I think that many people misunderstand real estate as property. The people of the United States own all of the land in the United States, what is bought and sold is a right to use that US property, a deed of use. I can't sell or donate my land to a foreign country and have it become, say, part of Canada or japan.
The only exception I know of is Foreign embassies which are considered part of that nations sovereign land.
Since we US citizens own all the land I think we have every right to place conditions on how that land gets used.
Now, maybe when a person buys a deed for use of land with an idea of speculating on the future, that buyer ought to write out and have notarized her business plan and file it with a county clerk so that they have some evidence to use in arguing later on about loss of value.
Another thought is about using Eminent Domain. I think that when a government uses eminent domain to acquire property for a private developer that the losing property owner ought to have a participation in the project and here?s why.
When a business is bought or sold the assets considered are the land, the building, the computers and stuff, and most of all, what is called ?blue sky?. Blue sky is the brand, the reputation, etc, something hard to put a price on but definitely worth something. Under current eminent domain the losing property owner loses his blue sky completely and without consideration for his memories, emotions, family history, etc. And the private developer acquires the property with his own blue sky project ideas in mind.
I suggest that the losing property owner be given participation in the blue sky of the new project to the extent of what the government/developer pays for his property, as compensation for the loss of his own blue sky.
That is, the loser gets paid for the estimated value of his land and gets ownership in the project at that same amount as his blue sky. The winner gets the property and the right to develop his project and gives fair compensation to the loser in the form of future blue sky.
According to Star Trek, "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" We, voters, were fooled by Measure 37 and "grandma". We supported the right of the individual land owner to develop their property - within reason. Measure 49 brought Measure 37 back to what we were originally told was its purpose. We, as a community have a right to set the boundaries by which property owners develop their property. This is true with respect to building codes, health codes, zoning codes, etc. The community and people who have adjacent property also have rights too. Measure 49 addresses the rights of others. The abuse of the "Good Faith" provision, I pray will be effectively and conclusively addressed by the court and/or voters, in favor of the "Best Interest" of the community. It is sad when a few creedy property owners give property owners in general a bad name. Shame on them.
Ha, that’s actually a really good suggestion.
Calcium Disodium EDTA
I'm wondering if the cooling of the real estate market is also throwing a little water on the vitriol of the Measure 37/49 debate. The kind of undeveloped land we're talking about will always be hot, but there's less demand now than two years ago. See these comments by Wilbur in the Dorothy English obit.
This so obviously one of those great urban-rural divide questions. In much the same way that someone who wants to develop their farm into a subdivision can't see why they shouldn't have every last right to do so, I can't see why shouldn't have the right to marry or "civil union up" with whomever I want. Maybe we should pull together as Oregonians and respect all the rights of everybody in the state.
Does anyone know of a on-line map of the proposed additions to the Urban Growth Boundary for Washington County?
Is there a map of all the claims under Measure 49 so I could look to see the status of claims in my neighborhood? 3 homes, 10 homes, a M37 commercial develpment? If there is a map or even a by county list, could you post a link?
Coastrange, I'll see what I can find. I know maps exist of M37 claims....if I can't find it before ten AM, check back later today.
I noticed the first guest used terms like "they" and "us" - which is obviously an oversimplicfication of the matter, but is also human nature.
It amazes me how well the powers at be understood 30+ years ago what issues would end up facing now, in regards to planning issues. Their vision is why Portland isn't dealing with the sprawl that Seattle or Los Angles has.
I feel that this has been great for all Oregonians.
Measure 49 certainly found the right poster children - Americans tend not to want to say no to old women. Unfortunately, while they might be very sympathetic victims, the measures they represent can cause extensive damage to the community. Look at the California's Proposition 13 (the initiative which froze property taxes at the value of the home when purchased regardless of current value) which has helped to cripple California schools and other state funded programs. And best of all, the major sponsors for Prop 13 were businesses who wanted to limit their tax liability - old women represent a very small portion of the beneficiaries.
Most nations regulate how property can be used as the public has a interest in land use and preserving resources. These regulations change and the changes apply to existing owners as not doing so would make the regulations close to meaningless. In the cases discussed in Oregon, this is not life or death for the property owners: It's about whether they can make a lot of money, or just a moderate amount of money. The benefits to the community in limiting use are significant. So frankly, land owners, you took the risk. Cope.
I'm always curious about how the urban/rural divide impacts folks opinions on this. I've lived in rural Oregon most of my life, yet feel strongly about protecting our rural areas from over development. Having said this, with a few simple fixes to our land-use planning laws, we could have avoided much of this issue in the first place.
There are no short-versions of the stories of folks in my neck of the woods, but I'll do my best. My grandparents under the advise of the county combined their various properties (about 85 acres in all) into a single parcel back in the 1950's. In the early 70's, they attempted to divide off two ~6 acre parcles for two of their children. This was approved, and one built a home in 1979. The other attempted to build in the 80's and was told that it was not going to be allowed due to the fact that it was an 'illegal' partition. I'll skip all the details, but basically it was the county saying that because the parcels were combined years ago (at the county's advise), and it was over 80 acres, they would not allow the division. After years of dispute, they gave up...
37 came along, and my grandmother wanted to divide off the homestead from the farm land, and also divide off about 18 acres of range-land to sell to an adjacent owner (no new homes involved). She was granted a waiver back to 1948 when they bought the property, and we proceeded. She dropped many thousands of dollars into it when 49 passed, and then suddenly everything was for not. This is because 49 only allows adjacent 2 acre parcels under the fast track. Well, she wanted a 5 acre homestead and an 18 acre (non-adjacent) range-land property. 49 would not allow it.
To keep the story short, I'm now helping her divide off the main homestead and we have dropped the other options. All in all, there were no new homes involved in any of the 37 or 49 claims she is currently trying to proceed with, and had the state and county just simplified things for folks like her, 37 would probably have never passed in the first place...
People always think about huge developments when they think about 37 and 49, and that is not always the case...
The last caller said that urban centers strip the rural regions of resources, such as water. Her solution to this was to file a fast track claim to build an urban development in the middle of farm land? If she is so concerned about the preservation of farm land why the heck would she petition the governemnt to increase density in these areas? Won't this only add to her stated problems of straining rural resources? Her logic just doesn't add up.
Further more, the problem with development in rural areas of Oregon is that they are being built in unincorportated areas. These developments require large investments from near by municipalities to run utilities and social services(fire/police) to these areas. The cities also have to expand transportation for the increase in traffic that accompanies an increase in density. My point is that unicorporated areas don't pay municipal taxes so the near by cities aren't recieving an increase in tax revenue to pay for development demanded by these subdivisions. Basically, These developments only add to the already strained budgets of rural Oregon.
There has been much discussion about housing development under measures 37 and 49. It is my understanding that these measures also regulate things such as the construction of billboards, could you provide some information on this aspect of the measures and where the law currently stands concerning the construction of billboards.
As I understand Measure 49, it basically forbids commercial development allowed under Measure 37. I believe that includes billboards. The "vesting" route, I suppose, is a possibility there. In other words, in the event someone spent a great deal of money (relative to the total cost of a billboard), then it's possible they could basically get "grandfathered" in, under Measure 37.
Another poster wondered whether there was a map available for Measure 49 claims - I don't believe that there is. At this point, it wouldn't look all that different from a Measure 37 map (and Portland State University did track Measure 37 claims graphically), because responses are still being processed at the state Dept of Land Conservation and Development. In time, that would be an interesting map to see (maybe PSU can come through for us again?).
There was also a question about maps of potential Washington County UGB expansion areas. Metro has a map of all the "study areas" for their ongoing "urban/rural reserves" process on their website: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26257
Bottom Line: THERE ARE NO GAURANTEES IN LIFE
As I was reading the various posts, this one struck me. While I can appreciate the statement (and have used it myself in the past), I can't help but wonder if you believe it to be true for this issue in particular, or all issues? For example, if the courts (or voters) struck down abortion or gay marriage, or the right to divorce, or the right to bear arms, or the right to emergency medical care, or freedom of religion, or the right of women to vote... Would you still say this? After all, there are no guarantees in life, right? :-)
Buck, another interesting side trip: water rights and land use. Try out this blog by a guy in Salem. He?s definitely taken sides, but lays out some interesting stuff
The link doesn't work. Could you correct it?
My name is Sidney Mirsky
Together with my wife, Helen, we have owned our 29 acres since 1988 and we have farmed it each year consistently since then.
We want to live on our property but have been denied that under the old law.
Under Measure 37 I filed for a single family dwelling and both the State and the County finally approved our claim about two or three weeks before the November elections.
Measure 49 has put a stop to our claim and so we have not been permitted to build our house on our property.
We still await the 49 determination and we are hopeful that this will occur in the near future.
Every property that abuts onto our property has a house on it.
Ours is the only farm that does not have a farm dwelling on it.
All we want is permission to build one house on our farm.
We really would like to live on our farm and we hope that the permission will be granted soon.
My neighbor applied for and was approved to build 52 houses each on 2.5 acre lots, all with separate wells and septic tanks. We live in a rural area in Yamhill County, with narrow 2-lane roads, no access to city water or sewage. Regardless of your viewpoint on Measure 37 and 49, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that a tiny, rural community can handle this amount of growth outside city limits. These claims happen like dominos; as a result of the one neighbor filing a claim, the neighbors behind us filed a claim to build 100 residential and commercial lots. This is all extremely high-quality farm land in an area that has been continually farmed for more than 150 years. At this point, we still do not know if any of theses claims will actually go through. We want to believe that these claims will never be pursued and will eventually fall through, but we live in constant limbo. We initally tried to pursue our legal rights, but were informed by several attorneys that we had no options. It is an impossible situation, and we pray that we will not end up living in a subdivision!
Comments are now closed.