Push Poll by Measure 37 Opponents Flawed

The following is a press release from Measure 37 Claimants for Fairness. 2-13-07. www.M37Fairness.org

In an effort to advance their goal of repealing Measure 37, the chief opponent of the property rights measure, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, is touting a poll that at best is skewed and can more accurately be described as a political “push poll.” The group submitted their poll to the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness last Thursday. Review of the polling questions reveals loaded language and apparent attempt to sway respondents’ opinions by withholding information that would provide a balanced perspective.

The poll uses loaded language in their first question as a way to influence responses to the second question. The first question includes phrases like “big development projects”, “hurt neighbors and the community”, “greedy grab by developers and timber companies,” and “voters were sold a bill of goods.” Only after introducing these loaded phrases to the respondent does the poll then ask whether they would support or oppose repeal.

“The structure is a classic push poll,” said Jim Zupancic, of Measure 37 Claimants for Fairness. “Introduce the loaded language before you ask their opinion.”

Finally, the poll as distributed to the Committee provides no specifics on the geography, party registration or demographics, such as gender and age, of the respondents. “You can’t evaluate the poll without knowing whether the respondents were a fair cross-section of Oregon voters,” Zupancic added.

“Legislators should be wary about basing perceptions on push polling,” Zupancic said. “They should base it on the fact that 61 percent of Oregonians voted for Measure 37 and that people who have filed claims deserve to have legislators respect their rights.”

Measure 37 Claimants for Fairness plays a unique role in the Measure 37 debate. The Association does not take a position on the merits of any specific claim, but will pursue its primary mission to support and defend the current law as passed by an overwhelming majority of Oregonians.

To learn more, please contact Jim Zupancic at 503.277.9906 and visit the Association’s website at www.M37Fairness.org. – 30 –

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

Posted by at 07:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 18 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Captain_Anon

    I’d like to actually see the poll questions. Jim, why dont’ you post the poll here so we can all be informed of what the questions are so we can form our own opinions rather than take yours, a biased one at that, at face value.

    I think that “Greedy grab” is certainly loaded. however, i don’t believe that calling out ‘big development projects” is biased because a large number of the projects are in fact big, if not huge. calling out timber companies and developers also is appropriate as that is where a good chunk of the concern of the measure is stemming from. and those big developes would impact communities and neighbors, which is where much of the outcry is coming from. Just look at Hood River. but, it’s impossible to tell what the poll really is saying, or pushing, without seeing the poll in ites entirity. which was ironically (or not) left out of this post.

  • Ben

    “Greedy grab” is deliberatley loaded,
    “big development projects” is biased, because proportianality matters. I give most of them a big so what. As in what’s the problem? Many of the “big devlopments” subsidized by our planning world are nothing but “greedy grabs”. In the case of M37 claims virtually all of so called “big developments” are harmless and they need no public subsidy.
    “calling out timber companies and developers” is biased as that is where a good chunk of the concocted concerrn of the measure is stemming from. Those “big developments” would hardly impact communities and neighbors at all. This fear is baseless.
    The planners are ore adversely effecting neighborhoods and communities than any M37 claim will.
    The anti-M37 lies just never stop. They started with the campaign against the measure claiming the cost would be $5 BILLION to the state. “Outcry”? I got your outcry. Shut up!
    “Just look at Hood River” ??? Yes and wine country.,,, so what.
    Go look at it. Go look at where some development may happen and the foot print it will make. It’s nothing,,,nothing,,,nothing.

    • Captain_Anon

      I’m not sure where you’re hostility towards me is coming from bro.

      yes, proportionality matters. so, you take an area where it’s one home per 10-acres on average and then toss in 200 more homes in 200 acres, and it’s a big increase in density. the reason big development is an appropriate term is because it describes the concerns that people are having – many of them who voted for the measure. Hood river is a good example where a majority of people supported M37 but now are concerned with the outcome of it as the land divisions are directly along side farms and forest. consider that each home averages 10-trips a day according to the trip generation manuals. a 200 home development will generate on average an additional 2000 trips. that’s a huge impact. that’s darn near a small wal-mart’s worth of traffic. the timber company (i don’t remember the name of it) that filed a claim for 10,000 acres could generate an additional 100,000 car trips. the roads out there are NOT made for that type of traffic. so yes, people have a legitimate concern about these claims. i whole heartidly believe that a good chunk of those who voted for M37 had no idea claims such as that would even be in the equation. they were wanting to support the farmers who wanted to put a couple homes on thier property for kids, or for retirement. i doubt that most of them understood, or knew, that people will a couple hundred acres would try to fill those acres with subdivisions and roads. there is substantial impact of the proposed development. water usage. they will tap into the local aquafer – potentially using water necessary for agriculture. the septic systems they will require (can’t extend sewer outside of a UGB) could impact the water quality of the area. run off from all the roofs, driveways, and roads has to be dealt with somehow and somewhere. there could be potential flooding and drainage issues associated with the large development. so, there are definitely impacts to neighborhoods and neighbors.

      as far as the $5 billion. i don’t care about that. i don’t know if the cost is near that, over it, under it, or how they even came up with the number. i think such numbers are very difficult to calculate. but i think it’s fair to calculate the cost in staff time, legal fees (remember, there are tons of bogus claimaints who are suing and wasting our money), road improvements, utility improvements etc that are and will be needed. it’s not cheap to provide services. and study after study show that new residential development does not pay for the services it requires.

      people who live near these claims have valid concerns – both financially and in terms of livability

  • Ben

    ” land divisions are directly along side farms and forest”

    Oh the horror!!

    Along side? So what? Do you know where that comes from?
    Metro. That’s what they and other planners tell people who don;t like the density crammed into their neighborhood.

    What youare desribing is nothing. Loose knit development which will have to follow all sorts of regs and get no subsidy like Metro and planners world crap.

    10-trips here 10 trip there ,,,,save that rehtoric for a planners hearing.
    “huge impact”? Baloney.
    and look here “wal-mart’s worth of traffic” now that sums up your agenda doesn’t it.
    An agenda I’m sick of.

    “A timber company filed a claim for 10,000 acres”
    so what,, you don’t have the slightest idea what that claim will lead to.
    100,000 trips??? Bullshit, the I-5 columbia bridge has 125,000 a day.
    See how full of crap you are.

    “The roads out there are NOT made for that type of traffic”
    Really? What about the roads every where else,,like here in the Metro area? Were they made for the traffic Metro has dumped on them. Of course not. But, they call it “smart growth” around here, so it doesn’t matter, right?
    I whole heartidly believe you are a biased hack blathering out every dishonest anti-M37 talking point.
    None of the devlopment you talk about would be allowed to impact any way you claim. Not taking all the drinking water, not spoiling ground water, not leaching septic systems, not from run off, not by flooding, All of those must be mitigated with every development. M37 or not.
    You are a 1000 Friends of Oregon liar.

    The impacts to neighborhoods and neighbors you speak of is total fabrication and distortion.
    You are unethical.

    As far as the $5 billion,,, “you don’t care about that” because it was a previous 1000 Friends lie. One you know doubt told yourself during the campaign.”

    “staff time” big deal it’s peanuts, and they have no problem wasting tax payers money most of the time anyway.
    “(remember, there are tons of bogus claimaints who are suing and wasting our money)”

    What a whopper! Are you addicted to lying?

    “road improvements, utility improvements etc that are and will be needed. it’s not cheap to provide services”

    That’s why developers outside the Smart growth cabal are required to pay for all of them plus fees for the systems.

    Study after study show that Smart growth, forced density never pays for itself. New residential development DOES pay for the services it requires.
    You are a liar.
    Virtually every single subdivison in this state has been required to pay for the things you lie about. Show me the subdivision the taxpayers help fund streets for? I’ll show you plenty of the planners
    boondoggles that took millions. South Waterfront, Beaverton Round, Villlebois, Cascade Station, every TOD, Orenco Staion, Gresham Station, on and on and on.

    The people who live near M37 have been misled by the likes of YOU, one of the 1000 liars.

  • Ben

    I’m pretty sure where your 1000 Friends lying hostility comes from.
    Too much pot.

  • Jerry

    This Capt.Anon guy is a nut case – plain and simple. Nothing is wrong with big developments or small developments. Follow the law as it is written. If you don’t like it – change it – and if the roads get too crowded you move. It is as simple as that.

    • Brian

      Oh, you mean fix it like the legislature is currently doing? you’re so right! we don’t like it, and it’s going to get fixed.

  • Major Anon

    “Capt. Anon” is a 19 yr old college student parroting back the crap he’s hearing from the activist crowd at PSU.

  • J Johns

    1000 Friends of Oregons are no friends of Oregon.

  • deborah


  • Captain_Anon

    ben, you should change your name to captian bitter. it would better suit your tirades and rants. i’d like to see the data that supports your assertions. such as your dismissing the traffic counts and impacts? the tax revenue from residential devlepment as opposed to the cost of service? you don’t care about how much time staff puts into claims? i wonder if you would feel the same if your application for a house were on hold because staff had to put their time into Measure 37 claims? are you aware that state law only allows jurisdictions to require fees on 5 (I believe is the number) types of impacts rather than all the true costs associated with new development? developers don’t pay most of the necessary infrastructure. that’s why Pleasant valley has been sitting there undeveloped precisely because the developers are demanding the city pay for roads, sewer, utilities and yet they have no money to do so. rather than yell your ridicules at me about how a home doesn’t generate an averate of 10 trips a day, why don’t you do some research and come back and show us where it doesn’t? that would be the ‘ethical’ thing to do. you know, have data and numbers to support your rants. yeah, roads in the rural areas aren’t made to handle the kind of traffic i discussed. they are narrower, don’t have as much right-of-way for shoulders, sight lines, appropriate access points for existing driveways etc.

    and it does matter where homes are in relation to farms or timber operations. there are significant impacts – such as spraying, noise from equipment, vehicles and falling trees. impacts to how a harvester actually brings a tree down. the smell of burning the fields etc. all those negative externalities of farm and forest operations impact residential development. and those residents often file complaints or lawsuits against farmers. so that’s an added expense to the farmers for bogus actions against them. do you know any actual farmers? and i dont’ mean hobby farmers.

    the sad thing is your so closeminded, you can’t hear or see facts that are out there and how they impact the neighbors, neighborhoods, development or tax payers. you won’t even look into the validity of the numbers and data i’ve given. rather, you yell liar liar pants on fire and choose to remain ignorant. if you want any of your arguments to have any pull on anyone and to actually make a difference, find out some facts. empty opinions don’t sway legislators. facts do. “Data don’t lie”

    oh yeah, i’ve never done pot or any other illegal drug. i’m clean as a whistle

  • Ben

    You have proven youself a liar so many times over it’s rediculous.
    You haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about.
    You know nothing about what residential “subdivision” must pay for and you are a moron as well as a liar when it comes to M37.

    I am certainly not going to walk you from kindergarten through land development, M37 and the countless regulations M37 leaves intact to protect against impacts you lie about.
    Grow up and do your own homework and you will discover what a pack of liars 1000 friends are. And that they have you lying too.

    Let’s try a little experiment on your noggin.
    Try and pay attention. Focus.
    Not only will none of the M37 development you talk impact any way you claim regarding drinking water, ground water, septic systems, run off or flooding but non-M37 devlopement doesn’t either.

    Do you know why? Because you can’t even get a permit without specific and complaint means to handle all of those concerns.
    M37 does not waive any of those requirements.
    M37 does not waive any of those requirements.
    M37 does not waive any of those requirements.

    If it did you would see property owners and developers of land inside the UGB and fullly dividable using it to waive those costly runoff and environmental regs.

    Do you understand that?
    Can you understand what liars 1000 friends are.
    They have been telling people M37 will result in all sorts of
    poisening of neighboring properties.
    Even though M37 does not waive ANY regs protecting runnoff and other impacts.

    Your worst problem is like all the rest of the 1000 liars.
    You can’t point to a single M37 development that has adversely impacted a neighboring property. Not one.
    Then you’ll come back with, “there hasn’t been time, thankfully”
    So 7000 claims and not one prediction has come through YET M37 yet M37 is flawed and a distaster.
    It’s not flawed at all as shown my our Oregon Supreme Court upholding it.
    It hasn’t cost hardly anything to process despite your comical notions about staff and “waiting house permits”. What a concocted bunch of BS. Is it any surprise municipallities make this pitch and wither as if they are overwhelmed. Every one of them and the league of oregon cities, and association of oregon counties opposed M37. What a bunch of commies. Yeah you read that right.
    So go flush your “data”.
    You are lying lying lying pal.

    • Captain_Anon

      Were you drinking when you wrote this? seriously.

  • Ben

    No, but if you keep drinking that 1000 friends coolaid you won’t bother learning anything.

    But as with the rest of your cult, all you need is provide a single example of your M37 claims.
    Or even simply describe for us how ANY M37 development WIL get around any of the runoff, ground water, flooding, septic regs or other zoning regs.
    Better yet, why don’t you explain why M37 foes have no objection to the horrible crammed together, government planned and often directy subsidized devlopement that we all see every day?

  • deborah


  • Ben

    Then it isn’t their property. They should have bought long ago.
    Many? I doubt it.
    If the land is so expensive that a farmer loses his lease then the land must be located somewhere that makes it expensive and good for other uses.
    So what.
    Do you think M37 starvation is near?

    Do you think the government should control the land and force owners to permantently lease at controled rates?

    Now watch what happens here folks,,,,,,,,

    You say there’s many,,,
    I’ll bet you can’t or won’t share a sinlge example of a farm shut down soley as a reult of M37.

    Just one example?

    Now watch what happens here folks,,,,,,

  • deborah

    ben, you poor soul, you sound very angry. i wouldn’t name farmers names. i live on a old 1890’s homestead, my farmer that leases my land will be effected negatively. several other farmer friends from the silverton area have serious concerns. thank God this measure has been put on hold.
    the cost of measure 37 in the courts alone will cost tax payers money.

    corruption is another problem. developers are contacting land owners telling them to file for measure 37 claims and they will develope the land for them.

    another big problem with the measure is that it is a form of blackmail. we all know the gov’t doesn’t have the money to pay the claims. just that fact alone make this measure flawed.

    once our farm land is developed, there is no turning back.

    goodbye ben.

  • Ben

    I’m not angry,,, I’m sick of the misinformation and lies regarding M37. It hasn’t resulted in squat yet. But that don’t matter. The opponents declared it broken before it passed. The Judge James retarded the law the make it broken, then the Oregon Supreme Court fixed it.
    There is nothing
    Of course several farmers “have concerns”. Considering what they are being told.

    “once our farm land is developed, there is no turning back”

    No one is forcing you to develop your farmland.
    Or anyone else. Farm away. Let me know when someone pulls up there and tries to stop you. I’ll come down there and lend you a hand.

    “Corruption” is developers calling land owners?
    Wow, you poor soul deborah.
    There’s no blackmail. But the assinine land use laws were stealing plain and simple.

    You can’t point to a single parcel M37 has casued development on.
    Not one.
    So there are “Concerns”. Big deal. All of the crippling land use laws were far worse than “concerns”.
    If you take a simple look at the 1000s of M37 claims, actually read them, you’ll find, wioth little exception, they are completely harmless IF and when they ever lead to the prescribed development in the claim.
    And 1 house on a 10 acre parcel doesn’t mean the 10 acres is lost.
    Likewise a rural 100 acre subdivison of 5 acre parcels won’t mean 100 acres is lost forever. It means there will be a house on each parcel.
    So chill baby and keep on a farming. Lighten up your neighbors too. If they have developers banmging on their door to pay big for their land they can make out well or tell them to go away.


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)