Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Please vote NO on Measure 49 Cameron Krauss, Attorney at Law, Glendale (This information furnished by Cameron Krauss, Attorney at Law.) 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 ISSUE: WHY THE “1 TO 3 HOME EXPRESS LANE” DOESN’T WORK Supporters of Measure 49 are making claims about Measure 49 that are simply false. Supporters of Measure 49 who drafted the Explanatory Statement for Measure 49 say “Claimants may build up to three homes if allowed when they acquired their properties.” Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself: Under Measure 49, there are different requirements for the “1 to 3 home option” depending on where you live. If you live outside a UGB, Section 6(6) of Measure 49 says that in order to get 1 to 3 homes you must prove 6 things, including: (d) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling; Under Measure 49, in order to get 1 to 3 homes, you must have 1) already filed a Measure 37 claim, and 2) prove there is one or more land use regulations that prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling. That is a much tougher standard than current law, which requires you to show that a land use regulation “restricts” the use of you property. The distinction is critical because most rural families are prevented from building one home on their property by a restriction,like LCDC’s $80,000 rule or a wildlife habitat overlay. These are examples of restrictions – they don’t stop you from building, they tell you under what conditions you can build. These restrictions have led to most Measure 37 claims. There are many other laws out there that are restrictions, not prohibitions, on your ability to use your land. Those laws are NOT subject to Measure 49. Which means that if at the time you bought your property you could have built three homes, but you can’t build three homes now because of a land use restriction, Measure 49 wipes out your claim. Take the time to read Measure 49. It simply doesn’t work. Dave Hunnicutt, Attorney at Law, Tigard (This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Attorney at Law.) 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 Do you need more information about Measure 49? Go to www.stoptakingourproperty.com and you can find out what Measure 49’s supporters aren’t telling you. You can also read the text of Measure 49 for yourself, and hear what experts say about Measure 49 and what changes it makes to Oregon law using the exact language of the measure. The exact language of Measure 49 is important, because it’s the language of Measure 49 that judges and lawyers are required to follow if they are asked to sort out the mess that Measure 49 would create. www.stop49.com MEASURE 49 – A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING (This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Director, Stop Taking Our Property PAC.) 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 PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE 49 “IF WE CAN STACK PEOPLE UP IN TOWN AND PUT THEM IN A FOOD LINE WE WILL HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL,.” These were the words of a head land use planner in Polk County about 30 years ago. I have seen nothing contrary to that statement in 30 years. The agenda is to limit housing growth to the designated urban areas, and restrict rural housing to a minimum. In 1973, passage of Senate Bill 100 initiated that process for Oregon. To preserve beautiful Oregon, “PLANNING” (land control) was initiated. Property rights were sacrificed without compensation to the landowner for loss of use or value. Enron people have gone to jail for manipulating values of people’s investments in stocks. “PLANNING” has caused a manipulated loss of value for owners of rural land in this State since 1973 without compensation to the owner. M-49 1. Land applications will be made to the State, rather than to the counties in which the land and usually the owner exists (state control rather than local control.) 2. One to three parcels will be hard to get and the State will designate where the parcels will be. They will contain a maximum of two acres, clustered together to make a mini-town, at a State designated spot on the property. 3. There is no time limit as to when the parcels will be approved by the State. 4. If there is an appeal, which can be brought by anyone, the applicant will be required to pay the government appraiser and attorney plus his own representation with no allowance for collection of those funds, even if the applicant prevails. 5. Vested use is mentioned several times but never defined, nor has it been for 30 years. 6. The legislature has completely disregarded the voice of the people in the Oregon Supreme Court upheld law of M-37 and the initiative process enacted by her citizen’s. VOTE NO ON M-49. (This information furnished by Vern Ratzlaff.) 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 62 | State Measures September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3