Lars Larson on gravel pits and growing grapes

Let’s talk about gravel pits and growing grapes.

You’re probably getting ready to vote on ballot Measure 49″”whether or not to remove the property rights of Oregonians. Rights they voted for not once but twice.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Hasso Herring, who writes editorials for the Albany Democrat Herald, wrote an excellent one recently. It was a story about a man who wanted to start a gravel pit on his property. The property was well-suited for it and of course gravel is used in all kinds of construction. Without it we don’t build modern society in Oregon or Washington.

So, here’s what happened. He applied for permission. The local authority said “yes” and then the LCDC in its infinite wisdom issued the following opinion, “that his property would be better used for growing grapes than gravel”. Without the permission of the state he could not go forward.

That’s one of the outrages that ballot Measure 37 was supposed to correct. It’s one of the things that won’t get corrected if ballot Measure 49 passes.

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

Posted by at 09:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 5 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • rural resident

    Right on! M37 wasn’t just about Dorothy English. If M49 passes, the pressure will be off the Governor and the Dems to address the ways land use laws reduce local and state revenues, and drive up housing prices. They also are having negative impacts on K-12 education and funding for the Oregon University System. Washington is just as “green” as Oregon, and our northern neighbor manages to provide much more support for education because they have the resources to do so. One reason they have those additional funds is that WA has a more sensible approach to development — especially commercial and industrial. Land use policy is subject to the laws of economics. It’s all about trade offs. Oregon is currently trading off economic development and the accompanying state/local tax revenues that improve public services for restrictions on development. This is a debate we need to have, but it won’t happen in the current climate.

  • ralph

    Wow this is an oregon issue go back to washington and get out of our state.

  • carol

    Wa also exceded the previous year’s farm production again this year, according to a Capital Press daily news update of Oct 22. Apples topped the list, with an increase from 1.03 billion to 1.39 billion. Pears, as well grew 13 percent. As an aside, I want to add that this was in the face of reports of competion from abroad, and lack of migrant pickers. WA has no LCDC, why the profitable farmers?
    The sky wouldn’t fall on Oregon farm products if Measure 49 fails to pass, the farmers who are eligible, are all older, the only other way to keep the farm in production when they are too tired to continue is to lease or sell the land, a no brainer for a neighbor. H-mm, I wonder why some large farms and vineyards are in favor of M49?

  • Layne

    I don’t read the Catalyst every day. But what I see everywhere in the whole land use debate is a complete lack of mentioning the key ingredient to the whole thing, our state Constitution’s Article I Section 18 — the Takings Clause.

    Since the Magna Carta a key element of freedom and natural rights has always been a property owner’s entitlement to enjoy his own property without unreasonable interference from others (trespass laws), including government entities (the Constitutions’ Takings Clauses). Any infringement thereon gives rise to compensation. Strangely, duly incorporated public entities don’t seem to understand that any ordinances they pass are bound by both our state and federal Constitutions’ Takings Clauses. It must then follow that any ordinance, law or rule in violation of that guarantee – that no government may take private property without just compensation – is automatically void.

    But my experience with government is the Constitutions are dead letters. And long ago I got over the shock the most consistent effort to bring that about is from those sworn to support it as part of accepting the public trust. Our state’s Supreme Court just proved that directly to me.

    As long as there are no painful consequences to those who daily destroy the Rule of Law, particularly judges, nothing will change. And since people would rather just complain instead of holding them to their oaths, nothing will change.

  • Steven

    Yes Virginia there is an insanity clause, and in every politicians pocket there is the peoples money and dreams of the future. You just have to ask one question of yourself to provide an acid test against any measure. Who wants it more the people or the government? Less government is the best government, let us put forth an inititive to reverse the growth and size of the govern-mental complex. Do you think that billy brad-burry it would allow that to go forward?

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)