Wednesday, September 5, 2007

If They Will Lie To Their Supporters, They Will Certainly Lie To YOU!

Do you know who this guy is? He is the poster child for the Measure 49 campaign. His name is Dick Day. He lives in rural Yamhill County. He is a registered Republican (although we understand his wife is a Democrat Activist in Yamhill County) and allegedly voted for Measure 37 (of course, no one will ever know the truth about that, will they?).

He is not a farmer. He is an insurance agent. He owns his own insurance company called Day & Associates located in Sherwood, Oregon. He lives out in the country, enjoys the country lifestyle and culture, apparently wants his daughters to be able to live out in the country.

He moved out into the country in 1986. He wants to divide a couple of lots off his property, maybe give them to his daughters, maybe sell them for his retirement. His neighbor, whom he now complains about, has lived on his property since 1962, and wants to sell his property for his reitrement. But Dick Day doesn't want that to happen. This is the face of a NIMBY.

Anyway, Dick Day is also a Measure 37 claimant and he supports Measure 49. In the July 12th, 2007 edition of the Portland Business Journal, Dick Day claims that Measure 49 won't affect his claim.

Good for him. As long as he isn't hurt, that must be all that matters.

Typical.

Ah, but Mr. Day, Measure 49 will affect your Measure 37 claim. Somebody at the pro-49 campaign lied to you. Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone else, after all, the entire "yes on 49" campaign strategy is to lie to the voters and hope no one figures it all out.

You see, according to the claim and staff report from Yamhill County, it is the state's farm income test that is preventing Dick Day from, as he puts it, dividing a couple of parcels off his property so his daughters could live on the property, or perhaps he could sell the parcels for his retirement.

Mr. Day, what they didn't tell you at pro-49 HQ is that in order for you to get your 2 homes for YOUR kids, you have to show that there is a law that prohibits residential development of your property. Like we said when we started this blog, we would cite to the actual language of Measure 49 to back up our arguments, so here is the applicable language:
Section 6.(6) of Measure 49 states that a person who
wants to build three homes must show:


(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in writing to the claim ;
(c) The property is located entirely outside any urban growth boundary and entirely
outside the boundaries of any city;
(d) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling;
(e) The establishment of the lot, parcel or dwelling is not prohibited by a land use regulation described in ORS 197.352; and
(f) On the claimant’s acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted to establish at least the number of lots, parcels or dwellings on the property that are authorized under this section.

Well guess what, the state's farm income test does not prohibit residential development! It is a restriction on development. See DLCD v. Polk County, 32 Or. LUBA 16 (1996)(holding that the farm income test (which is an adminsitrative rule) cannot prohibit development, otherwise the test would violate Oregon statute).

That means that Mr. Day will not get the two homes he wants for his daughters (or his retirement) if Measure 49 passes because the law that is preventing Dick Day from dividing his property does not prohibit residential development, it is merely a restriction on development, which does not trigger the "1 to 3 home" option under Measure 49.

Somebody at pro-49 HQ has some explaining to do. Either they lied to Dick Day and told him Measure 49 wouldn't affect his claim (which is all Dick Day is concerned about), or Dick Day and the pro-49 crowd don't understand how Measure 49 will affect Oregonians.

My guess is the former. Given that the entire pro-49 Campaign is based on deceiving the voters. And it looks like Dick Day was that campaign's first victim.

24 comments:

CommonSense said...

I cannot say that I am surprised. The pro-49 worms are lying all over the place. I don't think they have even bothered to read their own measure. How can they miss something like this.

If I were Dick Day, I would be pissed

Anonymous said...

Poetic justice if there ever was any.

Considering how nothing seems to be what the pro-49 crowd says it is, I wonder how many of their other poster children have been deceived?

L Brazzi said...

I can't wait for Batmantempest to start his rant on this thread.

If he was hacked about the "Spouses" post and replies and further hacked off over at NW Republican, he is going to be apoplectic when he reads this post.

Anonymous said...

This guy and that New Jersey trust fund baby who's trying to buy the M49 election that owns the vineyard in Yamhill County are your typical greenies, along with the Nature Conservancy and its "partners" (Exxon Corp., General Motors, Ken Lay etc.) Boy, there's the grassroots of the environmental movement.

batmantempest said...

Hello Frenchman - "you have to show that there is a law that prohibits residential development of your property."

" what they didn't tell you at pro-49 HQ is that in order for you to get your 2 homes for YOUR kids, you have to show that there is a law that prohibits residential development of your property. "

First Mr. PDX on the other blog admitted to fighting 49 after only GLANCING at it, addmitting that he was not versed in the subject matter, meaning, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Now you go and spout off some opinion that is just wrong. Why don’t you guys try actually reading the ballot measure next time??

49 says that Day get’s three houses, period, no issue. If he wants more, he has to prove that he’s been screwed over. It’s plain as day, or do I have to break it down for you?

Fuck it, I’ll break it down for you.

Watch and learn. No tricks this time, no name calling. Just Watch, I’ll even go slow for some of you one eyed cow tippers….

49 says = “Claimants may build up to three homes if previously allowed when they blah blah blah blah and blah.”

49 says = “...four to 10 homes if they can document reductions in property values that justify additional homes blah blah blah.”

Let’s make this clear for you Jethros out there. 49 LETS YOU BUILD 3 HOMES. IF YOU WANT MORE, YOU IS GONNA HAVE TO PROVE YOU HAS A REDUCTION IN PROPERTY VALUE.

Wait, I know you’re not gonna take this MoonBat’s word, so let’s have a lookie see, ok?

Here is Section 6 from House Bill 3540 (the result of #49.)
(it's really damn long so do a find search... jesus, what I mean is hit buttons CTRL and F on your keyboard and type in "SECTION 6." It should take you right to the section)

SECTION 6. (1) A claimant that filed a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before the date
of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth Legislative As-
sembly is eligible for three home site approvals on the property if the requirements of this section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007 Act are met. The procedure for obtaining home site approvals under this section is set forth in section 8 of this 2007 Act.
(2) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may be approved for property under this
section may not exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in a waiver issued by the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not issued, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the claim filed with the state; or
(b) Three, except that if there are existing dwellings on the property or the property
contains more than one lot or parcel, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may be established is reduced so that the combined number of lots, parcels or dwellings, including existing lots, parcels or dwellings located on or contained within the property, does not exceed three.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a claimant that otherwise qualifies for
relief under this section may establish at least one additional lot, parcel or dwelling on the
property. In addition, if the number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in a waiver issued
by the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not issued, the
number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the claim filed with the state is more than
three, the claimant may amend the claim to reduce the number to no more than three by filing notice of the amendment with the form required by section 8 of this 2007 Act.

Basically... he gets his properties with no problem. You should have read a little bit higher on the page Frenchie.

Anonymous said...

batmantempest-

Guess what? You will be wrong in the end. Why? Look at the "4-corners" of the page -Simple first year law stuff. Next, the 1996 DLCD decision clearly and unequivocally declares the farm income rule to be a restriction, not a prohibition. Do not think for a second the commie groups like 1000 Friends, Sierra, or Nature won't challenge this distinction.

Again, YOU ARE WRONG!

batmantempest said...

What's amazing is you people simply plug your ears and close your eyes and go "Na Na Na Na Na Na!" until it's time for you to open your mouth again. (Next time plug your nose and mouth while you're doing it)

Anony-Mouse - acknowledge that you read that portion of the House Bill. Then acknowledge what it says.

Does it or does it not directly refute the topic of this impotent blog? The blog says that 49 lies to you. I proved that it doesn't. Let's see you chimps respond to the issue, not fabricated crystal ball wishes and political weather forecasts based on your sore knee.

Did you or did you not read this section of House Bill 3540? Did you or did you not understand that this directly challenges your chimp buddies’ claims that 49 is lying.

Acknowledge the issue and the questions directed at you, or did you forget this is a court of law. Must I remind you monkeys that you’re under oath?

Bahh! You guys are impotent cowards. Between the lot of you your IQ still sums up to a two digit number!

… gosh, maybe I should practice law some day. Gee, I dunno.

Anonymous said...

I have no personal stake in this. I voted for M37 and will vote against M49. I am not from this state. I don't like this state. I'd like to move out of this state and will when I am able. Why don't I like this state? This state comes as close to American Socialism as I have seen. This state is backwards and weird. I don't find this virtuous at all. I find it tortuous. I have heard from some natives that the weirdos hijacked your state as it was otherwise once a normal place to live. I am sorry for your loss. I'll do my part to help you out as the door "hits my ass on the way out." That's pretty much all I can do. Good luck

Anonymous said...

Hey, Batman. This is my first visit to this board and probably my last. So, you think you can just attack people without response and recourse? You think you can call people hillbillies (cow tippers) just because they don't agree with you? Well, check this out, you mother fucker. I am from the east coast and I don't agree with a fucking thing you said, nor what your fucked up extremist side says. And if you ran your fucking mouth like that to me in my face, I'd beat your fucking podunk ass down like it had never been beaten down before. Fuck me? No, fuck you, you Orygone fuck.

CommonSense said...

As is typical with the Pro-49 crowd, Batman isn't telling us the entire story. Perhaps it is because he doesn't know how to read.

Because if he could read, he would have told you about Section 6.(6) of Measure 49 which is the section that says what a property owner has to prove in order to get his (or her, don't mean to be sexist here) three homes.

One of the things you have to prove is that there is a law that PROHIBITS you from developing residences on your property.

D'OH. Where is that Mr. Tempest? Why didn't you mention that in your little rant? I know why, because it completely submarines your pathetic argument.

The rest of the original post is self explanatory. Mr. Day is limited by the farm income test, which the courts have said is a RESTRICTION, not a PROHIBITION, on residential development. Which means, under the language of MEasure 49, Mr. Day GETS NOTHING!

Tempest, please don't do this again. Be honest, at least. You only weaken your already fragile credibility by spouting your half-truths and lies.

batmantempest said...

Common Sense - Are you daft? Did you even bother to read what I posted? It directly refuted this whole argument? You don't have to prove anything with 1-3 houses.

Tell you what, respond to my earlier post, act as if you actually read it this time, instead of simply ignoring it and closing your eyes and repeating what you said earlier.

This just proves that you guys simply won't listen to reason or acknowledge the information that was presented before you.

Again... what's it like to live in a fairy land where you can simply ignore everything your opponent says and you go on saying, “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, I’m right!!” It’s amazing. I’ve refuted every single one of the arguments you inbreds brought forth and you guys do nothing more than close your eyes and ears and go “nah nah nah nah!”

And the audacity! You say I spout half truths and lies??!!! AMAZING. I copied and pasted the goddamn House Bill, and you say I’m Lying? You think I’m a republican? How dare you. The unmitigated gall.

CommonSense said...

Batman-

Where in the world does it say you don't have to prove anything in order to get the 1 to 3 houses?

Section 6.(1) says in relevant part: A claimant....is eligible for three home site approvals on the property if the requirements of this section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007 Act are met.

So you go down to section 6.(6) which says "To qualify for a home site approval under this section...the claimant must establish that....." and then it lists the 6 things you have to prove in order to qualify for the 1 to 3 home option.

Do you have a copy of MEasure 49 that doesn't have section 6.(6) in it? Because even the attorney general agrees that under Measure 49 a claimant must prove the 6 things required by section 6.(6) of Measure 49.

And one of the 6 things you have to prove is "(d) One or more land use regulations PROHIBIT establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling."

And the farm income test, as a matter of law, doesn't actually PROHIBIT the establishment of a lot, parcel or dwelling. It is a RESTRICTION, which is materially different from a PROHIBITION. And that difference is important because even Measure 49 makes the distinction later on in the measure between restrictions and prohibitions.

Again, does your copy of Measure 49 simply not have Section 6.(6) in it? Or are you just choosing to ignore that section, because you are the only person I am aware of that doesn't think you have to prove the 6 things required by that section in order to get the 1 to 3 home option.

Matthew said...

Just two simple questions..
What is the material difference between prohibit and restriction in legal terms? Where is the other place in the Measure 49 text where that difference is made?

batmantempest said...

Common Sense - Does your retina simply blot out certain sentences to your discretion?

Re-Read SECTION 6.1 through SECTION 6.3 TWICE, SLOWLY.

If you have to read it more than three times.... that's ok. Just read it. Pay particular attention to the words "waiver" and the numer "THREE." Notice how the words are used and what options are avaialble if you have more than three.

You can then go back to the ballot measure itself and you will find that it clearly says, "Claimants may build up to three homes... FOUR TO TEN HOMES IF THEY CAN DOCUMENT REDUCTIONS IN PROPERTY VALUES.... "

Then go back to the legalese, up above in my previous post, you can even follow the link to the official document and re-read Section 6.1-6.3.

It CLEARLY STATES... ok, I take that back, it's not clear and the fuckers who write this shit should make it easier to read, BUT, it's there, just read it. Your job is to call BS on 49. My job is to show you where your wrong, not with opinion, but with the facts. It's your job to read the facts and twist the truth to your advantage. You have not yet read the facts up above, ywhich means that you cannot yet twist the trouth to your advantage. You're skipping a step. So, go back and read Section 6.1 through Section 6.3.

You seem to be attached to Section 6.6 and you gloss over Section 6.1-3. When criticizing a Ballot Measure, which is your right to do, you must read and understand the entire Measure. Yes it's written by elitest fools with no regard to the common man! Yes it should be written in plain English for everyone to understand, but it's not, which means that everyone has to work extra hard to understand it before criticizing something that they have not yet read.

And another thing!

... Vote Yes on 49.
• It secures spouses rights to the land, which 37 never did.
• It provides up to three houses automatically on claims.
• And it keeps big business off of Exclusive Farm Use Land

batmantempest said...

One more point, as I was doing some midnight light reading going through House Bill 3540, which I often do as a hobby, I found one more item of interest that I'm sure many of you will simply ignore while you continue to rant your wanton rage.

SECTION 5. A claimant that filed a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before the date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth Legislative Assembly is entitled to just compensation as provided in:
(1) Section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act, at the claimant?s election, if the property described in the claim is located entirely outside any urban growth boundary and entirely outside the boundaries of any city;
(2) Section 9 of this 2007 Act if the property described in the claim is located, in whole
or in part, within an urban growth boundary; or
(3) A waiver issued before the effective date of this 2007 Act to the extent that the claimant?s use of the property complies with the waiver and the claimant has a common law vested right on the effective date of this 2007 Act to complete and continue the use described in the waiver.

Again, how many times must I point out to you Chickenhawks that Day, the guy in the picture above, is not under obligation to prove anything since his claim is not for four houses or more. As it clearly states on BM 49 you can get up to three houses without proving anything, you just can't get four or more without proving that your property value has been affected.

Why do you guys continue to lie in order to get votes? It's ridiculous, you guys look utterly foolish, like nincompoops as you go about squaking and blathering mindless rubbish that you simply make up. It's all lies and just feeds into the republican liar stereotype. Keep it up, we would expect nothing less.

Now, let's see which one of you is the first to refute this with 1) senseless emotional statements like "you're an idiot! You're a Moonbat and you drank the 49 KoolAid! 2) no links to back up your refutations 3) some nonsense that doesn't target the specific House Bill Sections that I posted.

Bring it on monkeyboys! I've defeated everyone of your arguments so far, the one about the spouse, the one about 49 in general and now this one about someone's claim won't go through. Let's see some legitimate issues with some black and white print to back it up with an opinion from someone who has actually read the the friggen house bill! Unlike Dare!pdx that simply "Glanced" at it before blathering as usual.

Anonymous said...

"Given that the entire pro-49 Campaign is based on deceiving the voters." Well guess what, so was the entire Measure 37 campaign. The poster children for the measure 37 campaign were little old ladies (figuratively and literally) that were pevented from making provision to share their properties with their children, but, low and behold, the money was coming from developers that wanted to split a 40 acre farm into 80 residential lots. That was not what the voters passed Measure 37 for which will be proven when Measure 49 passes.

Also, how can the Republican legislators (please note I am a life long Republican and have served as a Precinct Commitee Person as well as attended the state party platform convention as a delegate) claim, with any integrity, that sending a measure back to the voters is circumventing the will of the voters? I think it's all about the money, in this case campaign contributions and partisan power, like always.

One last thought. Using profanity in a comment just makes the reader think that the commenter lacks the intelligence to make a reasoned case for his/her position, thus more likely swaying that reader to the opposite position.

CommonSense said...

Batman-

Wow, you really don't know how to read, do you?

First, Section 6.1 says that a person is eligible for one to three homes under this section. It does not say that a person is absolutely entitled to one to three homes.

What determines elibility for one to three homes can be found in Section 6.(6). I am sorry you do not understand this, but you are simply wrong. The Attorney General agrees with my explanation of Measure 49 - that Section 6.(6) is what a property owner has to prove in order to get the one to three option. Just go look at the briefing or memos or whatever they are in the recent Measure 49 case.

Putting your head in the sand and hoping Section 6.(6) goes away won't make that section go away. What is the purpose of Section 6.(6), then? It must have a purpose, what is its purpose?

Matthew-

You ask a good question about the difference between a "prohibition" and a "restriction". Yes, there is a legal difference.

A prohibition it exactly what the name implies, a prohibition on a certain type of development.

A restriction, on the other hand, doesn't prohibit development, but instead places conditions on development.

The distinction is important in Measu 49, because in order to be eligible for one to three homes for retroactive claims under Measure 49, a property owner has to demonstrate that there exists a law that PROHIBITS residential development.

On the other hand, for those who want to take advantage of what I will call the "prospective" relief of Measure 49, one only need show there is a RESTRICTION on development. I am sorry, I don't have Measure 49 in front of me so I cannot cite the exact section where the distinction is made, but I do know the distinction is made in Measure 49.

The RESTRICTION/PROHIBITION distinction is important for another respect. All one has to do under Measure 37 is demonstrate there is a land use regulation that RESTRICTS the use of private real property. All land use laws are RESTRICTIONS on private real property, but not all land use laws are PROHIBITIONS on the use of private real property. Measure 49 is far narrower and will benefit far fewer property owners than current law does, with respect to what pro-49ers call "small claimants".

BatmanTempest said...

CommonSense - Why must I keep repeating myself? Why do neocons continuously gloss over presented material, roll their eyes into the back of their heads and simply repeat what they said previously?

"Wow, you really don't know how to read, do you?"
Yes, and appear to be as dense as you are illiterate. You are the one who is not apparently reading the material presented. You continue to gloss over what I have posted, which is the House Bill itself.

"First, Section 6.1 says that a person is eligible for one to three homes under this section. It does not say that a person is absolutely entitled to one to three homes. "
Eligible means entitled. By God Man, it's in the ballot measure itself right there. Eligible means that are in the group. It's not a raffle contest. 1-3 homes they get! 4-10 they have to prove that their property value has been decreased.

"What determines elibility for one to three homes can be found in Section 6.(6). "
No, you are simply wrong and you are lying to manipulate other's perceptions. 6.6 applies to 4-10 houses. How many times does a person have to repeat this. You obviously did not read section 5.0 and 6.1 through 6.3.

"I am sorry you do not understand this, but you are simply wrong. "
No Binky. You are the wrong one. You simply are doing nothing more than fabricating arguments out of thin air (literally)for the sake of arguing. You obviously have an agenda and you are twising words around and simply lying through your gums. You are simply just dead wrong and you are wasting my time when I could be watching Lost or Battlestar Galactica!

"The Attorney General agrees with my explanation of Measure 49 - that Section 6.(6) is what a property owner has to prove in order to get the one to three option. Just go look at the briefing or memos or whatever they are in the recent Measure 49 case."
The attorney general has no idea who you are and you again make claims that are not true, as if you and the general go out for golf and martinis. Pu-LEASE! Sect. 6.6 is FOR 4-10 HOUSES!!! NOT 1-3 HOUSES. Read section 6.1 through 6.3.

"Putting your head in the sand and hoping Section 6.(6) goes away won't make that section go away. What is the purpose of Section 6.(6), then? It must have a purpose, what is its purpose? "
Are you really this dense or do you simply just do this to piss people off? Are you always this obstinant and obtuse? I told you, 6.6 is for 4-10 houses. You're simply missing your mark old man. You're out of your league and your arguments are nothing but fabricated fantisies to further your important agenda which is nothing more than hot air.

"The distinction is important in Measu 49, because in order to be eligible for one to three homes for retroactive claims under Measure 49, a property owner has to demonstrate that there exists a law that PROHIBITS residential development. "
Wrong, wrong, wrong! You're simply wrong. No matter how many times you continue to repeat this, I can repeat telling you that you're wrong.

"I am sorry, I don't have Measure 49 in front of me so I cannot cite the exact section where the distinction is made, but I do know the distinction is made in Measure 49."
You're joking.. right? You posted on the internet and you claim that you don't have 49 in front of you??? Are you suffering from Teen South Carolina syndrome? It's called GOOGLING IT. You could have it in front of you in 5 seconds. And if you couldn't find it,
here's the House Bill!
Book mark these pages so you won't have an excuse for not reading something you're so adamantly opposed to.


Vote YES on 49.
It provides a claimant with 1-3 houses without proving you have lost any fair value on your property. If you do not believe me, simply go read the measure and house bill itself.

Letters in favor of Measure 49

Red Cloud said...

The straightforward intent of the language in this section turns on the word "prohibit."

If you cannot do something because of a regulation, what you want to do is "prohibited."

There is nothing arcane here. When it is judged and argued, it will be argued on the intent of the words at the time the measure was enacted.

I can read beyond a 5th grade level said...

I have been following this discussion, trying to figure out who is correct in their explanation of Measure 49.

For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that CommonSense is the person who is correct.

First, the point that Batman seems to miss is that Section 6 of Measure 49 applies only to the "1 to 3 home option" and Section 7 applies only to the "4 to 10 home option." Therefore, Batman's argument that the six requirements of Section 6.(6) apply only to the "4 to 10 home option" is incorrect.

Second, Batman says that "eligible" means "entitled". Actually, that is not correct. Eligible means "qualified to participate or to be chosen". But Batman also ignores the express language of Measure 49 which says that a person is "eligible" for the "1 to 3 home option" if the requirements of this section [section 6] and sections 8 to 11 of this 2007 Act are met.

Therefore, a person is not qualified to participate in the 1 to 3 home option unless the person satisfies the requirements of Section 6.(6), among other sections, of Measure 49.

Section 7 of Measure 49 is the section that deals with the "4 to 10" home option. In fact, no where in Section 6 of Measure 49 is the "4 to 10 home option" even mentioned. It is difficult to understand how anyone can claim that any part of Section 6 of Measure 49 applies to the "4 to 10 home option". I would be interested if someone could point out to me where it says that the requirements of Section 6.(6) applies only to the "4 to 10 home option".

It doesn't. Section 6.(6) applies only to the "1 to 3 home option". Why is this important?

Because it means that Dick Day, the guy the pro-49ers lied to, gets nothing, just like this post explains.

BatmanTempest said...

Good job Red Cloud.

Unfortunately, your wrong. Here's why. Yes, you are right that 6.1 does say "if the requirements of this section [section 6] and sections 8 to 11 of this 2007 Act are met." And I agree, that part was confusing, I admit. Which is why I put in a call to the state Dept. of Land Conservation and Development people. They finally returned my call yesterday.

I specifically pointed that part out to them and said that it's confusing. I asked that they just set me straight about all the stuff we've been arguing here. Because, in reality, you neocon conservative hillbillies have a point. This stuff isn't clear, the wordings are confusing and nobody trusts anyone around here.

Even though the wording is funny, the man was very helpful. In a very small nutshell, this is what it's about:
- They have already authorized over half of the 7000+ 37 claims out there.
- 4 to 10 Homes are not buildible on HIGH VALUE LAND.
- Not all EFU (Exclusive Farm Use Land) is considered High Value.
- BUT, all High Value is EFU land.
- High Value is designated by the soil type.
- for 4 to 10 homes, you NEED to demonstrate that you have lost fair value.
- You demonstrate through a legitimate appraisal to document how much you have lost. SO IF DAY HAS NOT DONE THIS, IT'S HIS OWN FAULT.
- For 1-3 homes YOU DON'T NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LOSS. IT'S A WAIVER.
-That's why they specify this in the ballot measure. It's actually clearer in the one pager, even though all of us are suspicious of it. The one pager is actually the document that is more accurate than anything else out there.
- You must submit a claim to the county and the state. Right now there are 7300 claims to the county but only 6700 to the state.
- Many people don't know that they need to submit a claim to both.
- Also, you cannot build 4-10 houses on a Limited Ground Water zone. Period. Only 1-3, and that's with no documentation of proof of loss of value.

If you don't trust me, please call the Dept. of Land and Conservation Services and Development people. I would give you their number, but I'm short on time. I will go into more detail on another thread later.

This is not more progressive propoganda or liberal hype. If the guy would have told me stuff I didn't want to hear, I would have stated it here.

Anonymous said...

There are two points regarding M49 that Batmantempest is ignoring:
1. All the other ways to stop most M37 claims and there are many. 24 pages of legalese is proof. If the real intent to fix M37 was genuine then the sponsers(who hate M37) would not have designed a bill that stops 99% of all claims.
2. This bill is a windfall for attorneys and appraisers. The bill has many layers of fine print that is very effective in stopping all but a few claims.

If you would like to challenge my statemnents and then prove me wrong then let talk.

BatmanTempest said...

Over half the claims have been accepted. You guys are inventing fears and mongers. Most of you are biased and are anxious to get on the bandwagon of fear, lemmings, and not do your due diligence in investigating or reading up on both measures.

Over half of the claims have been accepted, from what the dept. of Land Conservation Service and Development told me. 49 has more pages than 37 because 37, in it’s simplicity, caused a lot of unforeseen problems. 49 had to account for future problems, hence the length, and people… it’s really not that long. Are we all that lazy.

You get 1-3 houses. Period. End of story. There is no 6.6 for the 3 houses. They accept it. If you continue to believe this, then call up the proper state departments, call the DLCD and ask them yourselves. It’s on the 49 brief, you only have to prove fair value loss if you want 4-10 houses and you are not able to build 4-10 ONLY on High Value Land. The definition is defined by soil type and is in the 3540 House Bill itself on the first page of definitions.

Do your Due Dilligence. You people are being misrepresented, and manipulated by others who think they know what they are talking about. Don’t believe me. Don’t believe anyone. Just ask yourself if you’ve read 37, if you’ve read 49, if you’ve read the house bill 3540, and if you’ve called anyone in authority for explanation. If you haven’t, then you are giving in to bias and you simply WANT to believe what your fears instead of actually looking for the truth.

Anonymous said...

From an anonymous coward praticing law without a license...

--Batmanwell:

I am absolutely against measure 37 and think it should be completely removed: to scrap ALL land use planning architected over a hundred years and all future land use planning for a caricature of a dying white haired lady in downtown Portland trying to split her 1 acre park like lot between here soon to be orphaned grandchildren, is just… asinine. Nor am I very fond of 49: Engrossed [2nd def] blanket laws which have added terms like ‘farming and forest practices’ worry me but that is another issue…

Although I believe what you wrote is correct--Day will get his partition--your argument is utterly flawed. I almost question if you are a No on 49 plant showing up on 9/11 to rant only about measure 49 and making the same spurious claims you feign to deride? Applying the Chewbacca defense?

Here is the flaw in your argument:
You can not deny that Section 6 states exactly what you copied in your first post: “…eligible for three home site approvals on the property if the requirements of this section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007 Act are met.”
And you cant deny that that:
6.6.d is part of ‘this section' 6,
and 6.6.d states: “One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling”

And here is why I think Day will get his house (or at least will not be ineligible because of 6.6.d):

First we need to look at the definitions: assuming they are correct in saying Day is not permitted to build due to a “restriction on development” because of the ‘farm income test, which is an administrative rule…’ OK

The farm income test seems to be defined in OAR 660-033-0130(24)(b)(B)

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_660/660_033.html

From Measure 49 Definitions of land Use Regulation in the measure:
2.14 “Land use regulation” means: …
(g) An administrative rule or goal of the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
or...

So since Measure 49 defines a land use regulation as being an LCDC administrative rule or goal, and this OAR of LCDC has the effect of prohibiting Mr. Day from building; the tortured argument of Measure 49 not applying because of 6.6.d does not seem to have any merit.

Furthermore, it would in fact seem by the definition of what Land use Regulations are, Measure 49 is meant to target this exact--and other--land use administrative rules and goals from LCDC which prohibit your ability to build, divide, etc.