Was Measure 37 cheated on last night?

The Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness was anything but “fair” last night, according to one Measure 37 supporter. These evening meetings have been held all Session long (among the longest of any committee), with people predictably being able to sign up for testimony at 4:00. Measure 37 supporters were surprised to find that the sign-up sheet was made available at 3:00, and by their arrival at 4:00 to see the sign-up sheet already filled with several pages of anti-Measure 37 witnesses. It seems that the measure 37 opponents knew of the sign-up sheet change but not the proponents.

If this complaint is as it reads, this represents a horrible scheme to cheat people out of a fair hearing. Is that the only way the liberals can pass laws is by cheating? We earnestly look for an explanation on this developing story.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:56 | Posted in Measure 37 | 15 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • CRAWDUDE

    Is this some kind of revelation to some people? Yes, the only way liberals can pass their ideas is by deceit and cheating. Unfortunately, too many idiots in this state fall for their tired games every election.

    Here’s how it works: They’ll change the good parts of the Measure (any measure), someone will put out an intiative to change their change, the people will vote for the intiative then they will re-elect the same ilk that changed it in the first place, who will then try to change it again. On and on and on……

    As a foot note : Why do you think the liberals are trying so hard to destroy the intiative process? Look above, lol!

  • Bellstar

    This has been an amazing process to watch…it is like a magic show. It was obvious that something wasn’t right when we heard from more opponents. Who do they think they are kidding. It is clear that they don’t care what we think…they don’t care what we voted for. They are going to do what the GOVERNOR has directed them to do. This is the reward of hard working citizens. Our Governor is showing us that if you do right and work hard, purchase property, plan for your retirement….the goverment will reward you by taking what you worked so hard for. He is showing us that you don’t have to work….the goverment will take care of you…you don’t have to plan for your retirement….the goverment will take care of you. It is said state of mind. They do not care about doing the right thing….they care about control. We must remember that it is our GOVERNOR that is giving direction.

  • CRAWDUDE

    Due to corruption: Democracy will always eventually succumb to socialism which will succumb to totalitarianism which eventually succumbs to Democracy.

    When the electorate becomes so complacent and reliant on the government for survival we have passed the Democracy portion of the above.

    The interim time between Democracy and Socialism is time at which you see the “State” consolidating it’s control over evey aspect of the citizens lives. In which part of the above chain of events do you think we are currently experiencing?

  • That is the same slimey trick that metro did a few years ago at one of their public meetings in Tualatin. It even fooled one TV reporter.

    I repeat: SLIMEY. METRO.

    Thanks
    JK

  • Sassy

    I think the pledge of allegance says “I pledge alegance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC …”

    Does anyone really understand what a Republic is anymore?

  • Paul Revere

    Typical Oregon political behavior.

  • Captain_Anon

    This is one of the biggest vicim mentalities i’ve heard of in a long while. Does the sign-up sheet require you to declare what your position is? How do the proponents know that everyone who had already signed up was against Measure 37? by “against Measure 37” do they mean against thier limited view of it? or could someone who supports it but thinks there needs to be some tweeks count as “against measure 37?” this is all so subjective. Could it be the ‘supporters’ of measure 37, as defined by the author didn’t get the memo that it was happening an hour early? or could it be those who were against it where there on other business and saw the sign-up sheet out an hour early? Did an intern place the sign-up sheet out early on accident? or was it a widely known fact it was going out an hour early? Do people think that one meeting, out of MANY, being an hour early will really have a serious impact to the proceedings of the fairness committee? will earth shaking decisions be made out of that ONE meeting out of many? does anyone here exercise critical thinking skills when reading these articles?

  • Jerry

    Capt. buddy – Chill out . The whole point is really that measure 37 passed, for good or bad, and it is the law. Now just leave it be and move on. That is why none of this should even be happening. Period – end of report.

  • CRAWDUDE

    Jerry’s right Capt. regardless of how some people feel about the results of M-37 it was voted on and passed by the Oregon voter. I don’t recall voting for it to be adjusted when the legislature decides it doesn’t like the results.

    If they don’t like parts than submit them to the public in the form of an initiative and let us undo our alleged mistake. All they have to do is come up with a convincing argument.

    As far as missing the memo… I’ve read your posts before and you seem to be an intelligent person, I’m sure you don’t believe anyone missed a memo anymore than I do. 🙂

  • Tiredoffreeloaders

    It will soon be time to rise up and take a stand. “Liberals” are nothing more than socialists that would take your land or anything you worked hard to achieve and redistribute it to the people that won’t work.
    I know I’m just repeating what you have already heard before… How many times do you have to hear it before it sinks in?
    *STAND UP* Before it’s too late.

  • Reality Check

    No, you’re right. Voters didn’t vote for the legislators who might fix some of Measure 37’s outrages. They didn’t vote on the governor.

    Oh, wait. They did.

    And actually, the pro-Measure 37 campaigners said “If there are problems, we can fix them legislatively.”

  • Tom

    Actually, the sign up sheet does ask that you declare what your position is, so it was very easy to see that the first pages of sign- ins were anti measure 37. Those first 50 had a ticket to get into the main committee room where the hearing was being held. Almost every person in there was wearing an anti measure 37 siicker.
    Also, When the pro37 people said “if there are problems, we can fix them legislatively, they meant fix them, not repeal the whole measure which is what some of the proposed amendments do. This can be fixed if “everyone” was willing to compromise, that seems to be the problem, the compromise part.

  • Reality Check

    Which amendment repeals the whole measure?

    And yes, it’s difficult to compromise on such complex issues. I think that for the voters who thought some people get to build their houses would be happy with the Democrats’ effort to compromise. Timber companies aren’t happy with the compromise.

  • Tom

    Amendment 588 actually states that it repeals M37. Amendment 1019 started out just talking about commercial land and then last night the committee proposed a 36 page amendment that literally changes almost every line of M37. It makes every single one of the 7000 claiments reissue their claims (even the ones that were already approved and ready to build on land that met the county and state requirements) and go through a very lengthy process with no time limit for the state to process those claims. And no money alloted to handle the claims process. It will all go through the state (one person will be hired to handle all) and the counties will be kept out of every decision, even the ones they already made. Putting double the work and time and money on both the claimants and the state. Does that sound like a compromise to anyone.

    • Captain_Anon

      *IF* there was an intentional plot to put the signature page our early so only one group could sign-up, that would be a problem, and unfair. However, to look at it realistically, would that one fubar really alter what’s happening? no. They hold hearings twice a week. many people are getting thier opportunity to air thier concerns, one way or the other. the public is highly involved. and that’s good. I’m not convinced at this point that it was an intentional trick. things happen. i’m sure we can all agree to that. poo happens. but, it is what it is and we have to move on because we can’t turn back the clock.

      In my opinion, the measure *WAS* poorly written. so many ambiguities. so many issues weren’t addressed. i don’t believe the writters looked into the fall out. I certainly believe that many who voted for it did not envision what it has become. so i think it’s perfectly fair for the legislators we’ve elected to alter it. It’s not the first time a measure was passed and got tweaked to meet either legal muster or the true intention of the voters. you can’t please all the people all the time. and this is definitely one of those times.

      Measure 37 is already an unfunded mandate – on the compensation side as well as the administrative side. I’m all for making the measure clear – actually addressing transferability. addressing land divisions. addressing rights that go along with claims. the number of claims in court speaks to the need for clarity. just some of the big questions: what is a change in ownership? under corporate law, putting something into an LLC is a change in owenrship. even if the owners of the LLC are the property owners who held the property for 50 years. it’s a clash between land use law and corporate law. it needs to be addressed. what burden of proof is on the applicant? they need to show they own the property and have continuously. but the measure doesn’t say how thats accomplished and when Counties and cities request title histories, owners refuse. so if someone sold the property to thier brother, then bought it back, they changed owernship, but dont’ want that known to the county. or how about if they default on thier taxes and the government has to take ownership? that’s a change in ownership as well. governments need the ability to get the proof to see if a claim is valid.

      Jerry, Crawdude. Your’e right. M37 is the law. but it’s a crappy law that has a million questions. those questions make it very difficult to not only implement it, but to implement it consistently across the state. we need something to make it consistent and predictable. yeah, i don’t like the measure for my own reasons. but i respect the law. and since it is the law, we need to make sure it works properly, which currently it doesn’t. As someone pointed out, the writers of the measure said it could be fixed legislatively. well, that’s what thier doing. if its repealing it and putting a different, fixed version on the books, so be it. if it’s altering the language of the existing measure, fine. as long as the end result is a better functioning product that hits the intention of the voters, good. i realize many of us disagree on what the true intention of the voters means. but, we’re gonna have to live with whatever the legislature or the courts mold it to be.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)