On Sunday, there was another suicide bomb in the Oregonian's jihad against Measure 37.
The argument goes as follows: When land was zoned Exclusive Forest Use or Exclusive Farm Use, it is true that people lost the ability to use their land for other purposes (such as development.) But they were compensated for that loss by having their taxes reduced.
Therefore to compensate folks again, through a Measure 37 claim would compensate them twice.
This argument is akin the government told you that you could no longer use your car, but you will be fully compensated for the loss of use because you no longer have to pay the gas tax on the fuel you would have bought for it had you been able to use it.
See why I call these arguments "suicide bombs?" They are blowing up their own credibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Overlooked as well is the fact that in many cases, more money, not less, is extracted from the landowner. I speak from experience. In the 1980's, I bought a modest house on a large piece of land. One of the attractions at the time was the fact that at the back of the property ran a tributary to Fanno Creek. I enjoyed the wildlife, and protected the habitat back there.
Silly. Around 1988, the Bureau of Environmental Services slapped an "environmental overlay" on my land. Then they wrote to tell me that I couldn't plant any non-native species within 50 feet of the creek. You know, of course, that none of the plants in a typical vegetable garden plot are native species....
Then, when I went to replace my rotting back deck (attached to the house and over 100 feet away from the creek), I was told to submit a plan and a $1200 fee, and BES would decide whether or not I would be permitted to do it.
And each year, my property taxes went up.
And the worst part, Max, is that those regs probably are outside of M37 territory.
I suspect most folks in this situation would be happy to have the amount their taxes were lowered deducted from any compensation paid. I suspect it's not a tithe of what the real market value of their land is without government's boot on their face.
Post a Comment