Dorothy English will probably never get to subdivide her land. She and her husband bought 20 acres of land outside of Portland in 1953, when there was no zoning on the land. After her husband died, she wanted to divide it into eight parcels to give to her children and grandchildren.
By that time, however, the Oregon legislature required counties to zone all land, and Dorothy’s was outside of Portland’s urban-growth boundary. She fought hard for the right to subdivide, once testifying before the legislature that, “I’m 91 years old, and I plan to live to be 100 because there are some bastards I want to get even with.”
She became so well known that even the governor asked the county to allow her to subdivide her land. But the county stonewalled.
When measure 37 was on the ballot in 2004, she recorded a radio ad that probably persuaded many people to vote for the measure. Pollsters say that the measure would have passed anyway, but with Dorothy’s help it passed by 61 percent.
As approved, the measure allowed people who owned land before it was downzoned to apply to have the rules waived or receive compensation. Dorothy English figured that she had gotten even.
If any of these effects persist or worsen, consult a doctor or seek medical assistance to overcome the viagra mg condition. Super P force consists as one of the intense medications for the treatment of erectile brokenness in grown-up men, a condition which intimates challenges in getting or keeping the penile erection for a longer time. levitra shop He tadalafil professional will also try to determine if any other conditions are affecting your disorder like depression. With enhanced blood and oxygen supply to sildenafil online without prescription the reproductive organs during sexual arousal. Over the next three years, owners of less than 1.3 percent of the land in the state filed measure 37 applications. Not a single house was ever built on any of this land — as far as I can tell, the only thing that was ever built was a single billboard. Yet planning advocates made it sound as if measure 37 was paving over the entire state.
Click to download the full-sized ad (2.1 mb).
Still, Dorothy English could not get approval to subdivide her land. She even put a full-page ad in the Oregonian trying to explain her position on measure 37. But the state legislature put measure 49 on the ballot, which restricted landowners who had filed measure 37 applications from subdividing into any more than three parcels. Last month, voters approved this by the same margin that they had approved measure 37.
Now it seems pretty likely that English will not get to subdivide. Her son says she is in poor health. According to at least some interpretations of the law, when she dies, the right to apply for a waiver under measure 37 dies with her.
Pollsters said that voters approved measure 37 because they believed it was “fair.” So what is fair? Would it be fair to give English a special dispensation but deny all other measure 37 applicants the right to subdivide? Is it fair to make a few rural landowners pay all the costs of protecting the scenic open space that urban residents enjoy? Is it fair to make homebuyers pay twice what homes are worth (and give windfall profits to existing homeowners) so as to avoid expanding the urban-growth boundaries around Portland and other Oregon cities?
At least one person told me that he voted against measure 37 because “it was stupid and greedy.” Which is greedier: for Dorothy English to want to subdivide her land, as she had the right to do when she bought it? Or for other Oregonians to deny her that right just so they can enjoy some scenic views?
Using government power to steal for you is a tried and true method. Portland’s propgressive planners just love it.
Thanks
JK
People (and their ancestors) who owned slaves before slavery was outlawed should either be allowed to continue owning the slaves (and their ancestors), or should be compensated by Government for taking their property. Why should Government just get to change its mind about what’s legal and illegal without compensating property owners for the loss in property value that results?
Slaveowners paid money for those slaves, when it was perfectly legal to do so. They bought the slaves believing they could continue using them in the manner that was legal at the time of purchase. But then along comes Big Government and decides that slaveowners couldn’t use their property the way they wanted to. Not only that, but slaveowners had to completely surrender their property, losing all of its value and receiving no compensation. No just compensation!
This is a takings! This is an outrage!
WOW! D4P You think land use rights are like owning slaves!!!
How long did you have to think to come up with that extreme thought?
How about this.
Dorothy English has been treated like a slave by her master the government. It doesn’t matter what she thinks she owns, or what she thinks she paid for, she doesn’t own anything, unless her master allows her to.
She can’t develop her property unless her master decides she can. At the same time her master allows others inside the master compound to develop and make millions.
Maybe you have something with your slave analogy
Seems to me a person can hold one of three beliefs:
1. Government should always compensate a property owner when a government decision reduces the value of the property
2. Government should never compensate a property owner when a government decision reduces the value of the property
3. Government should sometimes compensate a property owner when a government decision reduces the value of the property
The Antiplanner gives the impression around here that he supports #1, but unless he supports compensating slaveowners (and other “extreme” examples), he really doesn’t. Instead, he supports #3, which injects arbitrariness into the compensation process. If we shouldn’t compensate everyone, who should we compensate, and who gets to make this decision? Government? The Antiplanner? Someone else?
Why should Dorothy English be compensated when other property owners should not? Where does the distinction come from, and why should we believe that the Antiplanner’s method for making the distinction is any better than government’s or anyone else’s? If government can make slavery illegal, why can’t it make rural subdivisions illegal? Do you claim to have some absolute authority that guides us in making these distinctions?
The only arbitrariness here is that it’s not immoral to own land or build a house on it. It is immoral to own slaves. Slave owners should not be compensated because preventing people from performing immoral acts should be noncompensable. Moreover, we did not free the slaves in order to benefit a third party. Land takings are always done to benefit third parties, usually scum who think it’s ok to use government to steal from your neighbors.
it’s not immoral to own land or build a house on it. It is immoral to own slaves
Says who?
D4P needs to take a breath and debate this point in a rational, reasonable manner. Comparing legal, ethical ownership of land to the immoral ownership of another human being is silly.
The right of private property ownership is well established in the United States and throughout western civilization. Up until a few decades ago land owned by an individual could be developed quite freely unless that development adversely affected others. Those affected could directly seek compensation for whatever spillovers damaged them.
When the government stepped into the process the idea of spillovers was perverted beyond what would be considered reasonable. Eventually it wasn’t the actual spillovers but control that government concerned itself with. That is where we are now, facing absurd controls that make no sense. Controls that enrich some at the expense of others. Controls that still create spillovers but no recourse for those who bear the costs of those impacts. Measure 37 was a reasonable remedy.
I think D4P is mistaken when claiming the Antiplanner or anyone else supports compensating only a select few. The point is under 37 all would have been compensated for regulations added after the purchase of property. I hesitate to speak for others but it seems we are looking for overall fairness and what’s not to like about that?
The current system of land use regulation is often abused and taken advantage of by a few. The passage of 49 will help continue that abuse and enrich the politically connected and powerful at the expense of people like Dorothy English.
Comparing legal, ethical ownership of land to the immoral ownership of another human being is silly
Again: who says that owning a human being is “immoral”? Where does this come from? If this is simply your own judgment, then you have no highground to tell others that their judgments regarding land use are wrong. The judgments are equally arbitrary.
The right of private property ownership is well established in the United States and throughout western civilization
Owning slaves was well established in the United States and throughout much of the world, for a very long time. So what?
When the government stepped into the process the idea of spillovers was perverted beyond what would be considered reasonable
The Supreme Court has decided that “general welfare” can mean a lot of things. You are certainly free to disagree with their definitions, but then how can you claim that slavery is “immoral” and act as if you’re not just stating your own opinion?
The point is under 37 all would have been compensated for regulations added after the purchase of property. I hesitate to speak for others but it seems we are looking for overall fairness and what’s not to like about that? [emphasis added]
Egg-zackly! Yay! We agree!
Let’s see whether the rest of society agrees that this is a valid argument.
If so, then what is also valid is that property owners should compensate society for every gain in value from regulation added, in an equal amount to a loss in value after a regulation.
That is: takings and givings are equal.
That is, of course, the logical extension of the italicized above. We need a new measure drafted in OR to reflect this argument.
DS
“People (and their ancestors) who owned slaves before slavery was outlawed should either be allowed to continue owning the slaves (and their ancestors), or should be compensated by Government for taking their property…”
The foregoing reductio ad absurdum argument in the context of compensation for partial takings was originally made by James W. Skillen. Proper attribution is always polite if you’re going to use someone else’s analysis.
This law review article makes a connection between the personal property interests of slaves and the rights of real property owners under the Takings Clause, in order to provide a legal framework for reparations:
Wenger Article
ah…. Oregon, Idaho’s Portugal.
It’s too bad to see this sort of thing happen.
Have we seen population growth in the Portland MSA slowing since the growth boundary was enacted? Is it a balloon and some of it is popping up on the north side of the Columbia in Washington?
“Society” doesn’t own my land, I do. Compensating “society” is therefore repugnant.
If I am compensated for a taking are you seriously arguing that if the relevant regulation is repealed I should give the money back? Or that if I successfully rezone my land the increase in value (not just the increase in property tax) inures to the government, not me? I love thieves who demand I pay them for not robbing me.
“Society†doesn’t own my land, I do
Who says you own your land: your shotgun?
… are you seriously arguing…that if I successfully rezone my land the increase in value (not just the increase in property tax) inures to the government, not me?
Well, Private Property Rightists think the other direction should be true. So why not this direction?
The italicized above said, remember:
So you want gummint to protect your land from risk, and the gummint to pay full compensation for loss, but you don’t want to pay full compensation for gains had by protection from risk.
Well, golly gee whiz! No wonder when people understand this bassackwards thought process the ballot measures go down in flames. Sheesh.
The PPR movement needs serious rebranding and a new narrative. It’s not compelling. Not compelling at all.
Oh, and society has created every single system under which your land exists and our society has granted or taken away property rights since day one (arg would have been property a century ago). The rights to your land weren’t handed down to you on stone tablets from a booming voice out of the clouds. This narrative isn’t compelling either as the vast majority knows differently.
DS
Note to ARG
Just a word to the wise — if you don’t know who the troller is, that makes you the trollee.
Unowho has already exposed this nonsense as absurd so why do the two planning proponents keep playing a game? I would guess it is the only defense they have left.
Dan, if a zoning change increases the value of property without damaging others it is akin to a legitimate business transaction in which wealth is created. Sinve the government has not given up anything it makes no sense to pay them for changing a regulation they first enacted. In the real world government exacts concessions most of the time for that property to then be developed.
I also don’t really know of many cases where the government protects my land from risk. Only the politically connected can get that, the rest of us pay insurance.
So your bassackwards thinking needs to be reworked. Your points have been countered.
D4P, land is inanimate. It has no feelings, no humanity, and no rights. What we are talking about here in comparing land ownership to slave ownership (I should not stoop to such a comparison) is human rights in both cases. The question is really whether or not land use regulations deny a right to those affected. To many of us it does. The Supreme Court and the constitution have both address addressed that compensation is due for a taking it’s now a debate about degrees of taking.
Others have stated very fine arguments that are far more eloquent. The outrageousness of your statements and lack of real argument prompted me to weigh in.
Unowho,
You are correct in your observations about certain site visitors being trollers. 🙂
D4P:
Now let me see about some of these statements:
Seems to me a person can hold one of three beliefs:
1. Government should always compensate a property owner when a government decision reduces the value of the property
2. Government should never compensate a property owner when a government decision reduces the value of the property
3. Government should sometimes compensate a property owner when a government decision reduces the value of the property
The Antiplanner gives the impression around here that he supports #1, but unless he supports compensating slaveowners (and other “extreme†examples), he really doesn’t. Instead, he supports #3, which injects arbitrariness into the compensation process. If we shouldn’t compensate everyone, who should we compensate, and who gets to make this decision? Government? The Antiplanner? Someone else?
Why should Dorothy English be compensated when other property owners should not? Where does the distinction come from, and why should we believe that the Antiplanner’s method for making the distinction is any better than government’s or anyone else’s? If government can make slavery illegal, why can’t it make rural subdivisions illegal? Do you claim to have some absolute authority that guides us in making these distinctions?
….
Again: who says that owning a human being is “immoral� Where does this come from? If this is simply your own judgment, then you have no highground to tell others that their judgments regarding land use are wrong. The judgments are equally arbitrary.
Owning slaves was well established in the United States and throughout much of the world, for a very long time. So what?
The Supreme Court has decided that “general welfare†can mean a lot of things. You are certainly free to disagree with their definitions, but then how can you claim that slavery is “immoral†and act as if you’re not just stating your own opinion?
Now then. I have some friends in the black community where I come from. Considering what you have written at your keyboard, in the safety and anonymity of your living room, I would then suggest that you might try doing following:
Go dress up in your Sunday best and find a Sunday morning church service to attend in any Black community church anywhere in America. Ask the minister there beforehand if you can deliver the sermon in his place. When you are in the pulpit, you can then proceed to deliver all of the statements and arguments that you have made today on the Antiplanner’s blog in front of the assembled congregation. I’d be willing to pay you $100 and to set aside an hour or two of my time just to sit in the pews and watch you stand at the pulpit and proceed to say to them what you have written here today.
Now, setting aside questions such as that over 600,000 men gave their lives attempting to settle the question of slavery in America, you might well get a cheer to the rafters if you were to say that Government were to compensate the Blacks for the sorrows they incurred while slavery was legal. But if you were to then proceed to tell that same audience that, it then follows that we have to compensate everyone for all takings large and small because of moral equivalence (or that the opposite is true), you may find that you will have completely lost your audience. I would imagine you might then proceed to bore your audience to tears with your arguments concerning property rights, human rights, and judgmental arbitrariness.
As for the rest of your writings, I won’t even begin to imagine what those people might do to you based on some of the things you have written today. All things considered, you might well not make it out of that place alive.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy New Year. And do keep up those arguments. I can’t wait to read the next ones you make.
The outrageousness of your statements and lack of real argument prompted me to weigh in
My statements are only outrageous if they are not properly understood.
A general principle apparently espoused by antiplanner types: Property owners should be compensated if government enacts a regulation that reduces the value of their property.
I called attention to a particular type of property (i.e. slaves) that used to be protected by “property rights”. Whatever we “enlightened” 21st century types think about slavery today, it was once a legal and widely accepted practice, and slave owners had property rights pertaining to their slaves.
I then asked, as might reasonably be done given the general principle, why should slave owners not have been compensated when government took their property? People owned property, government took it, therefore the people should be compensated.
The answer I have received thus far is essentially that slavery was immoral, and that people shouldn’t have been able to own that type of property in the first place. That’s all well and good, but no one has been able to tell me where the notion that “slavery is immoral” comes from. What if I were to say “land ownership is immoral”: who are you to tell me otherwise? Why is one opinion better or more authoritative than another?
If you can’t point to an authoritative source for claims regarding morality, then you’re essentially left with opinions. Along these lines, where do property “rights” come from? Who enforces your rights? Why should I respect them? Do you have property rights because John Locke et al. say you do? If so, why should I or anyone else care what John Locke says? He’s just a person, like you and I.
If we accept the notion around here that government is inherently bad, then we won’t rely on government to enforce our “rights”, and we apparently must resort to vigilantism to protect our own rights. But if that’s the case, they’re really not rights at all, are they…?
To summarize: it seems to me that that which some people call “rights” are in fact just those things that some segment of society has agreed are important and worthy of protecting. There’s nothing supernatural or intrinsic about them. They’re just the product of agreement among people.
So your bassackwards thinking needs to be reworked. Your points have been countered.
Good luck in the next referendum then. We’ll see how well the points have been countered.
DS
“rights [t]hey’re just the product of agreement among people.
Hey, I want in! How I can be one of those “people”?
How I can be one of those “people�
Move to our society.
DS
Why is one opinion better or more authoritative than another?
D4P, I recomend you stop wasting yours and others time and instead check out Solipsism. you seem to think that only perception exists by your implication that all norms and rules only exist due to consensus. this leads me to think that you should read ayn rand’s novel Anthem (in contrast to most people you might find it to be a great example of what your ideal world would be like). Or george orwell’s 1984, which also apples to your consensus creates reality, everything is subjective view.
D4P,
Property rights are a logical extension of self-ownership, and rely on no support from the supernatural.

Self-ownership is one of three ways in which an individual may be owned. The second is collective ownership of every individual by every other individual. The third form is any variant of an individual or group owning another individual or group. This form ranges from slavery, murder, and absolute dictatorships to the modern world’s most liberal democracies.

The second form of ownership fails because resources are scarce, and must be allocated by some means. The person or group who determines the allocation exercises the property right, and is the de facto owner. Thus the second form, mutual collective ownership, will always degenerate into the third form.
The third form argues that ownership rights are determined by society. If society says one may own a slave, then one has that right. If society says one may own one’s spouse, then one has that right.
This position is unsound because it fails to differentiate rights from consent. It argues that one has no right to self-ownership without the consent of society. If one society can use force to enslave another, the enslaved society is viewed as no longer having a right to self ownership. I have never read, seen, nor heard an argument for this position that recognizes that a right exists even when its holder is unable to exercise it. They all depend on defining rights as permission, and therefore fail entirely in arguing that an individual or group has a “right†to own another group or individual.
This leaves self-ownership, the foundation property right from which all other property rights are derived. As everyone can see, there are no stone tablets or omnipotent authority involved. Its defence does not rely on misuse of language. Simple reason is sufficient.
The reality is that most land use restrictions are NOT for health or safety, but are to preserve someone’s view or to allow planners to screw up whole states with their nutty ideas about how to restructure society. Such restrictions are nothing more than an act of vandalism against landowners. To propose paying government to cease committing vandalism, is just plain laughable. Only a parasite on society, such as a planner, would propose such compensations.
This just another example of how planners only concern for others is as guiana pigs for their nutty religion of smart growth, new urbanism etc. This was amply demonstrated in the recent land use battles in Oregon when MILLIONS of dollars poured into Oregon from the East coast to keep Oregon’s residents as lab animals in their land use experiment of forcing people to live in high density ghettos.
It is only fair to compensate landowners for an act of government vandalism against their land values just a surely as it is fair to compensate after the government empties out your bank account by mistake.
Thanks
JK
How about paying for entrance into the city from an Urban growth Boundary. San Jose’s UGB has been firm sense 1974 as home prices have gone up 10 times in last 25 years. How about a land owner offering to pay $300,000 to $500,000 an acre to annex into the city to facilite development. Industrail land has almost no value. How about paying one million an acre to change use to residential. San Jose city has a large gap in new budget, how about this method of solving it. What say you planners.
Why should San Jose allow that? The artificially low value for land outside the UGB means that San Jose can buy it out cheap. San Jose owns billions of dollars (market value) of “farmland” that it keeps for “open space”, land that could yield beaucoup taxes if developed. They have fools (taxpayers) who keep voting for 30 year transit taxes despite the demonstrable failure of previous transit initiatives. Budget gaps aren’t a problem, the fools will gladly pay.
Pingback: How Is Abolition Like Land-Use Planning? » The Antiplanner
What say you planners.
Residential development costs CA governments money. It’s not a revenue generator, which is why I-80 is an automall from the Carquinez Strait to the gold country. Once residential development starts to pay its way in terms of impact fees for fire and police, water, traffic, etc, then the houses must become large to make a payback for the developer’s risk. Large houses don’t solve affordability problems.
Again, CA has trouble with 38M people, just as they had trouble with 30M, or 32M when I left. Growth boundaries, often in CA, are there to limit growth. So their goal is not growth, but slowing growth. So solving problems to speed growth is a non-starter.
DS
We have the same “REPARATIONS AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY” mentality here in Houston. We also have an autocratic Mayor who cares little about property rights unless it involves Liberal cronies.
Jim Karlock wrote:
“Using government power to steal for you is a tried and true method.”
Jim, you conveniently forget this was how your beloved highways were built in the first place!