Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Argument in Opposition We urge you to read Measure 49 very carefully before voting. Measure 49 is not what it appears to be. Measure 49 passed by a single vote in the Oregon Legislature. It is poorly drafted and will lead to years of litigation and political infighting in Salem. The Ballot Title Is Intentionally Misleading: What you read on your ballot for Measure 49 was not written by the Attorney General or Secretary of State. It was not reviewed by the Oregon Supreme Court for neutrality and objectivity. The legislature used a rare political trick to draft the language using public opinion polls -- to find the most deceptive “political” language. Why? Because special interest groups don’t want you to know what is really in Measure 49. They Had To Mislead Voters To Hide The True Intent Of Measure 49 Measure 49 will allow state and local government to take your home and property without compensation, wiping out laws that require government to pay fair value for what it takes. Measure 49 Repeals Your Vote On Measure 37 Section 4 of Measure 49 repeals your vote on Measure 37 and replaces it with a complex process for property owners, which experts say will not work, and opens property owners up lawsuits, fees, and years of frustration. The most offensive part is that Measure 49 was forced through the Legislature without a single public hearing! Implementing Measure 37 Our job this session was to implement your overwhelming votes supporting Measure 7 and Measure 37 to protect property owners. The Legislature ignored your votes, invented a crisis, and sent you Measure 49 – forcing you to vote a third time! Measure 37 can be fairly implemented without stealing your property – but Measure 49 is not the answer. Please join us in voting No on 49. Senator Larry George Representative Bill Garrard (This information furnished by Senator Larry George and Representative Bill Garrard.) 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 MEASURE 49 HURTS FAMILY FARMERS – PLEASE VOTE NO The Oregon Family Farm Association PAC asks you to vote NO on Measure 49. Current Oregon law requires government to pay you fair value when it reduces the value or takes away your right to use your property -- a core protection for property owners. Measure 49 guts these basic protections for our property and life-savings. Measure 49 is a radical change to state law that allows the government to take your property without any compensation. We rely on our property for our livelihood, and unlike large corporate farms, every new regulation makes it harder to stay in business. Corporate farmers and their lobbyists got loopholes for themselves in Measure 49 – but small farmers and ranchers got left out and now face lawsuits and years of frustration if Measure 49 passes. Voters asked the Legislature to implement Measure 37, instead they manufactured a fake crisis and crafted Measure 49. There is no problem in Measure 37 that cannot be addressed by proper implementation by the Legislature. Oregon voters passed Measure 37 in 2004, and the Legislature refused to implement it in both the 2005 and 2007 Legislative Sessions. The politicians refused to implement Measure 37 in order to create a false crisis – so they could justify Measure 49’s radical changes. Measure 49 will have a detrimental affect on family farmers: Today, property owners have protection in state law. If Measure 49 passes, those protections will be gone. In addition: - We will have to pay the government’s attorneys and appraisers to get our property back; - Those of us who have permits to build a house or two on our property will have those permits wiped out, and be forced to start all over; - We will have to prove that we made $80,000 per year in order to build a farmhouse to live in on our property. MEASURE 49 HURTS FAMILY FARMERS – PLEASE VOTE NO (This information furnished by Matt Cyrus, Oregon Family Farm Association 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 MEASURE 49 IS BAD FOR OREGON’S ECONOMY I am a professional economist. In my career, I have served as an advisor for central banks, businesses, governments, and devel- oping countries. It is my job to know how to balance economic growth with concerns about the natural environment. Economists know that protection of property rights is central to the health of the economy and the environment. Anyone who wants to take your property—whether a private party or a government—should compensate you at the market value of the property taken. Otherwise, uses of known value will be lost to uses of unknown, and untested value. I have examined Measure 49 in detail. Under Measure 49, if your home or property is taken by a new government regulation, you will not receive fair compensation for the lost opportunities. Thus, there is no guarantee that the public use of your property has sufficient value to the Oregon economy to offset the uses that have been lost. If government takes $50,000 of your property for, say, open space or views, under Measure 49 you may receive far less than $50,000, if you receive anything at all. If a private party wanted to buy your property for open space or views, it would have to pay fair market value for the land. Government should have to play by the same rules. Measure 49 uses an arbitrary scheme to determine how much, if anything, you will receive in compensation for taken property. That scheme has almost nothing to do with the impact a new government action has on the value of your property. It does not employ accepted, valuation principles. First year economics students learn that the economies of many countries around the world suffer because of poorly- protected rights to private property. Measure 49 contains policy errors in this regard that a first year economics undergraduate would not make. Measure 49 Arguments Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet 47 | State Measures continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3