NYT: Property Rights Law May Alter Oregon Landscape

[DeepModem Mom]

Property Rights Law May Alter Oregon Landscape
By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: November 26, 2004


PORTLAND, Ore., Nov. 20 - Over the past three decades, Oregon has earned a reputation for having the most restrictive land-use rules in the nation. Housing was grouped in and near the cities, while vast parcels of farmland and forests were untouched by so much as a suburban cul-de-sac.

Environmentalists and advocates for "smart growth" cheered the ever-growing list of rules as visionary, while some landowners, timber companies and political allies cried foul.

But in a matter of days, the landowners will get a chance to turn the tables. Under a ballot measure approved on Nov. 2, property owners who can prove that environmental or zoning rules have hurt their investments can force the government to compensate them for the losses - or get an exemption from the rules.

Supporters of the measure, which passed 60 percent to 40 percent, call it a landmark in a 30-year battle over property rights....

***

Both sides expect the measure to survive judicial scrutiny, and the state and local governments are to start fielding claims on Dec. 2. If claims are found to be valid and the government will not or cannot pay, it must instead waive any restrictions that went into force after the owners - or their parents or grandparents - acquired the land.

Some fear that the state will be unable to pay and that hillsides in the Cascades now bristling with fir trees and pear orchards could sprout a crop of McMansions, Wal-Marts or resort condominiums in a few years....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/26/national/26property.html?hp&ex=1101445200&en=05090a0a2879e31f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[sandnsea]

1. Untouched forests?

We've only got 10% Old Growth left in this state. There's houses in every speck of land and forest on every road in the state. You want untouched forests and vast parcels of farmland, go to Montana. That's why Oregon put restrictive land use laws into place, we're quickly becoming California. sheesh, sad when not even the NYTimes can get it right.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. I agree...

We have it pretty good here, this ballot measure is gonna hurt us.
hi neighbor:hi:

[havocmom]

3. It is beyond ridiculous that 'investment property' is thought to come with

a guarantee of profit. Where in the Constitution is there the guarantee of profit on investment? Too often, land speculators buy a tract and then assume the entity involved with zoning changes has to roll over and play dead on their obligations to the entire community and grant whatever zone changes are requested. Failure to change the rules are treated as "takings". It is total BS. Investments are speculation and that means NO guarantees.

Land speculators want to hang onto property, at low tax rates, until they find it good to build homes. Those homes add a burden on the infrastructure which means everyone else in the area ends up paying for speculators' profit. A family on a small farm sends how many kids to school? Flushes the toilet into a system how many times a day? Puts how many cars on the roads? When the farm turns into high density housing tracts, what is the change in burden for the whole community? Why should some be guaranteed a profit by being allowed to shift that sort of burden onto others? Where is it written that speculation HAS TO pay off each and every time?

Or is it only people putting $ away into corporate pension plans who take any risks on their investments?

[Wordie]

4. Why is it that people never recognize BURGEONING population as

what is driving the loss of wilderness and unspoiled land? I too am saddened to see the McMansions and Walmarts go up, but it is because there are too many people, isn't it? All those new people have to live somewhere.

[havocmom]

5. they don't need 2-20 acer 'ranchettes' where they bitch about life outside

of the convenience of urban centers and call for help because deer are eating their petunias.

Yeah,there are just too many people on the planet, but American people are particularly good about using more than they actually need. That goes for land devoted to sprawling housing developments while urban cores are left to rot and fall apart. The American rush for the new is wasteful and way too costly to the whole world.

There is much to be said for maintaining what already exists and not being such rabid consumers. The world is finite and Americans are the slowest to acknowledge that fact. We are too easily manipulated by the ploys of marketing. And I do not see much evidence that our consumption has brought us much happiness or contenment as a population. It HAS made a lot of corporations very rich and powerful though.

[daleo]

6. Well said

The idea that the public owes a company some sort of imputed losses flies in the face of capitalism itself.