Ha, ha! Good for you Jack. (And good for Oregon that M49 passed) I'm sure your mom would be proud. But nevertheless be sure to heed Marilyn Monroe's serious warning about your recent notoriety.

“It stirs up envy, fame does. People feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you and say anything to you - and it won't hurt your feelings - like it's happening to your clothing.”

Amen, Norma Jeane!

Those pro-37 people are really a bunch of soreheads, aren't they? But it looks as if OIA isn't going to challenge 49; they said yesterday they'll concentrate on making sure 49 is respected. If it turns out that way, it seems to me we can thank a bunch of people, not the least of them Rep. Macpherson.

The sad reality is that Jack's last line is the most relevant. I watched abuse PRE-measure 37 where if you had enough money to hire one of the Portland land use attorneys, anything was possible, even after a 100% no vote by the citizen planning commission and hearings officer, just go the political route with a big name lawyer and have the County council approve it as an "historical" use. Kind of reminds me of the Interstate renaming process.

I voted for and supported measure 49, but also realize it was written so that it returned us to an elite group controlling and profiting by how the region develops. Some control and oversight was better than random development, and will keep some method to the madness of zoning agriculture close to the City, so the wonderful farmers markets we have been enjoying, and the home grown produce stay within reach. The wine industry is also a jewel we need to preserve here, not only economically but for the livability of the area.

If the good hair is in favor of 49 that makes socialism just fine? 37 needed some scrutiny, granted, but 49 bollixes the matter even worse. The land-use laws are the driving force of unobtainable homes for the young. Do we do as in Scandinavian countries that at death housing goes back to the state, so home-ownership is a myth? Another case of extremes screwing up the process.

Nobody is all right or wrong. Enough with the global statements. My fear is that my wonderful neighborhood will be further trashed by infill. Why is it so wrong for me to have some space in the city where I keep a large organic garden, as do many of my neighbors, while farmers and vineyard owners continue to dump massive amounts of poisons into the watershed.Portland is really no different than most cities. It is the same old corruption with goverments being run by elites and developers. The difference here is they don't call you a communist if you disagree, they call you greedy, racist or anti-enviroment. Here they sell their lies and bullshit under the banner of eco-friendly and sustainability, while the Liberty's and Stacy's rotate in and out of goverment and private groups financed by elites with a home in Lake Oswego, one at the beach and one in the mountains. Yes it is always the rest of us who are stupid and they who are so enlightened.A million more might migrate here because these same elites encourage them to come ever day even as they cry wolf about the impact

I got a laugh out of one of the yes on 49 arguments. They said if we voted no we would end up with condos and congestion.

I have to smile when folks like the antiplanner throw around charges of hypocrisy. Because Jack Bog supported M-49, and others who have been burned by this blog supported it, the owner of this blog is two-faced?

Instead of ad hominem attacks toward the antiplanner blog, why don't you address the arguments he made? If you're right and he's wrong, that shouldn't be a problem.

Love your blog, but I think Anti-planner nailed you on this.

Passing M49 just cedes more planning authority back to the people you most despise.

Speaking for some of the "jokers to the right" of you on this issue, I submit that the problems are institutional. It's not the criminals running them as much as that ceding planning power to them (as a group) invites criminality.

It's the same reason we see so many corrupt political figures - the nature of the job tends to attract a class of folks who are, well, corruptible.

So if the M37 tradeoffs were too much for you to stomach, do you envision any alternatives for dealing with the problems of unjust land use policies and corrupt planning decision (besides cynicism)?

Antiplanner's argument is a cogent presentation of a black and white world. With less regulation, development will spread to the hinterlands easing the urban infill which correlates to regulation of out-sprawl(my word).
Fortunately the planning issue is far more nuanced. Individual rights (greed included) are tempered by rules which ideally should reflect the best use of the limited resource known as land. Ownership is not sacrosanct from all forms of regulation nor should it be. Disposal of hazardous waste is the easiest example. We need some regulation otherwise society falls prey to the whims of the dark side of human nature. Because life is fleeting, property ownership should be likened to stewardship rather than unbrideled use. Enough said. Now back to antiplanner. Either condos or out-sprawl. How about some rational middle ground with incentives to encourage smart growth. We've seen the dark side of human nature respond quickly to the passage of M37 like pigs feeding at the trough. The passage of M49 put the brakes on the feeding frenzy much to anti-planners chagrin.

Granted, it's someone who's angry because he and his pals just got slapped down hard for their devotion to greed...

Hey, you guys won!

I guess I'm just disappointed by such a facile dismissal of a pretty well-reasoned, non-insulting post by O'Toole - what's that all about?

Oh, well.

"I guess I'm just disappointed by such a facile dismissal of a pretty well-reasoned, non-insulting post by O'Toole"

Read the comment above yours. It does a good job of addressing in a short space what's wrong with O'Toole's basic position.

genop Disposal of hazardous waste is the easiest example.
JK: Of course M37 allowed regulation for safety and nuisances. It’s major effect was to take away the power of the planners to control our lives.

genop We need some regulation otherwise society falls prey to the whims of the dark side of human nature. Because life is fleeting, property ownership should be likened to stewardship rather than unbrideled use. Enough said.
JK: You could say the same for any long lived asset. Perhaps you believe the same about houses? Gold and silver? Fine cars? Where would it stop. Or do you believe that the government should own everything? Tried that - didn’t work (Russia, China, Cuba.......)

The only regulation we really need is safety and nuisances. All additional regulation can be only after the subjects of a particular regulation agree, for instance a group of neighbors might want to preserve the character of their single family neighborhood by banning building on 25' wide lots, apartments and condos.

genop Now back to antiplanner. Either condos or out-sprawl. How about some rational middle ground with incentives to encourage smart growth.
JK: Why would we want to encourage a stupid, unpopular system that doesn’t work because it is based on lies?
See: file: www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html

genop We've seen the dark side of human nature respond quickly to the passage of M37 like pigs feeding at the trough.
JK: You mean pigs that donate MILLIONs of dollars to keep the city folk fenced in and away from their country linestyle? M49 lets farmers lease and buy their neighbors land for pennies on the dollar, buy keeping it almost worthless. Who are the real pigs? It also lets land barons buy cheap land to “preserve” it (at least until it gets taken into the UGB, making them rich)

genop The passage of M49 put the brakes on the feeding frenzy much to anti-planners chagrin.
JK: No it doesn’t. It just continues the city developer’s feeding frenzy at the expense of the developers that would build real homes in brand new neighborhoods.

The thousand thieves claimed that several hundred thousand acres might be developed out of UGBs. Doesn’t anyone realize that that could be 1/4 acre lots for EVERY NEWCOMER to Oregon WITHOUT then filling our existing neighborhoods and streets?

Thanks
JK

It's the same reason we see so many corrupt political figures - the nature of the job tends to attract a class of folks who are, well, corruptible.

Yeah...right, Pancho.

Like developers and their lot are incorruptible.

Oh...wait...they can't be corrupted, 'cause they're already there, and they are doing the corrupting.

Nevermind.

If you're looking for a political situation where there are no corruptible "class of folks"...well, good luck.

It does a good job of addressing in a short space what's wrong with O'Toole's basic position.

I read the post and wasn't commenting about it - but I will: O'Toole's "basic position", which genops comment does not really address, is that property rights are treated differently than other rights which we all hold so dear. His "90% restriction" example stands unaddressed. The relativistic taint of positions like genops "best use" proclamation and "stewardship" argument would be met with deafening howls of censorship in the realm of the First amendment.

What genops comment does do in a "short space" is expose the vulnerability of his communitarian outlook. When one presumes to choose which rights to respect, one doesn't respect the meaning of rights at all.

I feel so - - "parsed".
Point 1 - some regulation is needed/not all regulation is baaad.
Point 2- We already regulate houses, gold, and cars. The government does not thereby acquire those assets from us.
Point 3- Did not know the phrase "smart growth" had connotations - how about "intelligent" growth"?
Points 4 & 5 UGB's carry with them infrastructure to support development. Under your rural growth example, just who will provide the sewer, water, access, fire protection, etc.etc. What happens when a heavily taxed water table is invaded by all those septic tanks scattered about rural Oregon? Think back a few weeks now to the so cal fires, a poingant example of poor planning.

rr, if you want to label my outlook socially conscious then mea culpa. "Communitarian" would be ok except that it carries the "socialist"/"communist" stigma. Captitalism is tolerable as long as it is tempered by regulation to reign in the dark side of humanity - in my view.

What happens when a heavily taxed water table is invaded by all those septic tanks scattered about rural Oregon? Think back a few weeks now to the so cal fires, a poingant example of poor planning.

Interesting juxtaposition - almost poignant.

It was poor planning to not take arsonists into account - let's see, lots of fuel and problems fighting fires...

hmmm...

...more density should do the trick!

"When one presumes to choose which rights to respect, one doesn't respect the meaning of rights at all."

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

Right is a blunt, general term applied by all sorts of people to all sorts of concepts and behaviors--from the right to have sex with whomever you please to the right to own slaves to the right to drive. Society, through its laws, chooses how to restrict these so-called rights and whether to allow them at all. In doing so, we're constantly balancing the claims of individual liberty versus the common good.

All rights acknowledged by society are not deemed equally important or inviolable. Nor are all "rights" fervently claimed by individuals (think right to use and sell certain drugs, for an obvious example) actually granted by society.

For instance: Neither I nor society in general believe that your right to own property means you can do whatever you want with it. I agree with the laws that say your property rights should be significantly restricted. On the other hand, I and our society in general do believe you have a near-absolute right to express your political views (which I personally think are wrongheaded, as you know).

Jack

If antiplanner is correct and you do believe that you should have some say in how I use my land, would you kindly fork over some money for my property taxes. That's only just, don't you think?

"When one presumes to choose which rights to respect, one doesn't respect the meaning of rights at all."

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

actually, he more or less paraphrased Thomas Jefferson.

For instance: Neither I nor society in general believe that your right to own property means you can do whatever you want with it.

prove it. and, in fact, in some areas of American and the world, that is precisely what ownng property means.

prove it. and, in fact, in some areas of American and the world, that is precisely what ownng property means.

The very concept of permanent property taxes upon one's home, the scope and scale of which is subject to the whim of county commissars, land-use planners, and other corrupt, parasitic career Gub'ment bureaucrats with a "Good Guy Badge," in perpetuity, is arguably one of the nastiest examples of Usury extant today.

Godfry,

I never suggested that developers are any less corruptable than anyone else. They aren't the ones in a position of authority though, so whether or not they are corruptible is not very relevant (although they are often a corrupting influence to those in power).

My point is that the system invites corruption by placing great authority to shape the real estate market in the hands of a few.

It seems to me that Jack's position is that property rights are secondary to (an underdefined list of) public interests and that it is up to our elected officials to determine those public interests.

However, continued examples demonstate that the officials empowered to determine those public interests are a) easily corrupted, b) incredibly naive or c) more than willing to recognize "public interests" that bolster their worldview without regard to the facts at hand.

Tough place to live. I guess you just have to hope that we'll start electing better people.

eco,

ecco!