Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There are multiple claims for large development filed on exclusive farm use lands that adjoin my farm. Many others are in the same situation. We must consider the impact to all property owners and their right to preserve an existing way of life. The consequences of Measure 37 raise numerous concerns for the citizens of Oregon. I understand that the people want the right to do as they wish with their own property. It is just not that simple. Development belongs inside urban growth areas – which will continue to happen if we fix Measure 37 by passing Measure 49.Large-scale development outside urban areas requires infrastructure expansion – like roads, fire and police protection, and schools – that will create tremendous cost burdens for our cities and counties. In addition, there are environmental impact and safety threats from development to already fragile systems: •Large-scale developments may be proximate to salmon and steelhead bearing water quality limited streams. •Adequate groundwater is not always available to support additional wells. And, underdeveloped rural roads are intended for limited use and are not suitable for increased demand without compromising public safety standards. Thirty years ago, Oregon was a courageous leader. We promised to protect it precious land resources for future generations. It is our responsibility to ensure that the legacy continues. I urge you to join me in voting YES on Measure 49 and restore balance and fairness. (This information furnished by Gary W. Rhinhart.) 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 Favor WHAT ARE TIMBER COMPANIES UP TO? Who really benefits from Measure 37? 8 of the top 14 contributors to the 2004 Measure 37 Campaign were timber companies that then filed M37 claims ((Money in Politics Research Action Project report, 4/19/2007) to eliminate existing forests and replace them with: A sample includes: Stimson Lumber Company Location: Lincoln, Tillamook, Clatsop, Columbia, Washington counties, 50,552 acres zoned forest use Intent: Residential subdivisions Powers Ranch Company Location: Curry and Coos counties 11,629 acres zoned forest use, exclusive farm use, other Intent: Residential subdivisions Timber Service Company Location: Linn County, 7,006 acres Intent: Residential subdivisions, lodging, recreational South Coast Lumber Company Location: Curry County, 2,000 acres Intent: Unspecified development RY Timber Company Location: Joseph and Wallowa counties, 1,600 acres Intent: 160-lot subdivision Morgan & Engel Inc. Location: Douglas County, 1,328 acres Intent: 173-lot residential subdivision Davidson Industries Location: Lane County, 1280 acres Intent: Unspecified development Avison Lumber Co. Location: Clackamas County 1,166 acres zoned forest use, mixed use, exclusive farm use Intent: 385-lot residential subdivision Menasha Corporation Location: Coos and Douglas counties, 942 acres Intent: Residential subdivisions Rosboro Lumber Company Location: Lane County, 894 acres Intent: Unspecified development Miami Corp. Location: Lincoln County, 689 acres Intent: Unspecified development L & H Lumber Co. Location: Douglas County, 404 acres Intent: 200-lot residential subdivision Aaron U. Jones (owner of Seneca Jones Timber Co.) Location: Deschutes Co., 400 acres zoned exclusive farm use Intent: 121-lot subdivision Indian Hill, LLC Location: Josephine County, Jackson County 318 acres zoned forest use Intent: Unspecified development Zip O Log Mills Location: Lane County, 314 acres Intent: Unspecified development (This information furnished by Michael Dennis.) 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 Favor YES ON 49 MEASURE 49: PROPERTY RIGHTS WE CAN ALL SUPPORT MEASURE 49: •ALLOWS ANY PERSON WHO QUALIFIED FOR A MEASURE 37 CLAIM TO DEVELOP UP TO THREE HOMESITES; •ALLOWS UP TO TEN HOMESITES IF JUSTIFIED BY THE PROVEN LOSS IN VALUE CAUSED BY REGULATIONS WHICH PREVENTED DEVELOPMENT; •DOES NOT PERMIT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT; •PROTECTS EXISTING FARMLAND BY ENCOURAGING CLUSTERING OF HOMESITES. Measure 49 corrects the problems in Measure 37. Measure 37 currently: •Allows people who bought property in the 1970’s to now build anything they want, anywhere they want, regardless of current zoning laws; •Gives no rights to the neighbors who are harmed by the unexpected development; •Removes any predictability regarding what kind of land use can end up right next to you. Measure 49 Arguments Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet 35 | State Measures continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3