oaks lunching Peruvianizes germs!McGowan agitators …

Perhaps she is actually way ahead? Or, perhaps not?

I’m not trying to imply anything, just curious about a real life case.”

Something needs to be put into proper context, here: In 1962, they probably paid in excess of $1000/acre for their land. Now it is worth roughly $3000/acre. In the same time, a loaf of bread went from $.20 to $2.20; a chocolate bar went from $.05 to $.79; a gallon of gasoline went from $.25 to $2.79(+); a normal home went from $12000 to $250000. In other words, when inflation is taken into account, the land in question LOST 2/3 of its real value. Reductions in tax assessments can never make up this loss, and the family STILL will be required to pay capital gain taxes if they sell at today’s prices, further compounding their loss.

Also, the idea that a stock investor has no protections from the vagaries of the market, and that a property owner should somehow be subject to legislation that dramatically reduces the value of their land is comparing apples and oranges. No law will be passed that says that Exxon can no longer produce petroleum, or that Microsoft can no longer produce software; so why is it anathema to infer that when the government decides that a person can no longer develop their land, as they could when they purchased it, that is “taking” from them some of the profitability that they originally purchased with the land?

The the courts only recognize a taking if substantially all of the economic value is removed. But at the same time they recognize property rights as a bundle of sticks. If you take one of my sticks, then you either owe me or you are a thief. Now, that’s not too hard, is it?

But see how it cuts the other way. You own a nice piece of rural property, and I put a development next door. You are screaming,” you are lowering the value of my property – an you are causing my taxes to go up because of new infrastructure.

Well, those are two of your sticks, since I haven’t taken all of your sticks, or substantially all, you are entitled to no compensation, under the law. Besides, as you point out, you still own the property and you are free to keep or sell it.

When open space is as valuable as you think it is then people will pay the price it is worth – look at Central Park. If you are not willing or unable to pay the price, then it is not worth what you claim.

This hasn’t got anything to do with land use or property rights: what you want is to control what people do. Ordinarily, when I want people to do as I wish, I have to pay them.

Your arguments are not only self-defeating under the law, they are morally and ethically bankrupt .

I don’t suppose Eliot Spitzer would consider a move to Oregon…

Then I can only imagine that those 36 acres, as a whole, are worth a pretty penny.

Costs of public services for development within the UGB (or without)? I concluded long ago that one of the big problems with the things like water and sewage treatment is often weak controls on the public contracting. Company x y and z can have their lawyers secretly talk amongst themselves on bidding tactics, and thus thwart any goal of competitive bidding. Much of it is funded with bonds and forcing the local government to find a way to make payments on the bonds later.

The City of Portland battle on sewer costs was intimately tied to annexation. Why? Because of bonds, and the demands of credit rating (and bond cabal) pigs. It spawned expensive legal battles, here is a random hit from google on mid-county sewer portland judicial

Hussey

“We must decide whether the City of Portland’s ordinance requiring non-residents to consent to annexation as a condition of receiving a subsidy, or reduction in hook-up costs, for mandated sewer connections, violates their federal constitutional rights to free speech or equal protection.”

I offered my mom, in her new role, two pieces of advice. 1) just because a city is authorized to tax does not mean that it must tax to the limit, and 2) the best way to keep system development costs down is at the front end by controlling the costs of the public contracts.

I believe I have already lost on both points. Folks just lose their heads when they are spending someone else’s money. It becomes like Christmas. This is not to say that it is evil, it just is.

Go find the thick red book in the LUBA section of your local law library. I and the publisher disagreed on the split of costs and royalties, thus it has not been updated for a while but would be useful in any discussion of what “was” on the minds of folks early on in the process.