Comments on: Defeating the next Measure 37 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/defeating-the-next-measure-37/ Here are snippets from the three most-recent postings. Click an article title below to read more. Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:40:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: the best personal health insurance http://blog.onwardoregon.org/defeating-the-next-measure-37/comment-page-1/#comment-54790 the best personal health insurance Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:11:29 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=40#comment-54790 <strong>the best personal health insurance...</strong> sandwich Tieck juxtaposes.Booleans DEC Truk ... the best personal health insurance…

sandwich Tieck juxtaposes.Booleans DEC Truk …

]]> By: Gene Johnson http://blog.onwardoregon.org/defeating-the-next-measure-37/comment-page-1/#comment-47 Gene Johnson Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:23:18 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=40#comment-47 Peter, that's where you're wrong. There are a lot of Oregonians who firmly believe in property rights, and are very frustrated with the way government has handled the land use power given them by M37. I think what you may be missing is the fact that even though Portland, Salem, Bend and Eugene are liberal, the rest of the state, for the most part, is not. That is why M7 was passed by the voters, as was M37. The people are tired of the government telling them how to use their property, without any kind of compensation or even an explanation as to why there are restrictions and why the restrictions keep changing. I don't see the state offering to buy someone's property because there is now a wetlands on it, but the owner still has to pay taxes on land he cannot use. I feel people are getting tired of it all. I know I'm not going to change your opinion on this, and you won't change mine, but that's how I'm seeing it. Peter, that’s where you’re wrong. There are a lot of Oregonians who firmly believe in property rights, and are very frustrated with the way government has handled the land use power given them by M37. I think what you may be missing is the fact that even though Portland, Salem, Bend and Eugene are liberal, the rest of the state, for the most part, is not. That is why M7 was passed by the voters, as was M37. The people are tired of the government telling them how to use their property, without any kind of compensation or even an explanation as to why there are restrictions and why the restrictions keep changing. I don’t see the state offering to buy someone’s property because there is now a wetlands on it, but the owner still has to pay taxes on land he cannot use. I feel people are getting tired of it all. I know I’m not going to change your opinion on this, and you won’t change mine, but that’s how I’m seeing it.

]]> By: colorless green ideas http://blog.onwardoregon.org/defeating-the-next-measure-37/comment-page-1/#comment-44 colorless green ideas Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:21:56 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=40#comment-44 i disagree. not with any of your itemized points, but with your first paragraph: "I believe there is absolutely NO ascendent, fundamental, or core 'property rights' belief in the majority of Oregonians." really? you think we are all communists? ;) seriously, though, 'property rights' *are* fundamental, property *dominion*, however, is not. If we let propertarian extremism be framed as 'property rights'--son, we have already lost half the battle. property rights are a good thing. property rights as envisioned by early liberal philosophers such as john locke, thomas paine, thomas jefferson, etc is an essential element for increasing individual liberty--and the public good. property rights are meant to be balanced between the private and public good. but property ownership is not protected by the government to insure the owner a certain economic value, or return on investment, it is protected so that the owner can become a stakeholder, in their community, in this country, on our planet. we trust individuals to make their own decision as to how their land should be used, because we are a liberal society, and we believe in free enterprise and decentralized decision making. however, we have judicious limits as to what can be done on ones property because certain forms of property use can effect neighbors, and whole communities. property rights --> property responsibilities. don't let the extremist define the terms of debate! "I do not believe that M37 passed as some sort of reaction to the 30 years of land use planning. The majority of Oregonians do not, and will not, benefit in any way from Measure 37. This is not some “sagebrush rebellion” — the majority of voters have never seen sagebrush, let alone a ranch or farm." I agree that there was much deception, and that many people did not get what they voted for, but tell me honestly--do you really believe their is not a lot of political dissatisfaction with the state of the land use laws? some things that people can't do on their land are so arbitrary, it's as if they were written to entice measures such as 37. another big problem is the inertia of metro, and other planning bodies that respond at the speed of... beaurocracy. and the UGB could probably stand to be a little more flexible. so, measure 37 was absolutely the wrong solution, but i think that keeping the status quo is also (much less so) the wrong solution, and if you are advocating that, i think you are in for a surprise. i think a common sense compromise could take this issue completely off the table. i sincerely hope that the groups who were opposed to m37 can be a positive force and come up with a really good comprimise, rather than standing pat and planning on putting up a better defense. i disagree. not with any of your itemized points, but with your first paragraph:

“I believe there is absolutely NO ascendent, fundamental, or core ‘property rights’ belief in the majority of Oregonians.”

really? you think we are all communists? ;) seriously, though, ‘property rights’ *are* fundamental, property *dominion*, however, is not. If we let propertarian extremism be framed as ‘property rights’–son, we have already lost half the battle.

property rights are a good thing. property rights as envisioned by early liberal philosophers such as john locke, thomas paine, thomas jefferson, etc is an essential element for increasing individual liberty–and the public good. property rights are meant to be balanced between the private and public good.

but property ownership is not protected by the government to insure the owner a certain economic value, or return on investment, it is protected so that the owner can become a stakeholder, in their community, in this country, on our planet. we trust individuals to make their own decision as to how their land should be used, because we are a liberal society, and we believe in free enterprise and decentralized decision making. however, we have judicious limits as to what can be done on ones property because certain forms of property use can effect neighbors, and whole communities. property rights –> property responsibilities.

don’t let the extremist define the terms of debate!

“I do not believe that M37 passed as some sort of reaction to the 30 years of land use planning. The majority of Oregonians do not, and will not, benefit in any way from Measure 37. This is not some “sagebrush rebellion” — the majority of voters have never seen sagebrush, let alone a ranch or farm.”

I agree that there was much deception, and that many people did not get what they voted for, but tell me honestly–do you really believe their is not a lot of political dissatisfaction with the state of the land use laws? some things that people can’t do on their land are so arbitrary, it’s as if they were written to entice measures such as 37. another big problem is the inertia of metro, and other planning bodies that respond at the speed of… beaurocracy. and the UGB could probably stand to be a little more flexible.

so, measure 37 was absolutely the wrong solution, but i think that keeping the status quo is also (much less so) the wrong solution, and if you are advocating that, i think you are in for a surprise. i think a common sense compromise could take this issue completely off the table. i sincerely hope that the groups who were opposed to m37 can be a positive force and come up with a really good comprimise, rather than standing pat and planning on putting up a better defense.

]]>