|
Argument in Favor
<br />To produce and publish sound evidence on the question of
<br />whether land-use regulations in general cause economic loss in
<br />land value, the Gray Family Fund at Oregon Community
<br />Foundation funded two independent studies
<br />The first was the June 2007 report by two OSU professors,
<br />Jaeger and Plantinga, How Have Land-use Regulations
<br />Affected Property Values in Oregon concludes: “Our analysis of
<br />Oregon land value data finds no evidence of a generalized
<br />reduction in value caused by Oregon’s land use regulations, a
<br />result that is consistent with economic theory and with
<br />research in the economics field”. Other excerpts are:
<br />“Land values (adjusted for inflation) have generally risen
<br />since the introduction of Oregon’s land use planning system in
<br />1973, both for rural lands zoned for farm use and forest use
<br />and for developable lands both inside and outside the urban
<br />growth boundaries”. --- “The data presented here do not,
<br />therefore, support the belief that Oregon’s land-use system has
<br />systematically reduced the value of restricted properties…
<br />Oregon’s land-use planning system is not intended to limit the
<br />amount of development that occurs, but rather it is intended
<br />to influence the location of development in ways that are
<br />consistent with various land-use planning goals”.
<br />The second study published in June 2007 by the Georgetown
<br />University Environmental Law and Policy Institute,
<br />Washington, D.C. – Property Values and Oregon’s Measure 37 –
<br />reached similar conclusions:
<br />“A comparison of statewide agricultural land values in Oregon
<br />and (California and Idaho) shows that Oregon experienced
<br />comparable, and generally somewhat higher, rate of
<br />appreciation as its neighbors, again despite Oregon’s stricter
<br />regulation of rural development”.
<br />These research studies have convinced me to urge a Yes vote
<br />for M-49 to help preserve our state’s nature and health. Please
<br />vote Yes and thank you.
<br />John D. Gray
<br />Retired Chairman, Omark Industries; Developer of
<br />Salishan, Sunriver, Skamania Lodge and Johns Landing
<br />(This information furnished by John D. Gray.)
<br />This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
<br />The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
<br />State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
<br />statement made in the argument.
<br />Argument in Favor
<br />The Gray Family Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation
<br />funded work by the Institute of Metropolitan Studies,
<br />Portland State University, to compile, analyze and publish
<br />information about the number, type, and county of
<br />7,462 Measure 37 claims filed between December 2004 and
<br />March 12, 2007. This information may be reviewed at
<br />http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/m37/index.php.
<br />All claims show the number of acres affected and the county.
<br />The vast majority of claims also show how the land is zoned,
<br />and the kind of land division the claimant demands. Estimates
<br />of what all the 7,462 claims will do, based on the proportion of
<br />claims which do specify zoning and division type, shows the
<br />following:
<br />3,153 claims (42%) seek 1-3 home sites.
<br />4,309 claims (58%) seek subdivisions on farm and forest land
<br />averaging between 128-154 acres.
<br />61% of the farmland subdivision claims are in Willamette
<br />Valley, mostly on “high value” land.
<br />Measure 49 Arguments
<br />Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
<br />45 | State Measures
<br />continued
<br />Measure 49 fixes Measure 37 in at least two ways. First, M-49
<br />helps the “little guy” by approving 1-3 lot claims without proof
<br />of loss, and by giving transferability which M-37 did not.
<br />Second, M-49 limits subdivisions on high value land and in
<br />groundwater restricted areas to 3 lots. On other lands M-49
<br />limits subdivisions to 4-10 lots, based on proof of loss which
<br />must be shown by an appraisal.
<br />These and other facts have convinced me to support M-49. If
<br />you want to modify M-37 to help the little guy and to limit big
<br />subdivisions on Oregon’s best farm and timber land. I urge you
<br />to vote Yes on M-49.
<br />John D. Gray
<br />Retired Chairman, Omark Industries
<br />Developer – Salishan, Skamania Lodge,
<br />Sunriver and Johns Landing
<br />(This information furnished by John D. Gray.)
<br />This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
<br />The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
<br />State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
<br />statement made in the argument.
<br />Argument in Favor
<br />When our forests are gone, we’ll never get them back.
<br />Protect our forests.
<br />Vote Yes on Measure 49.
<br />Forests have always been a special part of Oregon’s natural
<br />heritage, and they can continue to be a special part of Oregon’s
<br />future – if we vote Yes on Measure 49.
<br />When properly managed, forests provide habitat for fish
<br />and game, year-round recreation and jobs that sustain local
<br />communities.
<br />But claims filed under Measure 37 threaten to turn tens of
<br />thousands of prime forest land into housing subdivisions and
<br />commercial projects, each of which will require roads, water
<br />lines and utilities that will magnify their impacts on the land.
<br />Once our forests are gone, we will never get them back.
<br />We have seen that happen in other parts of the country.
<br />We don’t want to see it happen here.
<br />Measure 49 will protect private forest lands for both
<br />recreation and forestry.
<br />Forest land owners are given new protections under
<br />Measure 49 to protect their investments far into the future.
<br />When we are fair to forest owners, we provide greater
<br />incentives to manage our forests for sustainable yields and
<br />maximum benefits for all Oregonians.
<br />That’s the reason we provide special designations for forest
<br />land.
<br />Measure 49 will keep those designations in place and protect
<br />our forests for generations to come.
<br />Protect our forests. Protect our future.
<br />Vote Yes on Measure 49.
<br />(This information furnished by Carly Jean Birkey.)
<br />This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
<br />The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
<br />State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
<br />statement made in the argument.
<br />September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
|