One of the arguments that pro-49ers make in support of Measure 49 is that Measure 49 provides "[A] streamlined process". If Measure 49 represents a "streamlined process" to the pro-49 crowd, I would hate to see what they would consider to be a "slow process.Under Measure 37 (2004), claimants were guaranteed a decision from the government within 180 days (that deadline was extended to 540 days for claims filed after November 1 of 2006).
But under Measure 49 there is no requirement that the government EVER make a decision on your Measure 49 claim.
First, in Section 4 of Measure 49, the 180-day guarantee of Measure 37 is repealed. So the only time-certain guarantee for property owners is repealed completely.
Then, in Section 8.(6) of Measure 49, says
(6) The department or county shall review claims as quickly as possible, consistent with careful review of the claim. The department shall report to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on or before Measure 31, 2008, concerning the department's progress and the counties' progress in completing review of claims under sections 6 [the 1 to 3 home option] and 7 [the 4 to 10 home option] of this 2007 Act.
In other words, there is nothing in Measure 49 that requires the government to EVER make a decision on a Measure 49 claim! A county like Multnomah can simply sit on your Measure 49 claim, and claim that it is "reviewing your claim as quickly as possible, consistent with careful review of the claim."
Gee, think about it for a moment. The folks at Multnomah County, two members of the Clackamas County Commission, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (just to name a few) hate property owners and property rights. They are going to take as long as they can, and delay...delay...delay.
But lets assume that a county (say, Jackson County) reaches a decision on a Measure 49 claim in 180 days. There is another problem with Measure 49. You see, Measure 49 allows ANYONE who submits a comment on a Measure 49 claim has standing to sue in state court. You can bet that any county that issues a decision in a timely manner is going to be sued by one of your "friends" here in Oregon, claiming that the government hasn't considered the challenged Measure 49 claim "consistent with careful review...."
The fact is there is no streamlined process in Measure 49. Quite the opposite. There is nothing in Measure 49 that requires the government to EVER make a decision on your Measure 49 claim.
That isn't an express lane, it is a road to nowhere.
18 comments:
You state that “under Measure 37 (2004), claimants were guaranteed a decision from the government within 180 days (that deadline was extended to 540 days for claims filed after November 1 of 2006).”
Let’s see. The measure states, as follows:
SECTION 13. (1) A person filing a clim under section 12 of this 2007 Act shall file the claim in the manner provided by this section.
* * *
(5) A public entity that receives a claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act must issue a final determination on the claim within 180 days after the date the claim is complete, as described in subsection (9) of this section.
Subsection 12 refers to claims filed “after the date of adjournment snie die of the 2007 rebular session of the seventy-fourth legislative assembly.”
How come they don't tell you anything about this little fact over at the Yes on 49 campaign? Gee, I wonder......
How in the world can the pro-49ers claim that Measure 49 creates a streamlined process? It seems to me that the language of Measure 49 makes it pretty clear that Under Measure 49, you my NEVER get a decision from the government.
All the Nimbys who love Measure 49 will say anything.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 49!
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 done the appropriate amount of work to understand just what the hell is going on. Ask yourself if you have you 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.
It's called Due Dilligence people. And not enough people are doing it. It doesn't matter if you vote for Hillary or Obama or Ron Paul or whoever... are you doing so because it's popular, or are you doing so because you understand each of their stances on at least 5 of your top issues?
If you do not know where the republican and candidates stand on these issues that are supposedly important to you, then you are simply following the wind and that which is popular.
Think for yourselves people. Do your due dilligance. Print out the housebill 3540, call your state people when you don't understand it. Yes, 6.1-6.3 looks like it says that you must follow everything in 6.6, but then what is all the rhetoric about the waiver?? That's why I called because I wanted the truth. I didn't simply want to believe it, I wanted to know what it meant because it was "speaking with fork tongue."
What it means is that you get the 1-3 houses. The state isn't out to screw people over. It wants to be fair and provide opportunities to the public yet conserve our land. 37 does not allow for that.
Surely, you must be able to see this through any possible bias you might have.
Give it a shot. Pull out your hightlighter and go through the two ballot measures. And then call your state people to get clarification.
Come on people, if we're going to have an opinion, at least let it be an educated and informed opinion. Let it not be blinded bias.
Dude, your comment has nothing to do with this article.
In any event, you are clearly unable to read. Everyone, even the supporters of Measure 49, acknowledge that Section 6.6 applies to the 1 to 3 home option.
Wow.
No it doesn't.
Batty just gets battier and battier.
How many times can you urp "due diligence" Pal?
Any fool can see M49 is a fix in search of a problem.
Batman-
Then you are the only person I know of who reads the measure that way.
I was watching a debate on Measure 49 last night, and the Measure 49 supporter acknowledged that Section 6.6 applies to the 1 to 3 home option.
Even your own side disagrees with you......
With all due respect to Batmantempest, Section 6 does apply to the 1-3 homesite options.
And no, the 1-3 homesite option is not automatic.
And yes, subsection 6 does apply to the 1-3 homesite option. It codifies what is already in Measure 37. If you could not build on the property when you bought it, you cannot build on it now.
Claims approved by DLCD and by Counties acknowlege the owner's ability to do that which he or she could do when they obtained the property. That means the orders identify the date that becomes the baseline for what development can occur.
Example: If you bought your property in 1990, and you could not build then, you are not going to be able to build now.
Red Cloud-
Thank you. We may not agree on whether M49 is a good idear, but at least we can agree on what it says.
But here is a question for you, then. I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do.
The question is about Section 6.(3) of Measure 49. It seems to me that section is saying that no matter what, a property owner is entitled to at least one "home".
But the language says "a claimant that otherwise qualifies for relief under this section", which seems to suggest to me that a M49 claimant would still have to satisfy Section 6.(6) in order to get even one home.
I cannot figure this section out for the life of me. Perhaps you have some insight to share?
Fruityfrenchman: I read it that way, too. Read it in the context of what 37 permits. If 37 would not permit building, neither would 49.
You are referring to (3) and the key term is "that otherwise qualfies for relief under this section." The owner would have to qualify under (6) by virtue of ownership and a regulation that restricts. Again, if the person couldn't build when they bought the property, they can't now, either. The reasoning being, the person bought the property knowing the restrictions.
Red:
That is the way I read it....sometimes.
And sometimes, I guess I read between the lines and it seems to me what the legislature was trying to say is that no matter what you get one home under M49, as long as you could have built one home when you bought the property.
Yes, Fruity, that's right; that is what I was trying to say.
This is what I was trying to explain but utterly failed. The farmer, outside of the UGB has the option of having 1-3 homes or 4-10 homes. They are two different paths. When a person puts in a 37 claim, they have already essentially completed 6.6(d) which says
“claimant must establish that … One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling”
This has already been done when they submitted the 37 claim. With 49, all they have to do is reference, write down, the regulation that prohibits their establishment and submit the form. That’s it, also called the Fast Track, for 1-3 homes.
Does this make sense?
Only for 4-10 homes will the owner have to prove through an audit or certified appraisal that proves that you deserve 4-10 home sites for compensation.
You guys are making a big stink about nothing. The only other restriction is for 4-10 homes not being built over limited groundwater and/or high value land, which is not subjective at all since they define it in the definitions in the front of house bill 3540.
But Batman, you still have to have a waiver. You apply, saying there has been a regulation imposed. The date of ownership and the appearance of the loss of value is all that that first step requires. The waiver from DLCD then tells you the extent to which you can develop (if any).
You have to have the waiver. If you filed a claim, regardless of the date of purchase, the County simply verifies they date of purchase. They don't say you can or cannot build (they haven't the cojones in most Counties to do that).
DLCD looks at the date of purchase, makes an a priori assumption that regulations reduced value, and then tell you what rules are waived.
If you bought your propeerty AFTER regulations restricted development based upon acreage and income, then you may not be able to do anything at all.
It is a small point, but the 1-3 homes is not a given, if you bought the property recently (since 1994).
But Redcloud, you act as if a waiver is a big deal. It's not a whole lot more than getting the ticket into the movie theatre for 1-3 homes.
In fact, there's not much difference between 37 claims and 49 claims when it comes to 1-3 homes. Same process.. "hey, you still have to have the ok from above."
The first step, as you said, when filing with BOTH County and State (people are forgetting to file with BOTH, they need to for a 37 claim) the date of ownership is considered, not too hard, and the regulation (be it state or county) is cited).
And the waiver from the DLCD comes right after that. This isn't too hard to figure out. A lot of conservatives are making more complicated, and escheuing the facts, than it really is.
Already 2000+ out of the some 7,500+ 37 Claims have been approoved.
Yes Red Cloud, you have to have the waiver, but it's not that hard to get "THE WAIVER." If you just follow the 37 rules, submit to county and state, wait for the state to send out the letter to verify if the information submitted is legitimate... then it's approved. Waiver granted.
But you are wrong about the county not being able to say you can or cannot build. Remember... There are two types of regulations, or impediments... State and County. If a County ordinance says "no no no" then the County will tell you "no no no." The state will handle it's own ordinances.
"If you bought your propeerty AFTER regulations restricted development based upon acreage and income, then you may not be able to do anything at all.
It is a small point, but the 1-3 homes is not a given, if you bought the property recently (since 1994)."
... and??? Your point here? This applies to 37 claims regardless.
"The state isn't out to screw people over"
That is the single dumbest thing I've ever read.
... who cares what you think? With Anonymous for a handle... eh, you've really got nothing going for you.
Post a Comment