|
Argument in Opposition
<br />PLEASE, treat others the way you would like to be treated!
<br />In 1921, President Harding, using the Homestead Act, created
<br />our private land. For over 35 years, this beautiful and pristine
<br />land, brimming with wildlife, has been home.
<br />We are conservationists, having protected over 170 acres
<br />of this spectacular habitat. Our dream is to develop a small
<br />Eco Retreat Center for others to experience God’s beauty,
<br />refreshment, solitude, and inspiration.
<br />We join 7,000+ families, filing M#37, who have dreams for
<br />their land. We have invested our lives and thousands of dollars,
<br />expecting fair treatment, jumping every “hoop”. Now, M#49
<br />threatens to sweep it all away. Below are 3 reasons why we
<br />believe you should consider voting No.
<br />1) In 1973, the State of Oregon made a promise to its citizens:
<br />When property rights are taken away, those experiencing loss
<br />will be fairly compensated. This never happened, until M#37.
<br />Now, M#49 further dishonors and buries those promises. When
<br />our Government does not honor its’ word with any one group,
<br />we are all threatened.
<br />2) M#49 supporters throw around the number of acres for
<br />proposed development, trying to create shock value. The truth
<br />is that Government owns and controls over one-half of all
<br />Oregon land. The truth is that the 7,000+ claims represent less
<br />than 1.25% of Oregon’s land. Not mentioning this is like selling
<br />a car at so much a month, with no mention of the number of
<br />months or total price. Private landowners have a conscience:
<br />we care about a healthy, balanced, beautiful Oregon
<br />environment, without heaping more M#49 government
<br />restrictions.
<br />3) We all need good development: Homes, food production,
<br />sanitation, medical/dental, clean water, etc. In our free society,
<br />there are always a few folks with low morals: people in
<br />development being no different. We all take off our shoes at
<br />the airport because of the few: we don’t close the airports.
<br />M#49 is a destroyer of integrity, incentive, and fairness.
<br />Thank you for caring!
<br />(This information furnished by Jesse and Elaine Pattison.)
<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 Opposition
<br />The Holtan Family Asks You to
<br />Vote “NO”on Ballot Measure 49
<br />My name is Eric Holtan. Our family farm is located in rural
<br />Yamhill County. Our farm has been in the Holtan family for
<br />three generations.
<br />In 2003, my father became very sick, and my mother needed
<br />help taking care of my father and the family farm. My wife and
<br />I wanted to move to the farm to help my mother and father,
<br />but land use laws would not allow it.
<br />My father passed away just after the November 2004 elections,
<br />that’s when Oregonians changed the law to make is possible for
<br />families like mine to move back to the family farm. Measure 37
<br />made it possible for us to build a home on the farm, and be
<br />there for my mother.
<br />Measure 49 will change all of that, by making radical changes
<br />to the law. Measure 49 would make it nearly impossible for
<br />young families like mine to ever be able to move back to the
<br />family farm because of Measure 49’s hidden costs:
<br />- Measure 49 allows government to charge families any
<br />amount just to build one home.
<br />- Second, Measure 49 allows anyone in the entire state of
<br />Oregon to file a lawsuit to stop family farms from passing
<br />on to future generations, forcing young families like mine
<br />to bear the cost of expensive attorneys, just because they
<br />want to preserve their family’s farm!
<br />- Finally, Measure 49’s filing requirements are so
<br />burdensome that the cost of complying with Measure 49
<br />would make it impossible for young families living on the
<br />family farm.
<br />Measure 49 is a bad idea, and will change the law so
<br />dramatically that young families will never be able to move
<br />out to the family farm.
<br />Please join my family in voting NO on Measure 49
<br />(This information furnished by Eric Holtan.)
<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 Opposition
<br />As a former Mayor and land use hearings officer I understand
<br />the frustration many citizens have with overbearing land use
<br />regulations and the Department of Land Conservation and
<br />Development.
<br />I did not vote for Measure 37 but represent some Measure 37
<br />claimants. In doing so, I have been appalled at how poorly
<br />citizens have been treated by the State (DLCD). I believe DLCD
<br />has deliberately violated the law and put elderly ordinary
<br />citizens, in a position where they have to sue the State in court
<br />for relief. Last May, DLCD, in collusion with a small number of
<br />legislators, concocted Measure 49 behind closed doors. They
<br />are now asking the voters to pass a measure that is flawed and
<br />will not work.
<br />Measure 49 designates as high value farmland most properties
<br />in Central Oregon even though there are no water rights on
<br />the land or soils to support agricultural activity. Sagebrush and
<br />juniper as high value farmland? Nonsense!
<br />Measure 49 penalizes innocent citizens who, in reliance on
<br />Measure 37 waivers, spent their hard earned resources to file
<br />land use applications. Measure 49 does not grandfather those
<br />persons in as has been done in the past. Instead, your fellow
<br />citizens will lose not only their rights but also their hard earned
<br />savings.
<br />There is a better approach. The State can reform our land use
<br />system by allowing a certain level of rural development on
<br />lands that do not have high value for agricultural or forest uses
<br />or are in sensitive environmental areas. The State has rejected
<br />innovative measures and believes that the overbearing
<br />regulations that were the cause of Measure 7 and Measure 37
<br />must stand. Do not be deceived. If Measure 49 passes, there
<br />will be no incentive for the State to initiate reform. Vote No on
<br />Measure 49 and force the State to initiate meaningful reform in
<br />our land use system.
<br />Ed Fitch, Attorney at Law, Redmond
<br />(This information furnished by Edward Fitch, Attorney at Law.)
<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 />Measure 49 Arguments
<br />Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
<br />55 | State Measures
<br />continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
|