Sigh…..
If you have put in a 37 claim, you have already stated what restriction is devaluing the "fair market price" of your land. When the state/county officials see this, you get a green light (as long as it is a legitimate claim).
Opponents to 49 basically lie their asses off. Stating everything from "you have to do an appraisal" to "you have to start Alllllllllll over again." Liars, all of them.
Anti 49ers cry, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" all the while, refusing to admit that 49 "allows small-scale development while curbing large, densely packed subdivisions, the report said." Check out what the Oregonian said on Sept. 28th. [Batman's comments in brackets!]
Opponent calls 49 'a bill of goods'
Land use - A Portland institute says the measure would clear the way for small-scale development
Friday, September 28, 2007
ERIC MORTENSON
The Oregonian Staff
The president of the property rights group Oregonians in Action takes issue with a report saying Measure 49 would resolve many of the contentious development claims touched off by voter approval of Measure 37 in 2004.
Dave Hunnicutt said complications and procedural hurdles woven throughout the 21-page ballot measure will frustrate claimants by forcing many who won development rights under Measure 37 to start all over while scaling back their proposals.
Measure 49 was referred to voters by the Legislature and is on the Nov. 6 election ballot.
"The devil's in the details," Hunnicutt said Wednesday. "There will be a lot of property owners who will feel they were sold a bill of goods if Measure 49 passes."
But the Portland-based American Land Institute on Monday said passage of Measure 49 could clear the way for perhaps 42 percent of the 7,500 statewide development claims to proceed. It would do so in a way that allows small-scale development while curbing large, densely packed subdivisions, the report said.
"If you have a claim for one to three houses, you get a green light," said Henry Richmond, the report's co-author, of Measure 49. "It won't be difficult for people to do what they want to do."
Richmond, a founder and former executive director of the conservation-leaning 1000 Friends of Oregon, said a lack of "transferability" has blocked construction of Measure 37 claims. Measure 49, by contrast, allows development rights to be transferred to surviving spouses and new owners and specifically helps small-scale builders, he said.
He and other supporters believe Measure 49 accomplishes what voters thought they were getting when they passed Measure 37 three years ago.
The original measure, sponsored by Hunnicutt's Oregonians in Action, allowed property owners to seek compensation or a waiver from land-use rules if regulations imposed after they bought their property restricted its use and reduced its value.
What followed, however, was a flood of claims to build large subdivisions, shopping malls, resorts, mines and other industrial and commercial development, most of it on rural farm and forest land. The 2007 Legislature wrote Measure 49 in response, and referred it to voters on a party-line vote. Democrats favored it; Republicans opposed it. [imagine that!!]
The Measure 49 rhetoric has heated up this week. The Yes on 49 campaign group issued a news release saying recent television commercials opposing the measure contain five "misleading and false" statements.[GASP!! Republicans lying?! OMG!! I've never heard of such slander!]
Among them is a claim that legislators did not hold public hearings on the bill that became Measure 49. Supporters said a legislative committee held nine public hearings on reforming Measure 37 and that 369 people testified.
Meanwhile, Hunnicutt of Oregonians in Action said Measure 49 supporters cloud the issue by using stark portrayals of subdivisions popping up on prime farmland.
Hunnicutt noted that a subdivision is defined as four or more lots. But an 80-acre property divided into four 20-acre parcels, with a home on each, probably would not be viewed as a crowded subdivision by most people, he said. [HA Haaa! What a creepy lying Piece Of SHIT! Please Bush! Save me from your lying rat bastard followers!]
"That shows what happens when you use a loaded term," he said. According to a ballot explanation written by legislators, Measure 49 would allow claimants to build one to three homes on a fast-track basis. "There is no fee for these claims, and the expectation is that in most cases little or no additional information will be needed from the claimant," according to a summary of the measure prepared by the state attorney general's office. The AG's office provided a section-by-section summary to the Legislature in April 2007.
The total number of home sites allowed under that process would be three. If a property owner already had a house on the land, he or she could develop two more home sites.
Claimants could build four to 10 homesites if an appraisal shows land-use regulations reduced the fair market value of their property, and that the amount of the loss is equal to or greater than the value of the homesites the claimant wants to build. Again, existing homes on the property would count toward the total allowed.
Development on high-value farm or forest land, or in areas where groundwater is limited, would be limited to three homes. Claimants who filed for larger developments may amend their claims to the one-to-three home category in order to get fast-track treatment. Otherwise, they would have about six months to submit an appraisal.
Under the measure, claimants who filed for larger subdivisions might be able to proceed if they have spent enough money to be "vested" in the project. At the encouragement of Oregonians in Action, many property owners are drilling wells, putting in septic tanks, building roads or doing other site work in advance of the vote. People on both sides say the legal definition of "vested" is unclear, however.
Industrial and commercial development would not be allowed. Claims involving property inside urban growth boundaries would be treated differently: Property owners would be allowed to build one to 10 single-family homes if they meet a series of conditions, including showing that land-use regulations decreased the fair market value of the property.
Eric Mortenson; 503-294-7636; ericmortenson@news.oregonian.com For environment news, go to http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen
====
OK you redneck, indbred, cowtippin, lying republican Hillbillies. How many times do you have to read this before you finally quit whining? If you're against 49 then you are:
- FOR large industrial and commercial development
- FOR building on Limited Groundwater areas
- FOR building on Forest Land
- FOR building strip malls, strip mines, Orange County type subdivisions and even dog food factories on EXCLUSIVE FARM USE LAND.
Putting it bluntly... how much money do you guys get in your pocket by turning Oregon's farm and forest land into nothing but Ward Cleaver homes as far as they eye can see? As long as you bastards get your money, that's all you care about.
Gasp! Batman... you're swearing! You're not supposed to sw...
Yeah whatever. Neocons do everything they can to invalidate people who, godforbid, get uppity and in their face. The only thing that keeps me from jumping down their throat is their vile halitosis.
Welcome to life if 49 fails! Goooo Suburbia! Ra Ra Ra!
1 comment:
Just what I needed, thanks a lot.
Post a Comment