Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(This information furnished by Brian J. Boquist, State Representative.) This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. Argument in Opposition Americans for Prosperity – Oregon Urges a “No” Vote on Measure 49 Measure 49 would allow the government to take your property without paying you for it. The U.S. and Oregon Constitutions guarantee that you will be compensated if government takes your property. For almost 40 years, Oregon’s land use system has refused to recognize this simple Constitutional guarantee. Under current law, if government takes an action that reduces your property value, they have to pay you. Measure 49 would undercut our own Constitution. Measure 49 would allow government to take your property for the benefit of private companies – including out-of-state companies. Please join us in voting “No” on Measure 49 Americans for Prosperity – Oregon www.americansforprosperity.org Oregon_AFP@yahoo.com (This information furnished by Jeff Kropf and Matt Evans, Americans for Prosperity - Oregon.) This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. Argument in Opposition Laws that affect important public issues, like Measure 49, deserve the full protection of the legislative process. The people of Oregon may disagree as to whether Measure 49 is good or bad public policy, but public testimony before the Legislature assures the integrity of the process. In refusing to allow a single substantive public hearing on Measure 49, the Legislature violated a fundamental principle: the people’s business requires the input of the people. Equally disturbing is the Legislature’s actions to prevent judicial review of the Measure 49 ballot title. The people of Oregon may contest a ballot title if, in a citizen’s judgment, the title is unfair (ORS 250.085). For Measure 49, the Legislature used a separate bill (HB 2640) to FORBID a challenge to the ballot title. Specifically, the Legislature stripped the Oregon Supreme Court of the power to review. This intentionally negates the people’s ability to contest a ballot title that, by any objective measure, does not fairly describe Measure 49. All Oregonians should be concerned about the “jurisdiction stripping” provisions attached to Measure 49. It is fundamentally bad policy for the Legislature to strip away Court jurisdiction over a specific matter and prohibit Court review of a ballot title. It takes little imagination to see how the Legislature’s abuse of “jurisdiction stripping” provisions can lead to fundamental breaches in the rights we all enjoy as Oregonians. Measure 49 has pros and cons depending on one’s perspective. However, the Legislature’s refusal to allow a discussion of the pros and cons and its prohibition of Court review for the ballot title is not consistent with what we must demand of our elected officials. The people’s business is too important to be held captive to partisan politics in Salem. Vote NO on Measure 49 and send the Legislature a message that the integrity of the legislative process and judicial review must always be preserved for the people. (This information furnished by Paul Hribernick.) This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. Argument in Opposition OREGON ORCHARDISTS ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON MEASURE 49 We raise a diverse range of crops including pears, apples, and hazelnuts. Although we don’t raise the same types of crops, we do have one thing in common: We all oppose Measure 49. When you commit to planting an orchard, you commit to years of expenses before you get a crop. Like timber, our type of farming is a long-term investment. We consider all the risks when we make those investments in the future. Measure 49 would grant the government the power to take the value and use of private property without compensation. That risk would jeopardize future investment by family orchardists. We already make long term investments facing the uncertainty of global competition, changes in climate, and uncertain government labor policies. If government can take our property without compensation, the risk becomes too much. Who would make long-term plans if you will lose your investment with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen? That’s why we urge a No Vote on Measure 49! What About Subdivisions and Farmland? It is laughable that those supporting Measure 49 are talking about farmland and subdivisions. These are the same people and special interest groups that have supported the state land use regulatory system, a system which has forced large scale development onto the prime farmland around Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Medford for over 30 years. Measure 49 will force large scale developments onto prime farmland near cities and lock away unproductive areas, all at the expense of the property owner, Oregon agriculture, and those of you sitting in traffic. Measure 49 undermines Oregon agriculture. Please Vote No on Measure 49. Debra Laraway, apple grower, Hood River County Phil Downing, hazelnut grower, Washington County Frances Y. Benton, pear grower, Hood River County (This information furnished by Debra Laraway, Laraway & Sons Inc.; Phil Downing, Downing Nut Farm; Frances Y. Benton, Benton Orchards.) This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. Measure 49 Arguments Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet 57 | State Measures continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3