‘06 election and the ghost of Measure 37
by Sid AndersonOctober 19th, 2005 at 17:03:32
During the ‘04 election most Oregonians were focused on who would be America’s president for the next four years and whether or not gays could legally marry in the state. It was Bush vs. Kerry and Yes vs. No on Measure 36. Oh yeah, and then there was something or another about some old lady not being able to build a few houses on her property in Multnomah County. What was that again? Right, Measure 37, the measure that would have overturned Oregon’s three decades old land use laws, but a majority of voters didn’t know this because it was a back burner issue in ‘04, despite its vital importance to the citizens of this state.
M37, with its simplistic misleading language, passed with 61% of the vote, but was recently ruled as unconstitutional by a Marion County judge. Although the ruling angered property rights activists, it offers a much needed opening for the people of this state to better understand what is at stake. It also gives political leaders in the state the opportunity to step up to the plate and make some courageous decisions about upholding the values of livability for future generations of Oregonians. The question is, will they?
1000 Friends of Oregon, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit against M37, has requested Governor Kulongoski to hold a special legislative session in order to redesign Oregon’s land use system. Even the editors at the Oregonian have seconded that call. Is it possible the legislators could really roll up their sleeves and find a solution? On one side we’ve got 1000 Friends and others who understand changes need to be made and are ready and willing to make things happen, but, unfortunately, on the other side we’ve got Oregonians in Action, the sponsors of M37, who want to expand M37.
State Senator Charlie Ringo (D-Beaverton), Environment and Land Use Committee Chairman, attempted to work on M37 during the last legislative session only to find Republican house leaders working to expand it, not compromise on it. So the answer to the above question is “No. Legislative leaders will not meet in a special session to resolve an issue of paramount importance.” There’s also, no doubt, fear on the Democratic side to touch the issue since voters approved M37. Sadly, it’s an inability to take the bull by the horns and gain control of the fight. Since when have Oregonians wanted sprawl, tract housing on rural farmlands, subdivisions in the Gorge,…? That’s easy: Never!
It’s likely that Oregonians will be faced with several ballot measures about land use issues in the ‘06 election. Oregonians in Action have promised measures that will completely wipe out the government’s ability to regulate land use practices and 1000 Friends has filed a petition with the Secretary of State for an initiative entitled “The Home Owner and Family Farmer’s Bill of Rights.”
Along with ballot initiatives there will be crucial political races that will focus on Democrats winning back the Oregon House of Representatives. All kinds of things could happen: OIA’s and 1000 Friends‘ initiatives could both pass, which would definitely throw the land use issue on the legislators’ laps, making it even more important that progressive Dems win enough house seats to gain control. If OIA’s measures pass, 1000 Friends will undoubtedly file another lawsuit. If 1000 Friends’ measure passes, OIA will pressure the legislature to overturn it, especially if the house stays under Republican control… You get the picture: It’s a chess game, and it’s not being played by beginners.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
If readers are wondering what they can do to help sway the outcome in 06, check out the Bus Project and get involved!
October 19th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Yup! Winning back the state House is just as important, if not more, than winning the govenorship. As goes the House, goes Oregon. Ever since the GOP took control in the early 90s, things in Oregon like education, health care, and public services in general have all been in decline.
October 23rd, 2005 at 3:35 pm
My mom and dad divided their property in the 1970’s.
Any M37-based-claimant surely has blood relatives, by definition, that could have done exactly the same.
The notion that my parents could demand the payment of cash from the government would thus be wholly inapplicable. They could not get cash by reason of a government denial of a right to build, because they can build.
The equal privileges and immunities (EPI) analysis, to reflect a mere vigorous attention to defining the class, must further confine the blood relative’s notion to those folks who did not avail themselves of the then-existing-opportunity to build (or at least divide).
I could say a whole lot more, but the issue above lets me isolate on the EPI issues and avoid entirely the great debates about property.
Now, if I can shake free from the documents of ownership held by the state and the feds to all the future fruits of my labor (by reason of attending law school), for life, then I might be able to get hitched and have kids and raise a few cows and ride some horses and grow some strawberries. Let’s talk about liberty and property from the guy who IS “property” of the state. I am a state slave; albeit a state slave that has a far greater chance of getting an amicus accepted by the supreme court on the M37 case than your run-of-the-mill member of the bar.
Don’t forget that one of the justices has a heightened interest in administrative procedures. He would know exactly what I mean with the argument about narrowing the definition of the class for purposes of EPI.
Sid, I would assert that the protagonists are acting like beginners . . or at least like kids. The wording of M37 was idiotic from the get go but what would I know?
BTW — do you know any single gals that can handle shoveling manure and can enjoy a good debate, as banter rather than as a personal affront? My liberty interest has been substantially reduced by reason of the advancement of the self-interest of banks to avoid being taxed to cover appropriations . . . but it was given the happy name of “student loans.” The BUS Project folks should be the first to recognize this deception where the real beneficiary and the nominal beneficiary are not one in the same . . . but I am astounded that such deceptions just keep multiplying in the mystifying name of progress.
October 24th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Ron-
Welcome to our new blog.
Looks like you found me over here
Yes, the authors of M37 weren’t thinking through the legal aspects of their measure. That’s the problem with the initiative process. It’s populist by nature and often populism lacks foresight as it did in this case and in the case of Measure 36.
October 24th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
They were thinking them through, but only to the best of their ability.
I made another one of my huge comments over at the BlueOregon site on the M37 topic. As usual, out of habit, I try to paint folks as idiots, particularly lawyers.
It sort of supports the striking of M37 but the reasoning is far different than that of the judge. Note that the law school dean that offered an opinion piece in the Oregonian was one of the three professors to whom I had to deliver a paper so as to eventually practice law for money. I did not go chat about topics because well, I was, am, too shy . . if you can believe that.
I do like your argument skills.
October 24th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Ron-
I guess you must have been posting your comment while I was working on this entry. I really liked Amos’ reasoning (the pro argument piece in yesterday’s Oregonian) for the mere fact that it was so simple.
I found Huffman (one the three profs you had to deliver a paper to) somewhat sarcastic and condesending, which might be fine on a personal blog site, but on the front page of the op-ed section?