Agenda... we ain't got no stinking agenda...
That's what the Zero's editorial writers would like you to believe.
After being scooped -again-this time by the Wall Street Journal on the clothesline controversy...you know the Bend woman we talked to last week who wants to hang out her laundry...
Well ..Oregon's newspaper of record---the ZERO...said Tuesday...quote:
"We revere property law."
At the same time it runs a series of stories on Measure 49...a measure written to DEPRIVE you of your property laws...and doesn't bat an eyelash. You know what this is...this is one of those cases where they pat the head of the laundry hanging suburban wife and her kindred and say...you can have your clothesline, honey, but don't worry your pretty little head about the RIGHTS YOU HAVE TO THE LAND THE CLOTHESLINE SITS ON! That's right...just be quiet ...and go lie down by your bowl! Measure 49 is a land steal by the Oregon state legislature to REPEAL measure 37...because it gave you the rights you on your property when you bought it or got it. Measure 37 gave those rights back to you; Measure 49—the repeal of the law—takes the vast majority of your own property rights from you.
It's as basic as that. State Senator Jason Atkinson gives a great analysis of the two measures here. Voters have voted twice to give people land owners payment if the government takes it. Voters understand this because it’s fair. It's a fifth amendment right in the US constitution...preventing a takings without just compensation but to the planning poohbahs...your rights don't exist.
Their plans trump the constitution.
It's arrogant...and these thieves get backed up by the so-called newspaper
of record The Zero is story after story. Earlier this week there was the usual scare story about shopping centers that would be placed in nowheresville Oregon and similar urban myths---and you don't find out until the jump page in the 20th paragraph that professors at Portland State University think that IT IS highly unlikely because of market forces. That’s right, they acknowledge it wouldn’t be in the land owners’ interest to build in the middle of nowheresville BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CUSTOMERS THERE.
So...the Zero's reporters don't think it's important enough to tell you that if the market wouldn't support a shopping center in the middle of a strawberry field in nowheresville that you-mr and mrs. Land Owner WOULDN'T BUILD IT BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.
These guys stole Measure 37 from the voters-it passed by 61% of the vote
Rewrote it, claim transferability—but there’s no language in the measure that allows it, took out your rights, put curbs on what you could do with your, land just like before ...and then had the audacity to say they were fixing measure 37.
I want to know...how you will vote on Measure 49...yes or no.Vote NO on M 49.
By the way, I have no measure 37 claim and no dog in this fight except that as an American I believe in property rights.
And for you naysayers, I do believe in zoning. In fact I believe in it so much that I believe local jurisdictions should be able to zone strip clubs away from schools—but apparently planners think that situation’s just fine.
4 comments:
I will vote NO on Meas. 49, and this despite the fact that I am fighting the claim of a landowner near me who is trying to use Meas. 37 to bust Federal requirements that he not build on his flood plain property, and has to leave trees standing which are the traditional nesting sites for the red-tailed hawk.
You're right to vote no. If this passes you'll have even fewer rights to do with your property. At least with M 37 you'll be able to still fully own your property instead of the state taking most of it without compensation if they so choose.
BTW: red tailed hawks nest on just about anything. I see their nests on poles along I 5 when I travel north into Washington.
"instead of the state taking most of it without compensation if they so choose"
Can you please reference where in the pre-Measure 37 laws the state was permitted to do that?
In your post you say, Measure 49 claims transferability— but there’s no language in the measure that allows it.
Here is exactly the language from the measure as it is written:
An authorization to partition or subdivide the property, or to establish dwellings on the property, [if granted] runs with the property and may be either
transferred with the property or encumbered by another person
without affecting the authorization. There is no time limit on when an authorization [if granted] must be carried out, except that once the owner who obtained the authorization conveys the property to a person other than the owner's spouse or the trustee of a revocable trust in which the owner is the settlor, the subsequent owner of the property must create the lots or parcels and establish the dwellings authorized by a waiver under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act within 10 years of the conveyance.
You can read the ballot measure for yourself at this website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb3500.dir/hb3540.en.html
Post a Comment