Measure 49
To all the out of state or country Astoria Rust readers, we will return to our regularly scheduled blog on Thursday. Yesterday I just had to talk about a local political hot potato and today and tomorrow I will be addressing two measures on our State ballot. Please feel free to join in if you are politically inclined. No on to todays unpaid political commentary:
I visit a few agricultural internet forums, and it seems that the internet farmers are crazy for Measure 49. That’s one thing about people in agriculture; they aren’t shy about putting up political signs. They usually run on the conservative side, but that’s OK. At least they are taking a side in the issues.
The odd thing was that as I drove from the Coast to Portland last Thursday I counted the signs in the fields. I saw 14 against Measure 49 and only 4 for the measure. What’s up with that?
Though none of you asked my opinion I will happily share it anyway. Here is how I see the issue, though I know full well that Gearhead is going to kick my ass the next time he sees me.
I am an owner of acreage. A few years ago I got a notice from the County that the land I purchased zoned RA-1 is now RA-2. No big deal in some ways, but it actually was in other ways. When I bought my property I did it as an investment, and the government altered my investment. As a citizen I need to have a way to appeal this mandate and Measure 37 was my way to appeal. Now the government realized that they over stepped their bounds and are trying to cover their tracks and their financial asses by throwing up a wall to protect themselves further from having to provide infrastructure or compensating for their errors and over stepping.
As a land owner I feel I am the steward of the property. I never wanted to log my property, but when the property next to mine was logged my trees started blowing over every time the wind blew. I had to change my thinking and protect my investment. I will do all I can to make sure it isn’t developed, but the bottom line is that it is my investment and one day I may need to revise my thinking to protect my financial interests. I would like the option to take back my rights as they were at the time of the purchase.
So I’m voting No on Measure 49 because I don’t want to shoot myself in the foot.
posted by The Guy Who Writes This at 5:12 AM
18 Comments:
Measure 49 is nothing more or less than saying "the public is too stupid to know what it wants ... unless it wants what the government TELLS it to want".
I am a property owner as well.
I did not purchase my property as an "investment" although it is worth a bunch.
The future of Oregon, and Oregon agriculture is way more important to me than my own little wallet.
The Statewide Land Use Goals have been settled law for over 30 years and many of us stronly support them.
For the present and future farmers and dedicated Oregonians, I am voting YES on 49.
Wow, Walt and I actually agree on something political ; )
Gearhead, does this mean I'll never see that book I let you borrow last year again?
Just send your unmarked & signed ballot to me and the book lives.
:-;
Please bring it next week.
Hey Gearhead, who does that cartoon above look like?
Guy, it's interesting that you would take a stand on your property rights but have no problem using someone else's intellectual property on each of your blog posts, mostly without credit to the creator or owner of that property. Don't you think it would be proper to at least identify whose work you've "borrowed" to illustrate your posts?
Guy Smiley wrote:
>>>Please bring it next week.<<<
Why? Are you liquidating your "investment" and moving on to the next?
:-Q
Oregonians; PLEASE vote yes on 49!
Rich, you are absolutely right on this matter. But consider I am extremely impulsive and even more so lazy. I will go to flicker and down load a ton of photos and decide on one the moment I post. If I were to give credit I feel I should first ask permission, and waiting for replies takes for ever...if ever. So I'd rather ask forgiveness after the fact if caught. But you are indeed right.
Gearhead, If I have a medical year like two years ago again and if I have another agricultural year like this year I may be forced to move on. What's that combo to your gate again?
Sorry, but your statement that M49 is an attempt by the state to cover their tracks is incorrect.
Measure 37 was not put on the ballot by the legislature, it was done by the initiative process, from the voters.
M49 is an attempt to gain control over something (M37) that is out of control.
Guy....If M49 passes, you can still partition your property under M37 if you want, it won't prohibit you from doing anything except a HUGE subdivision, something you couldn't have done anyway when you bought your property.
Love,
Anon
And Josh wasn't the generating force behind 4-123.
See the voters pamphlet and I don't think there is a name in big government not behind it. Of course they aren't allowed to be the generating force, but...
For me it comes down to, who do I want to control the destiny of the land, the person paying taxes on it or the entity taking the tax money for it. If I had purchased property with a long term goal and government altered my goal, well that isn't right.
Guy,
Yes, govenment is backing 49 but government wasn't the driving force behind 37 as your post indicated. M37 was developed through the initiative process not by government.
I agree that you should be able to develop your land according to the criteria in place when you purchased it. If you take a good look at M37 claims to date you will see that the biggest claimant is Stimson Lumber, not individuals like youself.
I think that you might change your mind if your property were surrounded by Stimson Lumber land one day and a 50+ lot subdivision the next day.
We have a mutual friend who is having a subdivision built right behind him after 20+ years living on his property and being surround by forest land. Perhaps a conversation on how uncontrolled M37 development is affecting him might cause you to reconsider your stance on 49.
Love,
Anon
I agree that development is a blight, however property rights are property rights. I doubt the development behind our friends home will happen in his life time simply because there are no more water meters being granted by the Lewis and Clark Water District. Shoot, they can't even get water to people who are already on their system now. Drilling wells won't do the trick either. The ground water out there is totally disgusting. So even if they did sink some wells the price to make it potable will be so prohibitive that it would be less expensive to buy bottled water from Costco.
I laugh at those who complain about "big developers".
What's the difference between one developer building 100 houses, and 100 developers building 1 house each? There's 100 new houses either way.
Just more "I gots mine, so we don't need any more" bullshit.
Walt,
I made no comments about "big developers". My point is (because you obviously missed it) was that if I buy rural land because I want to live in the country and then 20 years later a neighbor builds a 20 lot subdivision, my property rights have been have been violated. Where is my avenue of compensation?
I certainly don't appreciate you labeling my comments "bullshit" just because you don't agree with them.
Love,
Anon
It's funny because I do bitch about all the lights and noise in the neighborhood now, but in reality one neighbor tilled about three acres for me and lets me access the back end of my property through his road and across his land. Another neighbor gave me all sorts of fence posts and another neighbor brought me soil and sand for my round pen and brought in machinery to spread and even it all out.
But if I had neighbors like Love Anon I'd build a moat and put up barbed wire and dogs and have weaponry at the ready. So I do appreciate her sentiment.
Anon - did I mention anyone in particular? No. So, unless you've complained about "big developers", I wasn't talking about you.
Your property rights end at your property line. Your neighbor building a subdivision on his property does NOT violate your property rights. Thus, you are not entitled to any compensation. However, your telling your neighbor he can't build on his property DOES violate his rights.
Which is why I've said for years that realtors shouldn't be allowed to sell "the view", or "you're so close to x" (schools, shopping, etc), or "this neighborhood has the best x" (schools, shopping, etc). Because all those things can change, depending on what the neighbors do with THEIR property. If anyone should be held responsible for "bad" changes in the neighborhood, it's realtors who use those selling points. After all, they're the ones selling you on things that aren't in your deed. And I believe that's false advertising.
I've never seen a deed that guarantees a certain view, or that a subdivision won't be built nearby.
>>>Your property rights end at your property line.<<<
Sorry, but this single statement exposes your total lack of knowledge in land law.
If I felt like retyping several hundred volumes of desicions, you would be very embarrassed.
No flames; there is no law against lack of information.
Post a Comment
<< Home