Kulongoski hearts Oregonians in Action-M37

Oregon's former Governor Tom McCall is rolling so hard in his grave he must be dizzy.  If only he could come back to life and shake some sense into Governor Kulongoski about conserving Oregon's farmlands and its renowned beauty, maybe then we could all breath a sigh of relief.  Unfortunately, stuff like that only happens in movies.  And I suppose seeing a Republican (McCall) shaking a Democrat (Kulongoski) out of frustration about the Democrat's willingness to tear away the foundations of Oregon's land use conservation laws wouldn't fit most people's political psych maps of the world today.  That doesn't even happen in the movies.

A majority of legislators in Salem accept the fact that Measure 37 is bad for Oregon.  It essentially guts the heart and soul of Oregon's nationally famous land use system.  Legislators have made a pathetic attempt of "fixing" M37 by introducing retrograde legislation in the form of  SB1037.  As stated in the O on May 18th:

...SB1037 broadens and deepens some development rights implied by Measure 37, even making such rights transferable, it seems likely that SB1037 would trigger more development -- and more destruction of prime farm land -- than it would avert.

It also would introduce destructive cluster subdivisions, which wreak havoc on local aquifers and burden taxpayers with the cost of public services that need to be provided to far flung rural subdivisions.  SB1037 came to us via the state Senate, controlled by... no, not Republicans, but by Democrats.  To make matters worse Kulongoski is rolling over for the House Republicans who have added amendments to SB1037 that go even further than the orignal destruction.  From 1000 Friends:

These amendments to SB 1037 include the wide-open transfer of waivers that will result in a land-grab by developers to run roughshod over Oregon's farmlands and scenery with strip malls and subdivisions. Shockingly, the proposal to roll back our community and land protections is supported and being advocated for by Governor Kulongoski.

Kulongoski has demonstrated his lack of vision and leadership since day one, but this is preposterous.  Democratic governors in the red states of Montana and Wyoming are putting Kulongoski to shame when it comes to land use conservation efforts.  While they're fighting the good fight for conservation of their states' lands, Kulongoski, in a blue state, has sold out to the likes of Oregonians in Action who are thrilled that the governor is supporting their anti-conservation agenda.

Please visit Onward Oregon and take action by sending a message to our legislators to fix M37.  It's easy and quick because Onward Oregon already has a concise message written for you.  If you're not signed up with them, it takes 30 seconds to register and you'll be ready to go! 

If you have a few more moments please call these numbers to voice your opposition to SB1037 and its amendments:

Governor's office: 503.378.4582
Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown: 503.986.1700
Your legislator's phone number

They've been getting quite a few calls about this, so don't stop!  This is urgent.

Update:  Peter Bray has written a great post on this over at Blue Oregon.  It has generated a lot of comments.

Comments

[Terry]

Sid, you write a good blog.

Measure 37 is easily the worst initiative to make its way into Oregon law since Measure 5 back in 1990, and I believe it will have equally devastating effects.

I advocated a NO vote on M37 back in November. I was shocked that it not only passed statewide but also by a wide margin in Multnomah county. I've written about it fairly frequently since, focusing primarily on the notion that property rights seem to be deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

It makes for a fascinating philosophical, as well as political, debate. I personally dismiss the idea of absolute property rights. But others apparently disagree.

[Sid]

Terry-

Thanks for your nice comment.

There is no guarantee of absolute property rights in the Constitution. The founders understood that property boundries are simply lines that deliniate your land from mine, but at the same time what you do with your land or I with mine can have an impact on the surrounding community. Because there is no absolute guarantee, groups like 'Oregonians in Action' take their gripe to the ballot box rather than to a court of law. If they would have challenged Oregon's land use laws in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, they would have lost because Oregon's laws are 100% constitutional.

Because the current line up in Salem lacks the leadership to take a stand on this issue, we'll probably have to take it to the ballot box ourselves.

[rocky]

Measure 5 and 47 along with 37 may not be perfect but a godsend to us that pay taxes and try to live under the law. Our small house would be taxed so heavily under the old formula we seriously would have to move out of the state. On an income of less than 20K are we not allowed to own our home? 37 corrects a misdeed as well, even though it does not affect us. Now I hope Eminent Domain law will be changed to thwart the privateering of confiscation by our government.
rocky

[Paul Bonneau]

A lot of serious hand-wringing here. Actually respecting peoples' property rights would not have as disastrous an outcome as some imagine.

Measure 37 passed because people realize the government control has gone too far.

I personally have a Measure 37 claim going. Tell me if I am one of those nasty developers. I had an old defunct dairy farm in Yamhill county, 93 acres. My neighbor had a 400-acre tree farm. I wanted to sell 40 acres to him for various reasons beneficial to him and to me. The state said "no", because there was some 80-acre minimum or other, that did not exist when I bought the property. The state stole my property rights, plain and simple, without compensating me for it. Keep in mind there was no additional house construction in all of this, my "farm" was not being farmed in any large extent (certainly not 80 acres worth) - the property was already not viable as a farm ever since California had taken over the market with its government-subsidized water and irrigation projects.

Land use planning has the premise that ordinary people are not to be trusted, and that our lives are better when directed by our "betters" in Salem. This is far from what the founders envisioned. People are better off when they are allowed to live their own lives without being controlled by others.

"Land use planning" is a warm and fuzzy euphemism for economic fascism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html
It has no place in this country.

[rocky]

I think you may be a little too extreme. Land Use is very important. I sit on the planning commission in our little town. Without it we would have urban sprawl and the other extreme urban crush. There has to me some moderation and just compensation to those are hurt by rules passed after the fact. I saw older nice citizens cheated out of their homes in the first Urban Renewal programs in Portland. It was pure thievery by the city for fat-cat developers. See how they [ politicians] have misconstrued the " Eminent Domain" laws? My ideas may be radical; but the individual rights must be maintained.

[biagra]

Smth interesting,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]