"property rights initiative"

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Will Atlas, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,468
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    NoSho, ma
    I think a menatlity that people should be careful of is the idea that large economic interests or corporations are using their power to undermine the public domain. I'm sort of detecting it here and I hate to say it, but everyone has a price. And unfortunately some people can be bought for a very low price. If your neighbors on either side of you sell out to some company for development, and you hold out, who do you think will be screaming the loudest for immenint domain to kick in? Sure your kids played togeher for years and counseled eachother through lifes woahs, but for a buck or even to save a buck, some people will sell out their own grandmother. Look at Walmart, it wants to move into a town and everyone goes crazy that they don't want it there. But once its there, the low low prices can't be denied. I couldn't even count the number of anti-corporation, anti-commericalization, anti-globalization leftists shopping there, sometimes with a Starbucks coffee in their hands. So we shouldn't blame property rights issues on developers coming in and decieving people ( if we really want to get at the core of the problem), we need to see that its the selfish nature of people that want more and more and too lazy to determine what will happen in the long run; it deosn't matter if they wear a tie everyday or a stained tenament t-shirt. Some people will even out right admit that they could care less what happens in the long run, they'll be dead or will move away.
    Any way, that's my rant. What little I've learned in all these years of grad school.

    -An anthropologist.
     
  2. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    the example of the 5 acres which are now unbuildable is exactly the notion presented to oregonians with the little old grandma in the TV ads for measure 37. as i have already pointed out, although grandma swung the voters to approve 37, 86% of measure 37 claims that have already been filed by land developers bent on building new housing tracts.

    so, the notion that the little old man with a 5 acre parcel is being screwed is just so much hype to move forward an anti land use planning notion and drum up support for implementation. the irony of this is the exact same folks who would buy into this are the exact same folks who will go balistic when that 20 acre farm tract next door becomes 100 condos.

    you want this in your neighborhood??? go for it!!
     
  3. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    i should also have added, a solution could be as simple as the property owner petitioning to allow development of property according to the guidelines in place when THIS owner purchased the property. that would allow the 5 acre example to go forward without drama. it would also stop the person who claims his 20 acres is now worth 5M but can't get it.
     
  4. Will Atlas

    Will Atlas Guest

    lots of good things said. I would say however that if this passes it will bankrupts our government ability to enforce zoing. Americans are reactionary voters and often hypocritical so I just wanted to get the word out.
     
  5. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    If I remember the Oregon land use law correctly, the property owner at the time the law was adopted HAD the right to develop under the conditions in place at purchase. It was when the property changed owners that the new law took effect. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

    In Washington, when zoning laws are enacted, the current property owner has a grace period (usually 6 months +/-) before the new zoning regulations take effect that they can file an intent to develop under the old rules. Once this grace period passes, the original owner must obide by the new regulations. There are provisions for "grandfathers rights" but that would just complicate this discussion.

    I have no sympathy for anyone who purchases a property zoned for farm use with the intent to convert it to housing. The original owner can sell their farm AS A farm, no actual value has been lost, only potential value.

    However, someone who has property that becomes totally unusable due to new regulations intended for the public good has lost ACTUAL value. This should be compensated by the public just as any other public benefit is.

    I don't always like paying for schools, parks, libraries, etc. but I do as it is a public benefit.
     
  6. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    well i guess i don't understand! if there is a current provision for me to purchase land, petition for development under an older regulation within 6mo, then what is the purpose of this new idea??????

    as i understand it, there was no grandfather ability in oregon. and it is true, since there is no money at any level of government to compensate, the net effect is to throw out land use planning. and that is in fact what is currently happening in oregon.

    this is all about developers getting their hands on property which they can profit from, grandma and grandpa have NOTHING to do with this. check out the articles in the oregonian, it's online for the reading.

    folks i know in k falls are shaking their heads over this. that county was almost 100% in favor. now, the neighbors are showing up to contest, which they can't, the sale and development of major tracts of adjacent farm land. the real estate market is booming in southern oregon with thousands of folks profiting in CA and coming north. getting 37 passed was a major coo for the real estate and home building market and their well oiled lobbists.

    my no vote is guaranteed if it comes to that.
     
  7. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    998
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    The 13th and 14th amendments were ratified to end slavery. They were not ratified for property rights. Slaves didn't own anyng. I understand this is an initiative, however, anyone using the 13th or 14th amendments to try and convince you is not using the intent of the law.
    Zinn writes about this at length, the misuse of those amendments by monied interests, In "A Peoples History" and I believe the Zinn reader.
    I am presently trying to rezone my property so as to sell a portion of it. I understand the potential frustration, but it is nessesary for local governments to have the right to create and enforce zoning regulations. Democracy dependant upon ownership is really an aristocracy.
    Theo Epstein for Pesident,
    cds
     
  8. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    That's the way (the 6 months) that it works in Washington. It may or not have been the same in Oregon; that land use law was passed 20+ years ago. From what I have gathered this "new" idea is that people (call them "new owners") who bought land (say a 100 acre farm) AFTER the land use law was passed; they had NO chance to develop under the old regulations. The new owners were suing because they wanted to develop their land like pre-land use regulation owners are able. I believe that they (new owners) claimed that they were being treated unequally under the law compared to the old owners. If this is the case, it may be a matter of equity under the Oregon Constitution.

    It would be helpfull if you posted the links since you seem to be keeping up with it.


    We seem to be able to raise taxes to build parks and schools? We are even able to raise taxes so that billionaire sports team owners are able to keep their multi-millionaire players in the best of facilities. Maybe the politicians could actually lead and convince people of the need to preserve these rural areas and let the "feel good" stuff like sculpture gardens and fancy tunnels stay on the drawing boards!

    You talk about the "booming" real estate market in So. Oregon and relate it to this decision. This court opinion was just released a couple of weeks ago, it's much too soon to see land developed and houses being built as a result of this decision. The average development takes 2 - 5 years from time of submittal of intent to develop to putting up the first house! The real estate market in Oregon, like Puget Sound, has been "booming" for some time now. You may be connecting a totally unrelated event to this decision!

    The final outcome isn't even really known as the State of Oregon can choose to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
     
  9. fatwhitedog

    fatwhitedog New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a place on the OlyPen, Wa.
  10. Ned Wright

    Ned Wright New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Tenino, WA
    Fatwhitedog - I am a little confused about the link you sent. I am well aware of the problems with this case in New London, Conn, but this is far from the debate at hand. There is a big difference between land use and eminent domain.

    Cactus - You were saying that the Oregon decision is only days old. The ruling from the Oregon Superior Court is only days old, but before this thing got tied up in court and the state halted new applications to apply for measure 37 consideration, counties were flooded with applications that they were processing. I believe (not too sure) that some were approved before they stopped applications to wait for the courts decision. I would assume that those with an approved application have gone forward with the development.

    This is just my impression, long ways from fact. I agree that some links to the Oregonian articles would probably help the debate.

    Ned
     
  11. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    try this link to the oregonian newspaper:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/search/in...unt=20&xref=7&xpath.any=measure property land

    this should provide a bit of background for whats about to happen in WA.

    next time you take a road trip fishing in oregon, look at housing prices. we all like to believe that 'we' live in the most expensive, overpriced place in the universe. butt, check out the bend area: modest starter home 2bath, 3 bedroom, attached garage, in a development, 500k; fixer-er-upper in ashland in what i would call a 'mixed' neighborhood, 1.5 baths, 2 bedroom, carport on tiny lot, 475k.

    these prices are moving upward as the population ages and the 60+ crowd sells off their monster expensive CA homes and heads for new territory. that is what is driving these property initiatives, not the poor farmer wanting to subdivide. this is all about big bucks and subdivisions.

    drive on down to redmond, or and continue to bend and then over to sisters. look kind of like a miniature LA????? now if thats what folks in WA are really after, supporting a 'property rights initiative' sponsored by the farm bureau is what you need to vote for.
     
  12. Sisu

    Sisu Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    some where cool,usa
    Very interesting posts, but here it is in a nutshell. The sportsman (woman) always gets screwed. Rivers, lakes, wilderness, birds, animals, etc. don't put money in people's pockets so the lobbyist has a very easy job. I don’t want to sound like a negative person here but I’ve only seen one political grease job fail and that was a coal gas project in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley of Alaska. Some how a fella there was able to organize the borough’s voters for a recall of the politician and stop the coal gas project. Otherwise all I’ve ever seen lobbyists do was grease the pockets of the people in Olympia and it's all history. BTW I hate politicians, most real estate sales people, used car dealers, and people of the cloth since they are all after one thing: what ever you have they want it.
     
  13. riverrun

    riverrun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    As you can tell, I am not one to make many postings on this board. But, as one who is currently being affected by "property rights" issues in Skagit County, I can't help myself. In March I purchased 160 acres zoned to allow residential development with 1 home per 20 Acres. We are adjacent to industrial forest and 1 mile from a county road, although our road meets all county codes for ingress, fire protection, etc. It is located within Fire District 10 within 1 mile of the banks of the Sauk River.

    My wife and I bought it with a retirement dream which is 5-10 years off. We did all of our due diligence regarding building a house(s), barn(s), etc, with a desire to build for our retirement a house, etc. where my wife can ride, and I can swing flies for steelhead. ;) All of this is possible under the current zoning.

    November, the Forest Advisory Board as part of the Growth Management Act update recommends that all parcels 40 acres or greater adjacent to land which the primary zoning is Industrial Forest should be reclassified as Industrial Forest. Under this new zoning, that is 1 house per 20 acres, but ONLY if you are within 200 feet of a road. Since my property is not within 200 feet of a county road, I lose all of my building rights. Seems the Forest Advisory Board is concerned about the loss of "resources" as Skagit COunty devlops and feels they must protect their access to forest and complains that non-industrial landowners file nuisance suits against them when they don't clean up their slash in compliance with laws, complain about errant herbicidal treatments, etc.

    If this is not a taking, then what is? Sure I will retain my title, but what value will it be when I must sell it to Sierra Pacific (successor of Crown Pacific) when my wife and I are no longer interested in camping away our retirement. Meanwhile, the timber companies complain to the Planning Commision about the "taking of their land without just compensation" as a result of increasing riparian buffers. Hypocrites?

    I am not sure the property rights initiative is the right answer, but something must be done to protect small property owners from loss of their value. I am curious about your opinions.
     
  14. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    riverrun, from the post by cactus, it would appear you have 6 months to appeal this ruling. true???
     
  15. Ned Wright

    Ned Wright New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Tenino, WA
    RiverRun,

    This is a very unfortunate situation. I feel for you. I am quickly drawn to your last sentence. What is the answer to this problem? I agree that the answer isn't the property rights initiative. Have you gone to the Forestry Advisery Board? I know that it is far from an answer, but if you went and made public comment, often the board would seriously consider your concerns. Possibly there is some sort of appeal.

    The point I am getting at is that these kinds of issues have come up before and reasonable people/elected officials have come to consensus before. I am very weary about changing laws to rectify the execption to the rule. Have you looked into your rights to grandfather in old zoning.

    I am really asking these questions to learn about the reality of our political climate, not to win an arguement. I would like to see an expanded discussion of the implecations of this vote.

    Thanks for your input,
    Ned
    An aspiring young bureaucrat,