Facts? Don't Bother Me With the Facts! A look behind an Oregonian Editorial

We all know that when it comes to The Oregonian's editorial opinions, facts are optional. Actually, facts are subjective. But yesterday's editorial by Mary Pitman-Kitch is just over the top.

So, I thought it would be informative and somewhat entertaing to go through Ms. Kitch's editorial and give you "The rest of the story". For ease of reading, I will put Ms. Kitch's opinions in red and the rebuttal/truth in blue.

Measure 37: 35-year social contract broken, farmer laments

Actually, the "social contract" a.k.a. Senate Bill 100 was passed in 1973. It is only 34 years. Math must not be Ms. Kitch's strong point.

I t's hard to admit you were wrong, and even harder to admit you were suckered. Listen closely, though, and Oregonians all over the state are admitting it, for a simple reason.

Suckered? How could they have been suckered. Property Rights opponents spent $3.6 million in opposition to Measure 37. The Oregonian spent the last two months of the 2004 campaign telling people the death and destruction that Measure 37 would bring. How can she now say that the voters were "suckered".

They're scared.

"If something is not done . . . farming communities will be devastated," grass-seed farmers Ed and Tami Rose wrote recently to legislators, holding hearings on property rights Measure 37.
The Roses voted for the law in 2004. But they regret it. It has since morphed into a monster, jeopardizing the state's $4.3 billion agricultural industry.

What? The overwhelming number of claims are for less than 10 dwellings. The Joint Special Committee on Land Use Fairness heard testimony that Measure 37 will affect less than 1% of the total area of Oregon. How is something that affects less than 1% of Oregon now a "monster".

And there's another cost, too. Oregonians now eye their neighbors more warily, as would-be developers with dollar signs in their eyes. Yet the 7,000 property owners who've filed claims under Measure 37 have, for the most part, just done what comes naturally.

More warily? As would-be developers with dollar signs in their eyes? Give me a break. She cannot be serious. What she isn't telling you is that the "Oregonians who now eye their neighbors more warily" are the same Oregonians who moved out to the country (cause they could afford to) to live the country lifestyle, but don't want anyone else to enjoy that same lifestyle.

Under the law, they can request payments if retroactive rules restrict their freedom to develop. You wouldn't stop at building one house either if you thought you were entitled to press for two.

Or eight, as Dorothy English wants.

The poster grandmother for Measure 37 helped persuade voters to support it. Now, however, as small claims mushroom into subdivisions, many farmers around the state have changed their minds about the law.

"Mushroomed into subdivisions"? Where did this come from? FYI, according to state law, any division of property into more than 4 lots is technically a subdivision. So, if your neighbor has 100 acres, and wants to divide his property into 5 20-acre lots, that is technically a subdivision, although rational people would not label such a division of property as such. These are the types of "subdivisions" that Ms. Kitch is referring.

It jeopardizes the state's ethic of conserving rich soil for future generations, they say. "This is some of the best farmland in the world," says Bill Rose, patriarch of the Rose family and owner of Roselawn Seed Inc. "You're going to build houses on it, and pollute the streams?"

So let me get this straight. A farmer who uses pesticides and disturbs the soil (creating more sediment to wash away into the streams) is concerned that houses are going to pollute streams? How does the old saying go: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

When the Roses voted for Measure 37, they never expected it to trigger subdivisions and strip malls. All three feel misled. And they're not alone. Although 61 percent of voters approved the law, a recent poll suggests just as many people now want the law fixed or repealed.

OK, again with the strip malls. Where are these mythical strip malls going in? Ms. Kitch obviously doesn't understand basic economics. I am not going to put a strip mall in the middle of farmland because, to be successful, a strip mall requires.....TRAFFIC (i.e. location, location, location). Ms. Kitch cannot point to any proposals to build a strip mall on farmland.....she is just misleading the readers.

Oh, and that poll she is referencing. First, it was a push poll. Second, what she doesn't tell you is that 69% of Oregonians in that same poll want Measure 37 left alone or fixed. Actually, here is what the poll said: 31% of Oregonians don't want anything done to Measure 37, 38% want Measure 37 "fixed" and 23% want Measure 37 repealed. It is all how you want to interpret the numbers. At least I gave you the numbers and you can draw your own conclusions.

Of course, Ms. Kitch would never want you to be able to do that.

It isn't only the big claims that leave voters feeling bamboozled, but the way the law was sold as a simple fairness remedy. "We all got suckered into it," Jennifer Cox of rural Molalla said last week. "Was it Mary English? Now I read in The Oregonian that she's suing to build eight homes."

For the record, it's Dorothy. And she's always made her intentions clear. She never said she'd stop at building one home. In the 2004 Voters' Pamphlet, English wrote that she and her husband hoped to divide their Multnomah County land, "give some of it to our children, and grandchildren and sell the remainder for our retirement."

Wait a minute. The Governor and The Oregonian keep telling us that voters intended for property owners to build only one home. Now Ms. Kitch is admitting that voters intended Dorothy English to be able to build EIGHT homes. Which is it?

English's neighbors respect her and wish her well. But even some who support her, personally, fear Measure 37 will mangle Oregon. There's no money to pay compensation, and there never was. So, in essence, as one of her neighbors wrote in 2005, a claim -- even English's -- amounts to "a form of blackmail."

Guess what Ms. Kitch was doing on Friday the 9th of February (two days before she wrote her tirade)? She was going to each of Dorothy English's neighbors asking each neighbor if he/she objected to Dorothy's Measure 37 claim. Nobody would tell Ms. Kitch what she wanted to hear. So, Ms. Kitch writes this garbage. Notice Ms. Kitch didn't tell you how she spent her Friday and that none of Dorothy's neighbors feel "bamboozeled" or "suckered".

The deal: Pay me millions to obey the state's land-use rules. Or let me be a bad neighbor, and break them.

Bad neighbor? Let me get this straight. When I purchased my property, I could have divided my property. Let's say I could have divided my property into 10 acre parcels - exactly the size of parcel my neighbor has. The state changed the rules on me, and took away my right to divide my property, and now I am the bad neighbor because I want to divide my property into the same size acreage as my neighbors?

It might be a good deal for some individuals, but it's a bad deal for our communities. The money
to build roads and extend water and sewer connections is missing, too.

Water and sewer connections? Measure 37 doesn't require any city or county to provide water and sewer connections. Ms. Kitch knows full well that someone who wants to divide their property is responsible for adequate water, sewer and road service to each parcel. Those are health and safety regulations not subject to Measure 37's protections. If a development wants roads, water and sewer, the developer is going to have to pay for them. Ms. Kitch knows that.

Admittedly, the high-profile claims have made people mad, but it's also the possessive attitude some big developers have displayed to Oregon that ticks people off. Many developers insist they have no plans to build "a gazillion homes" anytime soon. No, they're just reserving a slice of the state to dig into later -- sort of like sending in their RSVPs. Only many Oregonians feel they're not invited.

You need to understand who Ms. Kitch is calling a "big developer". Anyone who wants to divide and develop their property -- according to Ms. Kitch -- is a "big developer". Dorothy English is a "Big Developer". The farmer who wants to divide his land into three lots to give each lot to his kids...he is a "big developer".

And here is the really tough part of Ms. Kitch's argument. Those people who hate property rights (apparently Ms. Kitch is one of them) and love land use planning laud Oregon's unique system because it gives "certainty" to property owners. Doesn't a "big developer" who could develop "a gazillion homes", but doesn't, but intends to in the future, doesn't that give neighbors the same certainty the Oregon's land use laws supposedly give?

If all these developments materialize, Oregonians wonder what their state will become. Meanwhile, they hate the way the law has twisted neighbors and friends against each other. "On the way home from the last (legislative) hearing I felt very sad, like shedding tears for Oregon," farmer Jim Gilbert said Friday in an e-mail. "Here we are in this big mess, with neighbor attacking neighbor, and the social contract we all lived by for the past 35 years, broken."

Three important points in response to this paragraph. First, Measure 37 will affect less than 1% of Oregon's total land area.

Second, the claim that Measure 37 has twisted "neighbors and friends against each other" -- even if it were true (which it isn't) -- is no different from our current land use system. Try subdividing your land now, under the current system, and your neighbors will come out of the woodwork opposing your claim. Look at the Pretes, all they wanted to do was build one home on their land. For 10 years they couldn't do it. Why? Oregon's land use laws, not to mention the constant opposition by the Prete's neighbor across the street who had her 5 acres to live on but didn't want the Pretes to enjoy the same lifestyle. Measure 37 did not create any animosity between the Pretes and their neighbor, Oregon's land use laws did.

Third, Ms. Kitch's source is hardly objective. Jim Gilbert hates -- I mean absolutely despises - Measure 37. So much so that he was one of the Plaintiffs in the Macpherson (Yes, the lead plaintiff in the Macpherson case is the father of the co-chair of the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness - no conflict there or anything) case. Asking Gilbert about Measure 37 is like asking Rosie O'Donnell about Donald Trump.

Measure 37 maximizes the wealth of some by minimizing the Oregon left to the rest of us. If we stare at our reflection in the Measure 37 mirror long enough, we're not going to recognize anyone -- not our state, or ourselves.

Huh? I think I will still recognize myself. I don't think Measure 37 requires anyone to get plastic surgery or any other type of transforming surgery, but I will go back and re-read it.

But Ms. Fitch's first statement is probably the most offensive. Measure 37 doesn't "maximize the wealth of some", it simply restores rights taken from Oregonians. Let me explain how wrong she is. Say you have a piece of property on the fringe of the Urban Growth Boundary that, when you bought it, you could have divided the property into 5 residential lots, and divided into 5 residential lots the property is worth $1 million dollars.

But because the property is on the fringe of the UGB, if you could develop the property into 4500 square foot lots - or some sort of commercial/industrial development- the property would be worth $10 million dollars.

Measure 37 does not - as Ms. Fitch would have you believe -- allow a property owner to "maximize the wealth" -- that is, Measure 37 does not allow the property owner the right to the $10 million option. Instead, in the example above, Measure 37 entitles the property owner to the rights she at the time she acquired her property.

Of course, it's impossible to say for certain that Oregonians have changed their minds about Measure 37. The only way to find out for sure is to put a new version of the law on the ballot. And, this time, call it by the nickname Sightline Institute used recently: The Bad Neighbor Law.

Wait a minute! What do you mean that it is impossible to say for certain that Oregonians have changed their mind?" Didn't you tell us earlier in your rant that nearly 61% of Oregonians want the measure repealed or "fixed". Earlier you were telling us that Oregonians definitely changed their minds. Why the contradiction? (Answer: she is making this all up)

Plus: Sightline Institute = strong opponents of Mesure 37. Besides, during the 2004 Campaign, The Oregonian and the No on Measure 37 campaign did everything they could to call Measure 37 the "Bad Neighbor Law". No one bought it then, no one will buy it now.

Last fall, Oregon's Measure 37 became the horror story that helped defeat similar ballot proposals in Washington, Idaho and California. Thankfully, those states learned from our misery. With any luck, there's still time for us to learn from it, too.

Again, I hate to confuse Ms. Fitch with the facts, but I will inform the rest of the populace:

Arizona passed a Measure 37 law, which makes the score: Measure 37= 2 states; Statewide Centralized Land Use Planning= 1 state (Oregon)

Washington's measure was poorly written and resembled nothing like Measure 37.

Idaho's measure didn't pass because Idahoans didn't know why they needed a Measure 37-type law. Why did Idohoans feel that way? Because Idaho does not have land use restrictions like Oregon (actually, no state has our unique system of restirctions) and so they didn't see any need for a Measure 37.

California, too, doesn't have statewide centralized land use planning. Exit polls from California indicate the Californians just didn't see the need for Measure 37 because property owners in California aren't abused like property owners in Oregon.

I know Ms. Fitch doesn't get this, but I am sure some of you will. When people like Ms. Fitch try to tell Oregonians that Measure 37 is bringing death and destruction to Oregon, they lose face with average citizens. According to a recent poll conducted by 1000 Friends, 60% of Oregonians still support Measure 37 (although 83% want some form of caps on development). We know where Oregonians stand on the issue.

The real problem is that folks like Ms. Fitch refuse to accept the fact that Oregon's land use laws are fundamentally unfair and that years ago, when these restrictions were first imposed, thousands and thousands of Oregonians suffered and unfair and unjust fate: bearing the cost individually for Ms. Fitch's precious land use program. All Measure 37 does is restore fairness.

Nothing more, nothing less.