Measures 37 and 49 (Joseph: loan, broker, attorney)

[jm21]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

I perfer my food to not be genetically modified and filled with pesticides, which means lower yields. I also like it to have nutrition in it, which means local produce. Also, food created today does not have the same nutirional impact that it did 50 years ago, due to the overfarming of the soil (hey I grew up in DeKalb, Il which is corn capitol of the US and worked in corn fields starting at 12). Higher yield is not a good thing for the consumer, but that is an entirely different discussion.

OK, you can have organic foods. They've had the most recalls of any food by the way. There's a reason we stopped using natural fertilizers like cow manure on our foods. That **** can be very dangerous to eat.

We've been genetically engineering food for a few centuries now scientifically, and many more than that in an un-scientific manner. Everything you eat has been genetically modified in some way, at one time.

I mean, I don't get to drive down the middle of the road, or run a red light just because I own a car. Since we all have to share, we need to play nice.

If we drive a car on our own property, we should be able to drive it as we please. The state owns the roads, that's why we have to obey traffic laws.

We all DO share, it's called the market. The market might not always be nice, but no system is when you get down to it.

I think it would behoove us all to preserve good soils whenever possible. I also don't think you get to drain the water table with a subdivision and leave the 5 surrounding properties with none. No one gets to be that self-centered. If that were the case, why have rules?

The real quesiton is, why do you think your plan for the good soil is better than theirs? What if they think having a new development is far more important than having a nutritious food supply? The development brings jobs to the area, which then creates wages that are spent in the area, etc...who says that is a worse use than reserving it for farming that may never even happen? Who owns the water rights? The water supply of the property owner is their own problem.

Property ownership is not any more self-centered than the rest of human activities, and there are plenty of rules.

You wanting to tell other people how to use their property IS self-centered. No matter whether you say it's to preserve the earth, or preserve resources for the species, what you are saying is that YOUR judgment is better than theirs. THAT is why we have rules, so that people can't force their beliefs on other people. Just because you believe your way of doing things is right doesn't mean it is, no matter how many scientific studies you can back yourself up with. Science has been proven wrong time and again, and will continue to be, that's the glory of science, that it's always fallible and changing.

[little peg]

ok I call UNCLE on this one, will just have to agree to disagree, hope that the moderator will see this as an end to the thread.

[chrisruns2far]

Originally Posted by little peg

ok I call UNCLE on this one, will just have to agree to disagree, hope that the moderator will see this as an end to the thread.

I think it is healthy to air various view points, no matter which side of the fence you sit. That is the beauty of the internet, that we all can choose to have a voice. As long as the posts do not attack someone on an inappropriate personal level, we need to let threads keep going until they loose interest.

I am aware that Measures 37 and now 49 have people with strong convictions on each side and I would not be honest if I did not acknowledge that while I have appreciated Oregon's Land Use regulations for what they have done to help minimize the negative affects of sprawl, loss of open space and the proliferation of homes within agriclutural and private timber lands, there needs to some modifications to the process. The vast majority of new Oregon residents that I have had conversations with chose to move here because of what HAS NOT taken place here on the ground thru un-regulated and un-sustainable development. It would be a shame to undermine that now.

Measure 37 was an extemely poor effort in addressing that, it was a very calculated and radical attempt orchestrated by a handful of powerful and well-financed elements of the deregulation coalition. It is so easy and lazy to come at things from the radical right or the radical left.

The real radicalism lies in the center, what I call the 'radical center' because it is becoming harder and harder to get there in this era of labels, organized polarization of the populace and un-representative government that places corporations over people. THere is a land use regulation review process going on right now in Oregon called The Big Look, whose task force is made up of a cross-section of interests. Farmers, Ranchers, Developers, County Commissioners, Land-use Planners, Environmental and Conservation groups all are meeting at the same table. We will be seeing some land-use regulation revisions come out of this, but nothing on a radical scale that panders to special interests or the highest bidder.

I think that we can still effectively maintain our agricultural base, healthy local food systems, conserve our natural resources, provide for quality of life open space preservation and balance that with responsible development if we are willing to reach a rational consensus. Measure 37 was an attempt to radically undermine the common good in the name of blind special interest. We can do better than that and Measure 49 is a well-crafted, well thought out counter-balance to the over-reach that was Measure 37.

[freedom]

Measure 37 was designed primarily to give lawyers work. That is obvious.

It's benefit to some was in order to correct the land devaluation (a taking), through rezoning, that was done by a socialist executive branch of the State of Oregon. They are self proclaimed socialists. The goal is to be like a Swiss governing system.

The crime of taking is now further perpetuated due to the States no growth agenda, which I predict will be the lefts downfall in the coming yrs.

freedom

[chrisruns2far]

Originally Posted by freedom

Measure 37 was designed primarily to give lawyers work. That is obvious.

It's benefit to some was in order to correct the land devaluation (a taking), through rezoning, that was done by a socialist executive branch of the State of Oregon. They are self proclaimed socialists. The goal is to be like a Swiss governing system.

The crime of taking is now further perpetuated due to the States no growth agenda, which I predict will be the lefts downfall in the coming yrs.

freedom

Freedom, if you don't mind sharing, what Oregon Land-use law or laws would you like to see changed?? I'm not trying to bate you into a round of negative posts, just a civil exchange from two guys on different sides of a fence.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by chrisruns2far

Freedom, if you don't mind sharing, what Oregon Land-use law or laws would you like to see changed?? I'm not trying to bate you into a round of negative posts, just a civil exchange from two guys on different sides of a fence.

If you wish to start a thread regarding that topic I would love to respond.
Lil peg wishes this one to end.

freedom

[chrisruns2far]

Originally Posted by little peg

again, moderator please end this thread, there is no real conversation anymore, chris continues to attack others, thank you, or please remove me as the originator, thank you

With all due respect, I have not been on the attack mode, just stating my case regarding Measures 37 and 49. Based on what I have read on City Data, my posts are pretty tame in comparison to what you find on many threads. I thought the posts on this thread were good, fair and interesting, based on land use always being a passionate issue for many people.

[chrisruns2far]

Originally Posted by freedom

If you wish to start a thread regarding that topic I would love to respond.
Lil peg wishes this one to end.

freedom

Sure, when I get some time, I'll get a new thread going as it appears that the powers that be are looking to squash the exchanges on this thread.

[Waterlily]

I see no reason to close this thread now. The exchanges have been civilized. However you can start a new thread if you like.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by chrisruns2far

Freedom, if you don't mind sharing, what Oregon Land-use law or laws would you like to see changed?? I'm not trying to bate you into a round of negative posts, just a civil exchange from two guys on different sides of a fence.

Looks like we've been given the okay.

I would take land use zoning back to the late 70's possibly 1978 (just off the top of my head). They instituted the need for surveys, and proper road and driveway designations that dropped the number of property line civil disputes, yet still allowed for WR (woodlot resource) zoning to be changed to Rural residential if the soil and vegetation was not supportive of WR designation. 1/2 acre rural properties were also allowed as long as well and septic were feasable, which in most areas (at least in So. OR.) is no problem.
Now its 2 1/2 ac. min. which had to be existing 90% of the existing Rural lands. The real min. lot size is 5 ac. in reality.
I would also allow all farms to build as many homes for family members as they wished, in that they could live and work on the farm if they chose and keep families together.
Poor soil and water properties were allowed to be converted to Rural res., Now if it is EFU and the soil is not of decent quality or if irrigation and water are not possible to sustain the acreage, it still reamains as EFU (exclusive farm use).

We have lost all reason and logic when it comes to hillside development, the Article 76 fire codes are rediculously cumbersome, and unrealistic. The road designs are extreme and having to put sprinklers in a home that is on a 25% slope or higher when 800' off of a county rd. is nothing more than trying to kill hillside development all together. They do give you the other option of 20,000 gals. of water storage, if you don't want to put the sprinklers in.

Every regulation needs to look at the cost to those that wish to live here, and how it relates to affordable housing, and excessive permitting. which adds tens of thousands to development costs, which can not be absorbed by builders and developers. Whenever you bring up the cost factor the Gov't body doesn't want to hear it, nor do they care, they say we can just pass it on, and we know how that adds to the greedy developer BS.

That should be good for a start.

freedom