Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Ballot Measure 49 and re-filing - Beating Property Owners Into Re-Submission


The first lie the pro-49ers got caught in was the claim that claimants under the current law would only be required to "check a box" under Measure 49 in order to get the rights the pro-49ers promise Measure 49 will deliver.

In fact, the pro-49ers have even gone so far as to claim that Measure 49 doesn't require property owners to re-file anything! Here is what the pro-49ers say on their website:

Will people who filed Measure 37 claims have to refile again if Measure 49 passes?


Assertions that claimants will have to start over are being made by the opposition and they are false. If a property owner has a valid Measure 37 claim, the process under Measure 49 is simple and straightforward. After M49 passes, claimants will receive a notice from the state of their options, and a form where they check off that they want the fast-track for up to three houses (with transferability). If the "fast track" option meets their needs, all they have to do is check that off, send back the form and proceed with the local process of obtaining a building permit — just like all construction projects.


Claimants who want more than three houses have to prove a loss equal to the value of the number of homesites they seek (up to ten). They must supplement their existing claim with an appraisal proving their loss, but they can add to the calculations up to $5,000 to reflect the cost of the appraisal. The appraisal is initiated and conducted by the property owner and required to meet Federal ‘Yellow Book’ standards


However, a quick read of Measure 49 quickly exposes the lies of the pro-49 campaign. Section 8.(2) of Measure 49 says:


(2) The notice required by subsection (1) of this section must:

(a) Explain the claimant's options if the claimant wishes to subdivide, partition or establish a dwelling on the property under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act;
(b) Identify any information that the claimant must file; and
(c) Provide a form for the claimant's use
;

(Emphasis added)

So, right there, in the very text of Measure 49, it makes it clear that Measure 37 claimants are going to be required to re-file something. The next question is, what are Measure 37 claimants going to be required to re-file? Section 8.(3) kind of answers that question:


(3) A claimant must choose whether to proceed under section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act by filing the form provided by the department within 90 days after the date the department mails the notice and form required under subsection (1) of this section. In addition, the claimant must file any additional information required in the notice. If the claimant fails to file the form within 90 days after the date the department mails the notice, the claimant is not entitled to relief under section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act.
(Emphasis added)


Section 6 [the "1 to 3 home option] and Section 7 [the "4 to 10 home option"] each have different criteria a claimant must satisfy in order to qualify for either option. As discussed earlier, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to qualify for the 1 to 3 home option, and qualifying for the 4 to 10 home option will be even harder than qualifying for the 1 to 3 home option.

The fact is, Measure 37 claimants are going to have to start over in order to have any chance of getting any relief under Measure 49.

But the real trap is found in the highlighted sentence (above) from section 8.(3) of Measure 49. The department (aka the Department of Land Conservation and Development) can require whatever additional information it wants, without limitation. Who knows what additional information the DLCD is going to require.

The claim that all one has to do under Measure 49 is to "check a box" in order to obtain relief is simply false, and the express language of Measure 49 makes that much clear. Measure 49 will require Measure 37 claimants, many of whom are elderly, to start over with their claims, again with no guarantee they will ever get a decision from the government.

But the real trick in Measure 49 is the language that allows DLCD to require whatever information it wants from property owners. When pro-49ers claim that property owners won't have to start over with their claims under Measure 49, they are being outright deceptive, because the pro-49ers know that if Measure 49 passes, DLCD is going to require property owners to go through the process all over.

Yes, Measure 37 claimants will have to start all over. Go to Stop49.com for more information on the many tricks and traps in Measure 49.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is unbelievable! How can supporters of Measure 49 live with themselves. It is so obvious they are lying on their website, just look at the language of Measure 49....

How can anyone support Measure 49 is beyond me.

Joan Webster said...

I just got a letter from a law school professor that really explained Measure 49 in simple terms. I had no idea that government had the power to take property through these regulations and then not pay the property owner compensation.

Can you post that letter for more people to see?

Thanks,
Joan

RugbyProp said...

Dear Fruity Frenchman,

You are dead on about Measure 49 and its mind numbing bureaucracy.

Too bad your rugby team sucks, but then the Frogs never could beat the English when it mattered.

Here's hoping M49 is the Oregon Land Use Nazis Waterloo.

Remember to VOTE NO ON 49!

BatmanTempest said...

God you Hillbillies take the cake. I needed a good laugh this morning and I got it just in time... still 13 minutes to go till morning is done.

God, you reallly are a loon CS. Right after you type up the red print, see above, that deals with the process of handling a 37 claimant, you go on to argue that it's not the case, when in reality it is exactly the case.

If you're looking at 1-3 houses, the county sends you a letter stating, "Hey Hillbilly, you sure you want to move ahead with this here claim?" and the hillbilly then checks the box that states, "Yes, I want to continue damnit!!" and they send it in via Pony Express. Badda Bing!

Do you guys ever pull your head out of the sand to come up for air?

What loonies.

... uh oh... Judge Judy's on. Gotta go.

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand.

M49 makes you refile your M37 application, even if you were already approved.

Does not tell you specifically what info the agency you are refiling with wants or what their fee will be to process your claim.

And oh yeah they can give you answer sometime between now and when the sun goes cold regarding your approval or disapproval.

Sounds like a great idea to me...

Just like throwing yourself in a volcano to stop it erupting!

We ll here is my no-brainer answer to the dilemma posed by all the misinformation given out by the pro49 folks and that is:

VOTE NO on 49.

Peter Bray said...

Vote Yes on Measure 49.

If you consider checking a box on a letter you receive in the mail and then putting it back in the mail "refiling", well, I guess that is... but to most people that isn't that significant.

Vote Yes on Measure 49.

Daniel Eisenbeis said...

Testimony by Lane Shetterly, Director, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to the Ways & Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources (5/31/07):

"There is nothing in HB 3540 that requires that a claim that has been filed be refiled. We’re prepared to act on pending claims based on the claim that has been filed, so that when we send notice to claimants who have already filed claims, either already approved or pending, what we will be asking them would be to make a choice between either the express path relief or whether they intend to pursue the conditional path. We will not be asking them to file a new claim. We will have enough information for most claim review, to the extent that their choice for one path or the other in a specific instance requires information that is not in the claim that they have submitted, we would request additional claims information so that we can process that, but no one will have to refile a claim who has already filed."

Anonymous said...

I guess if Hitler could talk the most educated nation on earth into killing six million innocent jews, we shouldn't be surprised that the bureaucrats in Oregon and their ilk have any problem stealing from Oregonians and then lying about it.

keko616 said...

The supporters of Measure 49 had to cheat at the legislature by creating an exception to the requirement that the attorney general write the ballot titles. Only by doing that could they place a ballot title so misleading and disceptive as to fool the voters as to the real content of the measure.
If you think the government should be able to control your property, then you will get it in spades with Measure 49.

Vote No on 49

CommonSense said...

And correct me if I am wrong, but Lane Shetterly no longer works for DLCD, right? So what difference does it make what he said?

Plus, Lane isn't exactly the most unbiased person on this issue. Of course he was going to toe the party line, even though Measure 49 says differently.

Here is what I want to see. I want 1000 Friends, the OLCV, the Nature Conservanncy, Peter Bray and all the rest of the anti-property rights community to promise, under oath, that they will not object, they will not challenge any Measure 49 claim, if all the property owner does is check a box.

I also want DLCD to promise, under oath, that the form they will create will have only two boxes on it for a claimant to fill out - with a check mark - and nothing else will be required.

What are the chances of any of these supporters of Measure 49 taking me up on this offer?

None.

Because you are all lying to the voters. You know damn well that the specific language of Measure 49 is going to require Measure 37 claimants to refile their claims. Why don't any of you refer to the language of Measure 49 when you try to rebut these arguments?

Answer: Because the language of Measure 49 doesn't support your crazy claims.

BatmanTempest said...

It's like talking to a 3rd grader, or some stupid parrot from the twilight zone that keeps parroting what it learned in the mens room.

You guys are truly a testament to intellect and rational. It’s like you fell to earth out of some ship that came from the 17th century, crying “Witchcraft! Witchcraft!” everywhere you go, afraid of your own shadow, gays, abortionists and dirty hippies. “WITCHES! Gasp!”

Is it due to ignorance or just a tenacious perseverance and a fervent commitment to becoming the penultimate testament of anti-Darwinism that you Oh-So-Much desire to maintain? Either way you conservatives are just kookie. I’m serious. You’re literally wacko with your double speak and ignorant posturing. You’re just…. Gross.

You refer to Hitler, you insist that the government is “taking your property” (taking it? Really? Where are they putting it? Are claimants supposed to move off of their now “stolen” property?).

You're like those South Park redneck guys yelling at City Hall, "They Tuk Er Jobs!"

You continuously lie about this ridiculous “re-filing” deal, clinging to it as if it was a life preserver yet... no matter what is put in front of you people, you continue to plug your ears with your fingers, all the while shaking your head screaming, “na na na na na na.”

You conservative hillbillies just invent shit up for the sake of justifying the placement of your head in the ground or either up your fourth point of contact.

I thank your god, every night, that you’re still a minority around here. I also pray to Jesus to save me from his followers who are unable to read 8th grade Engrish.

You guys go ahead and pow wow over this fictitious “re-filing” delusional propaganda. Me… I’m going to focus on reality, which is not letting you hillbillies displace our farmland with suburbs or forests with fire hydrants.

Vote Yes on 49 to keep Oregon Green. It’s extremely simple. Just Vote Yes.

Anonymous said...

Dear Joan Webster

I too got the attorney letter. As one who works in the real estate industry, I looked at it askance. Fact is, no where in Measure 49, nor even in the unrelated dreaded "eminent domain" process, is property robbed without compensation to the owner.

If you will notice, the letter merely stated it would... it did not describe how. Nor could he because a land use regulation can not renege ownership sans compensation. I tossed the letter, figuring it wasn't worth my time to contact the attorney and tell him he's a chicken little idiot, twisting intents because he has an agenda. And that agenda may just be to make a bundle as a real estate developer on investment land he has held.

Even being a real estate professional, I have been one of the few against Measure 37 since it's inception. Fact is, consumers and the general population have no expertise in the complexity of development. Since few or none of you have ever gone thru the process of attempting to get land developed in depth, the studies, geological surveys, water tables, erosion, etal criteria are immense. Afterall, you don't want some neighborhood going in and finding out that add'l demand on city utilites and roads and just ruined your own living situation, right?

Planning and developing are outside of the eductional scope of the regular Oregon voter. Period. So I would ask you to separate your emotional "but it's my property" urges that too many are preying on in order to line their own pockets.

Second point... I'd be curious as to how many of you here in this forum actually live on acreage in the country? Or are you merely city denizens and weekend visitors to the Oregon countryside? Unless you live in the country, and know the different issues we face, you are at an educational disadvantage. However as urbanites, you do own the largest voting block. That fact does not, however, relieve you of well-thought out research and responsibility when it comes to issues.

The last point... I have a real problem with 7,500 claimants enjoying a property right that I and 100s of thousands of others do not have. Because you have lived in this state longer than I, you have special privileges?

Equal application of the law is as American as apple pie and baseball in concept. And tho the Marion County judge's decision was ultimately overturned by court of appeals, as far as I can see, she was correct as originally stated. It is discrimination. Not by gender, color etal. But by longevity of state residency.

Measure 49 is not perfect. But then, give legislators a pen, and you are guaranteed to wind up with a useless, poorly written law. However limiting the amount of development in rural areas to the "privileged few" who qualify for this law is a fair compromise, and preserves the Oregon you love to visit when you leave your city homes by ensuring that farmers, cattle growers and other country residers do not run into problems with contaminated or low water levels from additional septics and wells.

Anonymous said...

You're obviously not a lawyer, or at least you're a dishonest one.

The section requires "any additional information they must file" -- which, as the legislative intent shows, is none. Thus, they don't have to file anything more than the form they're sent.

The point of quoting people who gave expert testimony during the creation of the bill is that it shows what the legislature was trying to do, as law is often unclear.

If you defeat this measure, it will be because of lies like this.

Anonymous said...

This anti-49 effort is so deceptive; it's all about development and making $$$ regardless of who suffers.
M49 restores fairness in the terrible law that is M37.
From the Register-Guard:
New TV ads depict elderly couples worrying that the value of their land could be destroyed by a measure on the Nov. 6 ballot that would scale back a 2004 property rights law that opened up new possibilities for development.
The ads are bankrolled in large part by timber companies, some of whom have filed claims to turn forest land into housing subdivisions under the 2004 property law known as Measure 37, and stand to benefit if the current law is left as it is.

Campaign finance figures show that 18 timber-related companies have contributed $1.14 million, or 59 percent, to the $1.93 million campaign so far to defeat the Nov. 6 ballot measure, called Measure 49.

Of those timber companies, nine have claims under the 2004 law seeking the right to convert 113,000 acres of their land to subdivisions or $32.5 million in compensation if governments reject those claims.
Oregonians voted by a margin of 61-39 percent for Measure 37 because it promised to loosen what were perceived by some as unfair restrictions in the state's land-use rules that hurt small landowners. Instead, it has brought disarray and confusion, resulting in more than 250 lawsuits seeking clarification of its provisions. As a result, there have been no clear guidelines for property development since Measure 37 was passed.
Measure 49, the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, is intended to bring order to land-use rules. It would allow rural landowners to build a few homes - three in most cases and as many as 10 for some - but curb larger subdivisions and industrial development currently allowed under the 2004 law.

The timber industry, owners of vast acreage in Oregon, is among the most powerful of the ballot measure's opponents.

The largest single contributor to the anti-Measure 49 campaign so far is the Stimson Lumber Co., which has chipped in $375,000.

The Portland-based company has filed the largest development claims under the 2004 law's provisions - a total of at least 57,000 acres in six counties, which the Yes on 49 Committee says signals Stimson's intent to convert forests into subdivisions.

So when you look at who is funding the anti-M49 fight, it is primarily big timber and development who stand to make many many millions by selling of land that can never be recovered.
They ain't making any new farm or timber land that I can see..

Anonymous said...

This anti-49 effort is so deceptive; it's all about development and making $$$ regardless of who suffers.
M49 restores fairness in the terrible law that is M37.
From the Register-Guard:
New TV ads depict elderly couples worrying that the value of their land could be destroyed by a measure on the Nov. 6 ballot that would scale back a 2004 property rights law that opened up new possibilities for development.
The ads are bankrolled in large part by timber companies, some of whom have filed claims to turn forest land into housing subdivisions under the 2004 property law known as Measure 37, and stand to benefit if the current law is left as it is.

Campaign finance figures show that 18 timber-related companies have contributed $1.14 million, or 59 percent, to the $1.93 million campaign so far to defeat the Nov. 6 ballot measure, called Measure 49.

Of those timber companies, nine have claims under the 2004 law seeking the right to convert 113,000 acres of their land to subdivisions or $32.5 million in compensation if governments reject those claims.
Oregonians voted by a margin of 61-39 percent for Measure 37 because it promised to loosen what were perceived by some as unfair restrictions in the state's land-use rules that hurt small landowners. Instead, it has brought disarray and confusion, resulting in more than 250 lawsuits seeking clarification of its provisions. As a result, there have been no clear guidelines for property development since Measure 37 was passed.
Measure 49, the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, is intended to bring order to land-use rules. It would allow rural landowners to build a few homes - three in most cases and as many as 10 for some - but curb larger subdivisions and industrial development currently allowed under the 2004 law.

The timber industry, owners of vast acreage in Oregon, is among the most powerful of the ballot measure's opponents.

The largest single contributor to the anti-Measure 49 campaign so far is the Stimson Lumber Co., which has chipped in $375,000.

The Portland-based company has filed the largest development claims under the 2004 law's provisions - a total of at least 57,000 acres in six counties, which the Yes on 49 Committee says signals Stimson's intent to convert forests into subdivisions.

So when you look at who is funding the anti-M49 fight, it is primarily big timber and development who stand to make many many millions by selling of land that can never be recovered.
They ain't making any new farm or timber land that I can see..

Anonymous said...

Sweet!

I get to be the first to say...

Bwaa-ha-ha!

Oh, and...

Fuck Dave Hunnicutt with something hard and sandpaper-y!

Omar Cruz said...

I like this blog is fantastic, is really good written. Congratulation. Do you want to see something more? Read it...:Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: beach real estate, condo, condos for sale. Visit us for more info at: http://www.jaco-bay.com

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!