Comments on: Must read economic commentary on Measure 37 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/must-read-economic-commentary-on-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: Gene Johnson http://blog.onwardoregon.org/must-read-economic-commentary-on-measure-37/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Gene Johnson Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:09:10 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=44#comment-69 Sid- There is evidently a large demand for rural property, or the values wouldn't be as high as they now are. Maybe people want to live outside the city limits, but because of the false values placed on rural properties due to land use planning most people can't afford to but rural properties. Sid-
There is evidently a large demand for rural property, or the values wouldn’t be as high as they now are. Maybe people want to live outside the city limits, but because of the false values placed on rural properties due to land use planning most people can’t afford to but rural properties.

]]> By: Sid Anderson http://blog.onwardoregon.org/must-read-economic-commentary-on-measure-37/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Sid Anderson Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:03:59 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=44#comment-68 Pancho- Have you ever heard of supply and demand? Last I checked it had to do with economics, not politics. Pancho-
Have you ever heard of supply and demand? Last I checked it had to do with economics, not politics.

]]> By: PanchoPdx http://blog.onwardoregon.org/must-read-economic-commentary-on-measure-37/comment-page-1/#comment-67 PanchoPdx Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:16:24 +0000 http://blog.onwardoregon.org/?p=44#comment-67 Notice that this critique does not address the legal theories advanced by J. James nor Dean Huffman's criticisms of those legal theories. Instead, it is a political piece by a couple of economists who note how difficult it is to determine the financial effect a land use regulation on the value of a particular piece of property without access to an alternate universe where the regulation had never been enacted. It doesn't address J. James opinion other than to wishfully surmise that the court seems to agree with their view of economics. It would be easy to line of dozens of economists to take issue with this article, but why bother? It is composed of political rather than legal arguments. The problem with J. James decision was that she decided to make up the law to suit her politics (or self-interest, as rumors circulate). Count on the landgrabbers to circle the wagons to protect her now, no matter how bogus her rationale. Notice that this critique does not address the legal theories advanced by J. James nor Dean Huffman’s criticisms of those legal theories.

Instead, it is a political piece by a couple of economists who note how difficult it is to determine the financial effect a land use regulation on the value of a particular piece of property without access to an alternate universe where the regulation had never been enacted.

It doesn’t address J. James opinion other than to wishfully surmise that the court seems to agree with their view of economics.

It would be easy to line of dozens of economists to take issue with this article, but why bother? It is composed of political rather than legal arguments.

The problem with J. James decision was that she decided to make up the law to suit her politics (or self-interest, as rumors circulate).

Count on the landgrabbers to circle the wagons to protect her now, no matter how bogus her rationale.

]]>