My Photo


Progressives Ad Network

« Death With Dignity and the new Chief Justice | Main | Oregon state Senator Ted Ferrioli is deluded »


`ken & dawn dutton

Re:measure 37, last time we voted 1 for and 1 against. Given a second chance, we would both vote for it.

we have 3 small parcels of land in separate
parts of clackamas county. We have owned these parcels since 1967,1971 and 1974 respectively. Our intent was to farm until retirement age and then build some homes. A new one for us (we built ours in 1969)and some for the kids and a few others to sell to provide college money for our grandkids and retirement funds . We farmed for 28 years. In that time, many houses (even some duplexes)
were built around our acreages. To comply with the county and state requirements of contacting property owners within 750 feet for "public" input, it was necessary to mail to 33 to 38 addresses per parcel. All our 'development' would be doing is providing infill (for the most part) to an already suburbanized, countrified, residential community. If people WANT to farm on 5 or 7 or 10 or 15 acres surrounded by homes, they should. If they don't want to they should be able to build on 1 or 2 or 3 or so acres as water and septic availability allow. It is more cumbersome for us to make the rounds of the neighborhood to advise people to close windows and doors because we plan to spray than the time it takes to do the spraying.
We also had a great deal of vandalism due to
the surrounding "suburbanization". People on
small tracts, send their children to play on
our farmland with their offroad vehicles.
People from the city drive out to trash or cut up. Fences invite yet more damage. The amount of farmland that was "trapped" by this LATE effort to preserve agricultural land deserves to be released to become just like and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Not everyone is planning to build a shopping mall or gravel pit in a farming community. Further, those that might would have their work cut out for them
since these rural areas do not have city services and only building that could be safely and healthfully accommodated would be allowed. Rather than looking at the realities of the situations you seem more interested in finding Dorothy English poster children verses horrified rural dwellers. Just an emphasis on more politicking instead of doing something fair and equitable to fix the current lopsided
screwy system. This is about real people with real problems dealing with a ridiculous
situation. It needs people coming together to honestly hash this out in the interest of
fairness and LOGICAL development (which is
sorely lacking now). What it doesn't need is
a campaign of spin tactics on both sides to
see who can out- sympathize or out- terrorize the opposing viewpoint to claim victory.
It would be nice if our local journalists and legislators could all grow up to act like big boys and girls and make some meaningful progress in this state. Things like land development, healthcare, education,child welfare, and so forth need
thoughtful dialogue and a committment to
create improvement rather than the idiotic
bickering people wallow in these days.


Ken and Dawn-

I empathize with your issue. Just because I am against M37 does not mean that I don't support some changes to Oregon's land-use planning system. I'm am quite aware that not every M37 claim is a gravel pit or a shopping mall, but some of them are and that's the problem with M37. Just as the current land-use laws may be to some extent unreasonable, M37 went too far in overturning the current laws.

Clearly there needs to be some flexibility in the laws and that's what we all need to work on at this point. Hopefully, a healthy compromise can be reached soon.

The comments to this entry are closed.