land use regulations that restrict the options for land use that were absent when the owner purchased the property.
As stated previously, in 1970, a land owner could sell all or portions of his land for a variety of uses or reasons. To neighbors, family, the government, strangers....anybody.
At that time, the new owners were free to continue the current use if they chose. They also had the right to do something different with the property (with exception to public health and safety, etc.). Land use laws restricted those rights, which is the point of contention.
M 37 says that if land use laws enacted after the owner purchased the property restricted it's (land) use, then the government must pay the loss (takings), waive (remove), or not apply the laws to that particular property.
How about just 'not apply' those laws? It is clearly specified in the measure. When those laws are 'not applied', the restrictions become moot and all options available to the owner return, including homes, if he so chooses.
Now why would a landowner in 1970 decide to split his property for housing if the prospective new owners couldn't build a home on their piece? That's just it!.....they could! If housing was an illegal use of someone's farmland (which it wasn't), people interested in purchasing property for a homesite wouldn't bother.
The history of rural construction in Oregon up to mid 70's is verifiable proof that tranfer of property rights and options for use went with the sale, whether it was farmland or forest.
The so-called 'confusion' created by M 37 is real. But it was created by the M 37 opponents who got their ass handed to them in '04. Not only do they struggle to comprehend the written word (M 37), they also fail to realize respect is a two way street.....you know, give a little, get a little.
Post a Comment