M49, "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing"
If you have not seen it on TV yet, you will pretty soon.
Your tax dollars at work
-
Actual, non-photoshopped picture: Yes, that is a Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 in a drag race with a Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) F/A 18 Hornet. Why? Becaus...
3 hours ago
Posts
12 comments:
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Lets the government take 95% of your property value"???? Where the HELL did they come up with that number?
Relax, loonies -- the big bad gummint is not gonna take your house. Or your mom's or your granny's.
Sheesh.
They came up with that number from the US Supreme Court. 95% of value from a regulation and its a full on taking.
Dartagnan,
Yeah, I am wondering just the same about the 95%. Considering that it is a commercial, they could not explain how they got to that percentage.
I assume that percentage is based off of a combination of future property value based on population forecasts, property price, value of potential homes built on your subdivided land, user fees, legal fees, time, etc. However, I do not have the data to substantiate my assumption.
Does anyone entrenched in the whole land use debate know where that 95% figure comes from exactly?
I don't like the ad much. I think we can do better. Frankly I think just showing McPherson waffling would be the way to go while we discuss the history of M49 coming to the voters from a back room deal.
I also think first hand personal stories of LUBA saying no to a local decision would also be better. Additionally I also think an add showing how M37 would easily pay for itself allowing local governments to pay or negotiate claims is needed in the M49 debate.
Young Voter and Moonbat-
I think the statement above is correct. I may be wrong but I think the 95% refers to the ability of government to regulate your land up to a 95% loss in value (then they must pay you for the taking).
This is from memory but I remember the case being calld Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.
I remember the controling case was from a coastal property in California where the land owners had to pay taxes but other than pysically standing on it or holding picnics were fully prevented from any development at all. They couldn't sell the land nor could they reasonably use it. At a 95% loss in value the government had to actually pay them for the loss.
This being the large ruling case on takings. The other being Dolan v. City of Tigard (where the Sprm Crt smacks Tigard, Oregon down for violating due process in taking A-Boy's land).
This case being the only outside check on the state of Oregon beyond constitutional due process requirements (which Oregon has a long history of violating hence M37).
I may be wrong but I believe that is the basis of this commercial's statement.
How about a TV add that rebuts the Y on M49 add saying that these farmers want to make dust, create noise, produce ordors, 18 hrs a day 24/7 to the detrement of their neighbors and are willing to empose restrictions upon the neighbors land limiting what they can do with it. Probably willing to expand the farm onto the neighbors land for the right price.
"I assume that percentage is based off of a combination of future property value based on population forecasts, property price, value of potential homes built on your subdivided land, user fees, legal fees, time, etc."
Maybe.
On the other hand maybe OIA pulled it out of their ass, which is what I suspect.
Wait a minute.
Oregonians already voted both in 2000 and 2004 to restore property rights that existed long before state gov't abridged them 37 years ago.
Is it right to ask voters to reverse that choice and forfeit the newly restored rights - before the restoration has even taken effect?
I don't think so.
Fact: Measure 37 doesn't protect you from government taking 95% of your value (if they claim to do it for public health and safety). M49 doesn't change that.
Fact: Measure 49 was one of the most extensively heard bills in the Legislature in the past decade. Just because the final version didn't get public hearings (standard practice on last-minute complicated amended bills) doesn't mean that the public was shut out. We've been having a public debate about this bill for seven years.
Stop the lies!
"We've been having a public debate about this bill for seven years."
Good point.
"Stop the lies!"
Never happen. If they couldn't lie the Measure 49 opponents wouldn't have anything to say.
Measure 37 doesn't protect you from regulatory takings. Your right.
It just requires that government have a health or safety reason for a taking. If it doesn't have a health or safety justification for the loss in value government must pay or waive the regulation.
This is the expression of a right to use your land. Government has the power (delegated by the people of Oregon) to impede on this right only when there is a justified health or safety reason.
Post a Comment