Rep. Dennis Richardson: Measure 49 deception

Measure 49″”The Dark Politics of Public Deception
By State Representative Dennis Richardson

I was taught as a boy to play fair. We all were. Sometimes when we grow up, we bend the rules as far as possible to get what we want, even at the price of fairness, honesty and integrity. Certainly such temptation exists in politics and we have only to look at Measure 49 to prove it.

Ballot Measure 49 has a Ballot Title that states: “MODIFIES MEASURE 37; CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD HOMES; LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS; PROTECTS FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER. Such Ballot Titles are generally required to be written so they are neutral and accurate.

The truth about Measure 49 has now been publicly exposed, and, regardless of how you feel about Measure 37, the story of the manipulation and abuse of power used to place Measure 49 on the November ballot is an embarrassment to Oregon and a blow to citizen confidence in our State government. Consider the following:

Willamette Week’s October 11, 2007 article, “Truth And Consequences — Nothing Was Finer for Measure 49ers Than Their Unusual Path to the Ballot,” by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Nigel Jaquiss courageously sets forth the intrigue and collusion used to stack the deck against proponents of Measure 37. Private emails produced in a recent law suit have disclosed Oregon State officials and 1000 Friends of Oregon representatives carefully crafting the language of Measure 49’s Ballot Title and Explanation, then passed House Bill 2640 which circumvented all laws that ensure Oregon voters get fair and balanced Ballot Titles and Explanations to use when deciding how they should vote on a Referral from the Legislature.

It is now revealed that Oregon’s AFL-CIO Union President Tim Nesbitt (who Governor Kulongoski made a “Deputy Chief of Staff” shortly after the union helped ensure the Governor’s re-election in 2006), used the “Governor’s Opportunity PAC” money to conduct polls, hire consultants and determine what wording would encourage voters to vote for a ballot measure that would rewrite Measure 37 and effectively restore Oregon’s pre-Measure 37 land use laws. The results became Measure 49 by circumventing all protections voters usually have to ensure fairness and neutrality.

The Willamette Week’s article discloses how Nesbitt performed his subterfuge in collaboration with Bob Stacey, Director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, who “wanted to make sure any prospective ballot title would reflect proponents’ views, rather than neutrality.” One email Stacey wrote to Nesbitt states:

“This is exactly what I’ve hoped would happen: you pick the best people to draft the title for the measure the legislature refers out and don’t leave it to chance or Legislative Counsel”

From the article it appears Nesbitt and Stacy organized a team of pollsters, consultants and lawyers who conducted polls and focus groups to determine the precise language needed to obtain a “YES” vote from confused voters who would think they were voting to “fix” Measure 37, when, in essence, they would be removing its key provisions and retaining the very land use problems Measure 37 was intended to correct.

Jaquiss’ article goes on to state:

“The group tested ballot language in March and April to determine which words would have the greatest chance of overturning Measure 37. Nesbitt says the focus groups and polling provided information about exactly how voters felt about Measure 37 and how they would like to see it fixed. “Proponents also discussed other strategies such as deliberately making the ballot summary so long that county elections officers would leave it out of the Voters’ Pamphlet, leaving voters with only the carefully chosen ballot title to consider. “I don’t see huge advantages to the words added to the summary to expand it,” Measure 49 campaign strategist Liz Kaufman wrote in a June 6 email to Nesbitt and Stacey. “I realize that was done in order to try to make it so long that counties won’t print it, but it doesn’t seem to add much value through it’s [sic] actual meaning.” (Proponents ultimately shaved the summary down to 125 words).

“They also debated how neutral the measure’s explanatory statement should be. In a June 6 email to Land Use Conservation and Development Commission director Lane Shetterly, Rep. Greg Macpherson (D-Lake Oswego) and Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene), Nesbitt wrote, “We should decide if you want to bypass the process for an Explanatory Statement Committee and draft our own Explanatory Statement as well. I would argue against doing anything differently with the Explanatory Statement process, since that is explicitly provided for both initiatives and referrals and allows for input from both proponents and opponents.”

“Ultimately, legislators ignored Nesbitt’s advice. On June 25, the same day they referred Measure 49 to voters, lawmakers passed House Bill 2640 sending a pre-selected ballot title, summary and fiscal impact statement directly to the voters. HB 2640 passed the Democratically controlled Legislature on a party line vote.”

So what is the truth about Measure 49?

Measure 49 is sold as creating an “express lane” for approving 3 homes and in other circumstances up to 10 homes for those landowners who have been deprived of land use rights and values by government land use laws. In reality, complying with Measure 49 requirements are so burdensome, time-consuming and expensive that few landowners will ever be able to qualify it the measure’s provisions.

For instance, the three-home “express lane” approval process applies only to certain locations, such as land outside Urban Growth Boundaries. A maximum of three dwellings could qualify for any land designated as “high-value farm or high-value forest land.” On the surface such a designation may sound reasonable, but the definitions of Measure 49 Article 2 sub-paragraph (10) expand those terms to include most of the Rogue Valley, Umpqua Valley and Willamette Valley””approximately 85% of Oregon’s population.

Even those Oregon property owners who might be able to qualify for three homes (note the three-home-approval includes any residences already existing on the property), will rarely qualify for actual approval of their claims. Measure 49 requires the landowner to overcome 6 important hurdles before qualifying for approval of the claim. One of the hurdles is almost insurmountable.

Section 6 states: “”¦to qualify for a home site approval under this section the claimant must establish that: (d) One or more land regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling.” (Underlining added.)

Note, the actual approval hinges on whether or not the landowner was “prevented” and not merely “restricted” from building on the property by land use laws enacted since the property was obtained. Measure 37 used the word “restricted.” Measure 49 uses the word “prevented.” What a difference changing a single word can make. Thus, if a farmer lost the right to build a farm house because a subsequently imposed rule requires his farm must produce $80,000, he would not qualify under Measure 49. The $80,000 rule is merely a “restriction” on building a home, but does not “prohibit” building the home. Oregon land use laws have many restrictions and few prohibitions.

For those landowners who live in the Rogue Valley, Willamette Valley or other Oregon population centers, different rule apply. The bold print of Measure 49 would grant permission to build up to 10 homes. The fine print in Measure 49 makes qualifying almost impossible for Oregon landowners, for the following reasons:

First, such a landowner must have already filed a Measure 37 claim or filing a Measure 49 claim is prohibited.

Second, the landowner must obtain and pay for two formal appraisals””one based on the theoretical value of the land the year before the restriction was imposed and one based on the theoretical value of the land a year following the land use restriction.

Third, the landowner must obtain and pay for two such appraisals for every land use restriction that could prevent the building of homes on the land””often there are multiple restrictions on a single piece of property.

Fourth, the landowner must pay for the government’s costs to process the claim, including, but not limited to its review of the landowner’s multiple appraisals, the appraisals submitted by opponents of the landowner’s claim, and the government’s own appraisals.

Fifth, computations are to be based on the interest rates of a specified form of Treasury Bills, notwithstanding the fact that such T. Bill have not been issued since 2001.

Sixth, the landowner must be willing to fight and pay the litigation expenses to defend his or her claim against any person or organization that wants to challenge the claim in court. Measure 37 enable the landowner to recover its litigation expenses if the landowner prevailed. Measure 49 changes the law and denies the landowner the right to recover such costs.

Seventh, notwithstanding use of the term “Express Lane,” the government has no firm time limits on how long it can take to process the landowners’ claims. Since most folks who have owned property long enough to qualify for a Measure 49 claim are elderly, just dragging out the process for years can prevent a senior landowner from qualifying under Measure 49.

Finally, Measure 49 excludes all claims if there was any possible use for the property that was worth more than “residential use.” Section 7 sub-paragraph (8) states: “Relief may not be granted under this section if the highest and best use of the property was not residential use at the time the land use regulation was enacted.” (Emphasis added.)

Essentially, subparagraph (8) states that if there was some possible use for a landowner’s acreage that would have made that landowner’s property worth more that it was worth as a residence at the time land use law changes deprived the landowner from being able to build a dwelling, then that landowner will have no Measure 37 rights whatsoever.

I called a former County Attorney who is an expert in land use issues. I asked the following question:

“If a rural landowner needed to know what options were available to meet the definition of “˜highest and best non-residential use’ for his rural acreage, what uses would be on the list?”

Off the top of his head he gave me the following:
– Golf course
– Cemetery
– Aggregate mine (sand and gravel)
– Rural commercial gas station, convenience store, etc.
– Wine Tasting Room (under certain circumstances)
– School
– Church (If more than 3 miles beyond UGB)
– Recreational Park (fishing ponds, hunting, mountain biking)
– Ecological Park
– Animal Reserve
– Dog kennel
– Shooting Range
– Privately Owned Campground (under certain circumstances)
– Resort
– Landing Strip for private aircraft
– Horse Stables
– Domestic Plant Nursery

Measure 49 is a bill being sold as a solution, while delivering nothing but more expense, delay and broken promises to Oregon citizens.

In conclusion, the collusion, manipulation and deception inherent in drafting Ballot Measure 49 is an abuse of governmental power. It is one thing to fight against Measure 37 if you are one of the 39% who voted against it, but it is an entirely different matter to manipulate the system in an overt attempt to mislead Oregon voters with a biased, one-sided distortion of the truth in order to accomplish your political agenda.

Measure 49 violates the fundamental democratic principle of fairness. Every citizen who values honesty in government should vote against Measure 49. Regardless of how they might feel about Measure 37, Voting NO on Measure 49 is a statement against dirty politics. Defeating Measure 49 would force those who have attempted to abuse their political power to go back to the Legislature and craft a Measure 37 compromise using the political system as it was designed to operate. As one liberal blogger put it, “If they can’t win the vote with the truth perhaps they should not win.”

One final thought. For those who would like to see a comparison of Measure 49 and Measure 37, see Portland attorney James D. Zupancic’s click here for a detailed chart.


Dennis Richardson
State Representative

  • Richard

    I think it is also very important to always include the realities of M37 itself.
    M37 claims are relaitvely few and do NOT keep coming till parts of Oregon are paved over. The paving over is impossible.
    Every M37 claim will face many additional layers of development and building requirements like every current development.
    So there is no M37 green light to do anything on any M37 parcel.
    With deadlines passed and few additional claims expected to be filed, or approved, Oregon’s landscapes, forests , farms and extensive land use systems are NOT at ANY risk of loss.
    There is not a single, regional, county or municipal land use system which M37 overrides.

    It is also VERY important for Oregonians to consider that in stark contrast to the real world insignificance and limitations of M37 our land use planning arena has an unlimited ability to thrust upon our communities an endless stream of the overcrowding type of development all of us have been witnessing for decades.
    The real threat to Oregon’s cities and rural communities is more of the same from those attacking M37.

    • George Forsman

      Thank you sir. I’m a M37 claimant who had his RAI zoning removed from my 60 acre farm back in 1974 or 75, as I recall. I was not notified of the change in zoning until about 1979, at which time the County attempted to put EFU 40 on my farm. This would have prevented me to subdivide my farm. Prior to the hearing for this zone change, I immediately subdivided my farm into 3-20 acre parcels. At that time, the the average lot size of Section 36, where my farm is located had an average lot soze of 10.2 per lot. With my subdivision, this average lot size was reduced to 9.9 acres per lot. Over the years, Section 36 continued to be developed because of the County allowing the subdiviion of smaller lot sizes; wheras, I was denied this in 1991, where I applied for a minor partition to create 2 addition lots on one of my 20 acre parcels.

      The sad thing about this whole affair of SB100. It was built on a stack of lies. They never protected the “Prime” farm land as deignated by USSCS; nor did they compensate the property owners for the adverse zoning. Had they done so, we would not be where we are today.

      When LCDC asked the Counties to designate their zoning of EFU, there were no definitions as to what contitiuted “High Value.” As an officer of CANDO(Canby Atrea, Neighborhood Development Organization) I visited the Clackamas County Planning Department to see how they were zoning out the County. Our Neighborhood Organization was never brought into the method being used to zone in the 16 sq. miles controlled by CANDO surrounding Canby.I was shown some of the process being used where they were relying on some archaic maps with color coding designating “Parks,” “Farmland,” etc. When I asked what their basis was for establishing the difference between EFU 20 verses EFU 40 or GAD zoning they would not tell me. REASON BEING THEY WERE MAKING UP THE RULES AS THEY WENT ALONG.

      In 1985, the USSCS issued their soils maps, depicting the actual soils. Upon reciept of this information, the LCDC had the counties list the soils for all farm land having EFU designations. Hence swamp land and marginal farm land (where septic approval would be denied) are now defined as “High Value” farm land.

      In the meantime, our real “High Value” farmland are being destroyed with dense housing in Washington County. Prior to 1970, Washington County was the high producing county in Oregon, followed by Marion and Clackamas counties. Now Washington County has slipped to #3, due the removal of “Prime” farmland into housing. I’ve talked to many Survey and Planning engineers, who have stated that some of our best farmlands having top soil depths exceeding 8 ft are being developed into housing; while our most marginal farmlands, like mine, with top solil depths of 12 inches and less are being retained for future farming. What a laugh. It would be easier to make silk out of a sows ear; than make swamp land into “Prime” farm land. This typical of the incompetance of the State and County planners. They have no concept of what they are doing. And franfly, don’t give a damned.

      Should M49 pass in November, there will be no houses built for several reasons. First of all, I believe that M49 will be held up in court much like M37 based on constitutional grounds. Secondly, the present legislature will not attempt to correct their deficiencies as you have addressed; but rather wait out the courts. Thirdly, M37 cliamants will have 90 days to file their M49 claim from the time they get the LCDC to issue the rules and costs to process M49 (failure to meet this deadline cansels out your M49 claim). Fourthly, M37 will be blocked by the courts until M49 is ruled as a “go” by the courts, which will most likely be 3-4 years from now. In the meantime, more M37 claimants will have died making their claims valueless. Fifthly, the legal problems resting in the wording of M49 are so nebulous. i.e. interest rate computations, loss of value, appraisal methods, court costs, frivulous law suits, etc. This will take more years to resolve by the courts while our elected and gutless sleazy elected officals take indirect payoffs from their radical base. Thus twarting our constitution and ethics which is the basis of our Fairness Doctrine. This will be just the tip of the law suits, based on what I read.

      We already know that the “Big Look” committee created by Gov. Klongoski will be dispensed, for the moment until after the Nov. election. And if M49 passes, it will be abolished. And if M49 fails, the committee will be re-organized so that more members, as recommended by Thw 1000 “Fiends” of Orgon can control the out- put of this committee.

      As for me, I suspect that I will not wait for all of these legal law suits to be settled. I most likely is sell off my farm; and get out of the State. A State where my grandfather homesteaded; my father farmed and sold his farm to the devloper of King City; and where many of my uncles farmed and died in Oregon, and never had to deal with LCDC. .

      In fact, I think that Oregon ought to rename itself. “The Peoples Republic of Oregon.” Thus alerting those radical “Do-Gooders” where they will be welcomed, as they come pouring into Oregon. Thus alerting others to the unwritten power that the State has over all of our property rights.

      Tell me if this isn’t true?

  • Peter Bray

    It’s pretty funny that this guy argues to “play fair” but then links to a document by hard-core M37 supporter Zupancic that is titled as an “unbiased comparison”. Please.

  • Richard

    The co-author is a democrat.
    Peter, your judgement is obvioulsy of the most bias, extreme and dishonest.

  • Richard

    Unlike your hard core M37 opponent democrats in the legislature who got Zero Republicans to vote for their M49 repeal of M37.

  • Anonymous

    Bray – the sound made by a jackass.

  • Richard

    Bray not even interested in the Zunpacic R./Faricy D. comparison because he knows M49 was produced to nuetralize M37.
    He, Mary Kitch, the Oregonian and the rest of the bunch have reached a new level of deceit in their misrepresentations of M37 and M49.

    M37 doesn’t risk all of our farming assets as Mary claimed in her Sunday, two page, propaganda piece.
    And M49 is not a fix for that deceitful mischaracterization of M37.

  • dewey

    If Measure 49 passes (which of course no one knows at this point), and is subject to litigation (as is virtually certain), courts will look to legislative intent to make decisions on the meaning of the new law.

    As Rep. Richardson knows, the intent of the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness (which included a number of Republicans, including Senator Larry George, until they decided as a group to voluntarily withdraw from the Committee’s deliberations and boycott the outcome) was to provide for rapid processing of small claimants (up to three houses where they were allowed before land use rules came into effect) and more process-intensive approval of up to 10 houses (where the claimant could prove they lost value as a result of zoning changes and is outside of EFU zoning). Larger subdivisions and rezoning of agricultural and forest land for commercial and industrial use were highly controversial topics throughout the Committee’s deliberations, which included numerous public hearings (now a matter of record) at which hundreds of Oregonians testified. Claims to the contrary (about the lack of public input) ignore the fact that the Republican members of the Committee walked out by their own volition, or rather under the influence of OIA and the leadership of the Party. Anyone who argues this point is engaged in intentional misrepresentation of the facts.

    While the wisdom of the decision of the Republican caucus to pull out of negotiations over Measure 37 will be judged by events yet to unfold, it is very clear that the legislature’s intent was to allow small claimants to proceed unhindered by additional excessive process. That is what courts will look to in interpreting any change in law.

    We can argue about the history of Senate Bill 100, LCDC, and land use policy decisions made by individual County governments over the decades, but the system we have has been in place for a very long time, and thousands of landowners (neigbors) whose rights are affected by Measure 37 claims were essentially ignored in the passage of that law. Their combined property rights dwarf the rights claimed under Measure 37, as should be obvious to anyone who looks at the maps of claims in the Willamette Valley, Hood River County, and other areas with significant claims. And so statements about “stealing” property rights are at best incomplete and at worst intentionally deceptive efforts to mask the unfolding gold rush to develop resource lands that characterizes the Measure 37 process. Anyone who asserts that an unamended Measure 37 will not have a significant impact on Oregon agriculture or on development patterns in the Willamette Valley and beyond is either delusional, or so wedded to an ideological position that they can choose to ignore reality.

  • Richard

    I’;m sorry Dewey but you really could not be more full of it.

    It is very clear that the legislature’s intent was to undermine and nuetrlize as much os M37 as possible while making it appear otherwise. There were no negotiations to be had.
    And justifiably so, not a single Republican voted for M49 either n committee or the full legislative vote.

    I’m sure your concocted notion of “thousands of landowners (neigbors) whose rights are affected by Measure 37 claims” came up in those so-called “negotiations”.
    Your further canard of “combined property rights dwarfing the rights claimed under Measure 37” is surpassed only by your pretense of higher understanding.
    If you do MORE than just look at the prepared “Maps” of claims in the Willamette Valley, Hood River County, and other areas you’ll know how little impact the actual proposed dwellings and infrastucture will have. The bulk of which call for no more than one or a few dwellings on large parcles. So it would be fair to simply remove everyone of them from being blotted out on those COUNTY prepared maps meant to embellish M37 effects.
    But NOOOOO. You want the folks to look at the maps as if all those parcels will be lost if M37 remains.
    NOOO you don’t want voters to be curious enough to look past your rhetoric and intentionally deceptive maps.
    There is no gold rush possible as very few additional claims are possible. And the current ones have NO ability to trigger such an outcome.
    But you use “Gold Rush” to deceive and make the folks think anyone can go stick a M37 stake in the ground and start digging.
    Next thing we know farms are lost to paving, right?
    I assert with proof of the real world type, meaning and number of of claims that an unamended Measure 37 will not have a significant impact on Oregon at all.
    You simply can’t get a grip on the real world and REATIVE insignificance of the M37 claims. There just aren’t that many subdivisions and they do no more to neighboring farms and agriculture than existing developments which co-exist with farming right now, all over the place.
    In fact we can expect far more planner’s plans impacting farming than M37. There’s no limit to what they mandate.
    The planners are working on carving up 5500 acres in Damascus and 800 acres in North Bethany and another 500 acres on Beaverton farm land right now.
    Itis you who are delusional and so wed to the central planning ideology that you echo all of their propaganda.
    Propaganda and policies which call for more overcrowding, higher density seas of asphalt, roofs and concrete versus a little more of the M37 sparse, family friendly, homes with yards Oregon-like living many people want for Oregon.
    Your deceptive rhetoric stands as a road block to Oregonians who prefer the real world M37 scenario.
    Shame on you!

  • Trevor Stewart


    Your style of argument that assaults the integrity and honesty of people posting on sounds alot like that other bully charlie. You need to learn some basic manners. Attack ideas not people or their integrity.

    Trevor Stewart

  • Richard

    Gee Trevor, you must have missed Dewey calling people who disagreed with him “delusional”.
    And you obvioulsy have chosen to avoid commenting on the real world of M37 and instead play some silly games, pretending as though I haven’t extensively attacked the many misguided and dishonest ideas of the Yes on M49 folks.

    Dewey, peddling his nonsensicle “gold rush” scenarion deserves what I gave him. If you try the same sort of deceit I’ll give it to you too.
    Today we have another example of the planning establishment hypocricy. Gresham and Metro approve of an annexation of 157 acres to Persimmon County Club development without any public hearing. Imagine if the exact same thing was a M37 claim.
    It would be cast as risking farming and paving over Gresham.

  • dewey


    I was in Salem testifying during the session and met with numerous lawmakers on several issues (including but not limited to 49, that is) so I actually have some first hand knowledge of what happened, unlike you, apparently.

    Again, there were numerous hearings over Measure 37 and negotiations that lasted for months, literally. If you doubt me perhaps you can contact the Oregon Legislature directly, as there are records of all the hearings. The fact that the Republican members pulled out at the last minute is also not subject to debate – it was reported widely in the media and was obviously a strategy decision, not a random event, unless you would maintain that all members of the Committee with “R” next to their names got the stomach flu and disappeared to the bathroom permanently.

    As to the real world impact of Measure 37 claims already filed and/or approved, are you asserting that if Measure 49 fails property owners will choose not to develop approved claims worth millions of dollars? That makes absolutely no economic (or other) sense at all, and is the reason I chose the word “delusional.” Those of us who actually live in rural Oregon (I assume that you do not, but I may be wrong) actually know and live next to Measure 37 claimaints and have talked to them. We know what their intentions are……and they are not to “sit” on their claims forever and cover their walls with County approval paperwork. To give an example, claims in Hood River County cover 40% of all the orchard land in that area. If even a small percentage of that is converted to non-agricultural uses it will have an enormous negative impact on the ag economy as well as the ability of orchardists to continue farming. Since I am sure you will dispute this, you might want to consider other areas where development pressures have brought an end to agriculture, like many parts of California (no I am NOT from California, thank you). Perhaps that is a good thing in your book. As a farmer, it’s not in mine.

  • Richard

    Like Trevor you apparently can’t read and comprehend.

    So the Republicans recognized the “negotiations” were a railroad and walked. I get that. Pull out of it man.

    So what if there “numerous hearings over Measure 37 and negotiations that lasted for months”
    The predetermined outcome was the undermining of M37 which is why not a single Republican voted for it.
    The fact that the pullout was reported widely in the media yet little mention of the lopsided vote is no suprise either. You have them in your pocket.
    What’s with you? It’s amazing that you so misconstrue what I said.
    I never suggested or asserted that if Measure 49 fails property owners will choose not to develop.

    Quite the contrary. They’ll develop and the impact will be hardly noticeable. No gold rush of devleopment, no paving over, no end of farming.
    I certainly don’t need another pretentious sermon on rural Oregon and M37 claims. I have at least as much familiarity with rural Oregon and M37 claims as you do.
    Where you get the gold rush of devlopment is beyond me. In order for that to be the case there would have to be and uncheked stream of new M37 claims. Wake up, that is not possible.
    Your exagerations on Hood River are just that. 40% of working orchards will not be forced to develope and the local economy won’t be hindered.
    Any orchardists can continue farming.
    I am considering the countless areas where development sits right next to working farms without any pressure. Development resulting from our planning establishment. But you want people to believe M37 development is somehow different.
    This reality is clearly demonstrated by your use “California” instead of Oregon.
    The trouble is if you wander around anywhere in the Oregon you’ll find develeopment right next to fully functioning farms. Of which all of the recent development spawned from our density loving central planners is far more imposing than any M37 claims or planned subdivisions.
    You just can’t be honest about M37 and Oregon. You don’t pay attention, distort what I say, ingore the most germane and use Gold Rush and Californian to scare people.

    Hopefully we’ll see M49 fail with M37 dwellings then proving how wrongheaded and misleading you have been.

  • dewey

    Actually what I said was that 40% of the orchard lands in Hood River County are covered by approved or pending measure 37 claims. Look at the maps.

    I suppose you know more about the impact on farming in Oregon than the County Farm Bureaus in the Willamette Valley, all of which have endorsed 49 and are donating money. They must be allied with those East Coast environmental groups.

    Just met with a third generation Yamhill County farmer (he just left my place). His family has farmed in the Valley since the 1930s, they are active Republicans, and are strong supporters of 49. I suppose they, like their neighbors, are all dupes of a leftist environmental wacko conspiracy to control all private land in Oregon. Wouldn’t it be nice if the world was so simple!

  • Richard

    I knbow exactly what you said. You hardly need to repeat it.
    It’s as much BS as the first time you said it.
    40% of the orchard “lands”? Oh so it isn’t 40% of the orchards?
    Or 40% of the county?
    But 40% of orchard lands are “covered” by approved or pending measure 37 claims?
    What the heck is “covered” supposed to suggest? Are people supposed to think it means covered with development and paving”?
    Of course that would be false.

    Let me guess, you haven’t the slightest idea how much of that so-called 40% will actually be “covered”?

    Of course not. You aren’t even interesated in knowing are you?
    All we need do is “Look at the maps”.

    Are you for real? I’ve looked at the maps and more. I’ve looked at the claims.
    But want people to only look at the maps and mistakenly think all those parcels will be lost. That’s dishonest.

    I have witnessed the impact on farming in Oregon all over the place. I see farms every day next to Metro/planner’s dense development and those farms are fully funcrtioning. They are everywhere in around the UGB and tri-county area. From Hillsboro to Sherwood to Canby, Oregon City, on and on.
    You refuse to address the current farms next to developments.
    And why all those farms have not suffered from the BS yo say M37 will cause.
    Farm groups? East coast environmental groups?
    What a farce.
    I never said anything a leftist environmental wacko conspiracy.
    You don’t want to respond to things I did say so you make up crap I didn’t say.
    Your freinds have probably been listening to you and the rest of the nonstop anti-M37 campaign and think their farm will be paved over. I’m sure you’ve been dishing out much of your nonsense and misrepresentations to them.

    • Captain_Anon

      I call BS on your reading over all the claims. you MIGHT have read a short and piffy paragraph on them, but you haven’t read the claims and seen what it is they propose.

      part of the problem with measure 37 claims is that they are so ambiguous. they just demand to develop 50 houses and don’t give any indication about where they will go or how. so using the parcel the claim is on to determine the amount of land under a Measure 37 claim is accurate. you take the best information available to make a determination.

      as far as fam lands next to urban lands. much of the old farm land has changed to nursery stock because of the pressure on the price of the lands and the low yields crops bring. there has definitely been a change in farming practices on the east side of the portland metro area. while oregon is a right to farm state, that has NOT prevented subdivision folks from making the life of the farmers they live next to hell. lawsuits, harrassment by using the county or sheriff’s office on ‘nuisance’ issues abound.

      • Chris McMullen

        “part of the problem with measure 37 claims is that they are so ambiguous. they just demand to develop 50 houses and don’t give any indication about where they will go”

        Lies “Captain”… all lies. And if you’re not intentionally lying, you’re painfully ignorant of the situation.

        Any development on a M37 claim has to meet county and city regulations and zoning requirements. Go look at Robert Hines blog. There you’ll find him complaining about the county meetings he attended with a M37 claimant.

        Now why would a M37 claimant have to get approval from the county if what you say is true?

  • Jared

    Richardson’s failed to note that OIA’s lawsuit challenging the ballot title was thrown out. The ballot title is legally accurate. Courts have reviewed it.

    So people have to show they lost value due to regulations? Gosh, cry me a river. I didn’t think the taxpayer’s job was to guarantee speculative investments like property.

  • Jared

    Richardson also fans the flames by talking about the T-Bill issue. The Fed calculates the one year T-Bill rate still, even if they don’t issue them. It’s a rate used by lots of people. It’s a ridiculous, specious attack.

    It’s all part of the smoke-and-mirrors to distract voters from the fact that Measure 49 helps small land owners, farms, and water supply and hurts the Republican party’s biggest donors: timber companies and developers.

  • Shep

    OK you’ve shown yourself to be an uninformed nebish.

    So let’s have your take on 911 too.

    Bush knew and the towers were imploded?

  • Jared

    9/11 was an attack by terrorists. Bush didn’t know that it was going to happen.

    What about my posts is uninformed or inaccurate?