BigHornRam
Well-known member
Nemont,
You are not suggesting we use that dirty word "compromise" are you?
You are not suggesting we use that dirty word "compromise" are you?
Anti-Sprawl Laws, Property Rights Collide in Oregon
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
So some of you don't agree with zoning laws? Is it ok for one landowner to develop his property into an industrial zone while all the surrounding property is predominantly residential? I'm all for property rights, but the government has got to have some amount of control. When a landowner converts farmland into a huge residential subdivision, it creates more demand for resources (water, electricity, schools, etc.) I don't think many people are smart enough to know whether a particular area can handle all the additional people their new development will bring in, and even if they knew the increased population would cause problems, they most likely wouldn't care.
Nemont
Well-known member
I have been on our local zoning review board for the past 6 years so I understand the need for it fairly well. This goes beyond zoning it becomes social engineering. If a bureaucrat decides your land is best used for an orchard then that is all it can be, regardless of what other uses of the land there could be.
Look at your lower tax arguement, it doesn't hold water because there is no way he benefited by $57 million dollars on the tax issue. He is having the ability to capitalize that property taken away from him by someone who most likely has a vested interest in making sure the supply of new homes is limited. Zoning is a tool to use for city and counties to make sure that there is the correct use of lands. If a subdivision is directly accross from empty land that could also be used as a subdivision but there is not a way for that land to be reclassed as residential then that in effect is a taking. Zoning and Covenants are necessary but there has to be a balance as well.
Nemont
Look at your lower tax arguement, it doesn't hold water because there is no way he benefited by $57 million dollars on the tax issue. He is having the ability to capitalize that property taken away from him by someone who most likely has a vested interest in making sure the supply of new homes is limited. Zoning is a tool to use for city and counties to make sure that there is the correct use of lands. If a subdivision is directly accross from empty land that could also be used as a subdivision but there is not a way for that land to be reclassed as residential then that in effect is a taking. Zoning and Covenants are necessary but there has to be a balance as well.
Nemont
Guess what. If 60% of the people who live in an area decide that they want development then it's none of our business. Same old stuff where a small group wants to get their way and sues or sneaks a new law in. We live in America not Europe. You want to stand on the cliffs of the Washington side of the Columbia and see pristeen wilderness then you better invent a time machine cause Hood River has been there to look at for a long time.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Well you guys make some good points. I don't really care anyway. I don't spend much time in the gorge. I don't have any kids either. So really makes no difference to me if they ruin it for everybody else's children. Nemont, just be sure to save some space in Montana so I can move there in 20 years or so when I retire (along with thousands of others from Washington, California, etc.) Thanks!
cjcj
New member
I have to agree with Elkchser/Washinton Hunter....Its all about Greed and the almighty dollar...We see it here every day........its fine to have some money... but how much is too much and at what cost to the future?
Nemont- the argument you are using about zoning does go the other way. The sewer lines are supposed to go into a "farm" area near Missoula (Mullan Rd). Many of the people who have large parcels of land don't want it to come in and be rezoned because the increased property tax would basically "bankrupt the farm". They feel the new zoning would detriment their quality of life as well as their ability to sustain their property. By implementing new zoning it can also take away property rights in an area (looking at it from the perspective of someone who wishes to keep their land.) Many have said they would have to sell and it would be a forced subdividison. Who really gains in these situations and don't people know the zoning of an area when they buy into it? Wouldn't it be unfair to those who don't wish to subdivide to have the large increase in tax because of the new zoning?
Washington Hunter
The big difference with the way the two types of implementation we are talking about is this.
(1) Legislation behind closed doors and implemented in secrecy, is that no one (except those in the room) get a chance to have any input or see what they are going to have to contend with next.
I have had personal experience with this one dealing with trees. One day I am working away on a job site, the next I have a red tag on the job because the rules changed and I hadn't been informed. These rules had been passed in the above aforementioned way and when the guy showed up on my job, the cat was finally out of the bag.
(2) Legislation thru the 'permit' process is what you have mentioned.
I have personally had to go thru that process and it is very time consuming. You have to send every one that is with in a certain distance of the job site a letter and they have a defined amount of time to answer back and put their two cents in even if they have no vested interest in what you are doing.
The big difference with the way the two types of implementation we are talking about is this.
(1) Legislation behind closed doors and implemented in secrecy, is that no one (except those in the room) get a chance to have any input or see what they are going to have to contend with next.
I have had personal experience with this one dealing with trees. One day I am working away on a job site, the next I have a red tag on the job because the rules changed and I hadn't been informed. These rules had been passed in the above aforementioned way and when the guy showed up on my job, the cat was finally out of the bag.
(2) Legislation thru the 'permit' process is what you have mentioned.
I have personally had to go thru that process and it is very time consuming. You have to send every one that is with in a certain distance of the job site a letter and they have a defined amount of time to answer back and put their two cents in even if they have no vested interest in what you are doing.
Rogue 6
New member
Measure 37 only apply to a property owner that bought a piece of property zoned one way, and during that ownership period a municipality/county/state change the zoning. Example I buy a 5 acre piece of cut over timber land that is zoned for a single house lot. Before I build the county rezones the property to timber land only. The value drops from 200 k down to 25k. Now the county has its choice to pay me the difference or allow me to use the land as it was zoned when I bought it. How is this unfair.
What was happening before this law was if you owned land in the urban growth boundry the county/city/state would rezone your land making it worth less. Some good-ol-boy would buy it at a steal and grease the right palms to get it zoned for developement. So instead of one house lot on 5 or 10 acres now there is a sub-division of fresh Californians and a richer good-ol-boy and a dirty beaurocrate with a little cash in his pocket. And the little old widow that lost her only real asset "the land" is out of luck and soon to be on government assistance.
What was happening before this law was if you owned land in the urban growth boundry the county/city/state would rezone your land making it worth less. Some good-ol-boy would buy it at a steal and grease the right palms to get it zoned for developement. So instead of one house lot on 5 or 10 acres now there is a sub-division of fresh Californians and a richer good-ol-boy and a dirty beaurocrate with a little cash in his pocket. And the little old widow that lost her only real asset "the land" is out of luck and soon to be on government assistance.
MarvB
Well-known member
....but Rogue if you get that subdivsion of fresh Californians (who are likely from the southern half of the state) that just means those equity whores have bypassed my place and thats a good thing! 
All kidding aside, the way you explained it is the way it works here as well...the fair market value pretext. Applies to rezoning, comdemnations, land swaps, etc...
All kidding aside, the way you explained it is the way it works here as well...the fair market value pretext. Applies to rezoning, comdemnations, land swaps, etc...
Nemont
Well-known member
MattK,
I agree with you about it not being fair. What property owner then whould be favored? The ones who want to pull plug and have a 1035 exchange to sell 240 acres in Missoula and buy 25,000 acres near Plentywood or those who wish to remain on the land and watch Missoula grow up around them? I don't know the right answer.
Nemont
I agree with you about it not being fair. What property owner then whould be favored? The ones who want to pull plug and have a 1035 exchange to sell 240 acres in Missoula and buy 25,000 acres near Plentywood or those who wish to remain on the land and watch Missoula grow up around them? I don't know the right answer.
Nemont
Nemont- I don't know either but the argument being used now is "when everyone bought their land, they knew what they were getting and we should stick to the rules." Of course, if I were a landowner, I wouldn't mind tripling my profit either. If it were a family farm, I would hate to have to sell because of the increased tax and fees....Sticky problems.
Nemont
Well-known member
What if were the family home that has been in the family for 100 years? That happens far more oftern then the family farm. People are priced out of there homes by taxes all the time.
That is the same thing I hear about Social Security. Unfortunately times change and things change.
Nemont
This isn't the problem Matt, they take away the value of what you have, and not by a little.
It wouldn't be any different if you bought a truck and then legislation was passed that particular truck isn't legal to put onto the road.
You still own the truck, you are still making the payments on it, and you still have to licence it (pay property tax's) but you can't use it for what you purchased it for.
Rogue 6
New member
Notice who in Oregon is for this and who is against it. Dope smoking hippy beaurocrates and a few developers are against it. And the vast majority of voters where for it. Oregon is not a conservitive state but anyone with a little intellectual honesty can see prior to this only the "boss hog" types got around LCDC. The apperance of pay offs and bribes to government officals is common. This is a great thing for the common man that only says some beaurocrate can't change the rules mid stride without some consequence.
Good for you guys. I lived there for 15 years and got sick of the hippie huggers women hairy armpits. Too liberal in the cities for me. Sure do like rowing the Rogue and bobber fishing the Wilson though. You do need to outlaw cowshit in Tillamook though.
Rogue 6
New member
We need some rain and snow or the springers are screwed. Their just starting to catch the first springers at the mouths, but it'll be a tough season unless California gives us our rain back. The Rogue is too low to row right now, it'll really beat up your boat. We should know for sure in a couple months.
Similar threads
