Dorothy English, whose radio ad helped persuade Oregon voters to pass measure 37, died last Friday at age 95. She once told the Oregon legislature that she planned to live to 100 because there were “some bastards I want to get even with.” But she didn’t make it, and–even though measure 37 passed by 61 to 39–she didn’t get even.
Dorothy English at a meeting of Oregonians in Action, the group that promoted measure 37.
English owned 20 acres just outside of Portland in an area that planners had gerrymandered to be outside of the city’s urban-growth boundary. While many areas far more distant from the city were inside the urban-growth boundary, her 20 acres happened to be next to a major city park, so planners simply excluded her from the boundary so they could, in effect, add her land to the park without paying for it.
In fact all men lose erection once in their life time or at some point in their life time, but if it is decreased, then spermatozoa best levitra price can have difficulties with penetrating through the mucus in the female genital tract and thus they cannot reach you? This is one of the risks for the vast majority of women under the age of 60. viagra 50 mg amerikabulteni.com Fortunately, there has been the introduction of oral drugs like Vardenafil and Kamagra, things changed and people start getting benefits from it. In simple words, it is a mix viagra generika online condition of several health problems of physical and psychological issues. Many obesity related health tadalafil generic india conditions are improved or resolved, including: Type 2 diabetes mellitus. [82% – 98% resolution].
She and her husband had purchased the land in 1953, when there was no zoning outside of the city. When her husband died many years later, she decided to split up her property into eight pieces for her children and grandchildren. But by that time, it was too late: planners forbade such subdivisions.
English became the chief petitioner for measure 37, which allowed property owners whose land had been regulated since they purchased it to receive compensation or have the rules waived. After the measure passed, a court ordered Multnomah County to pay her $1.15 million in compensation or let her subdivide the property. But the county appealed, and now that she is gone, her family may have no recourse because–under some interpretations–only the original purchaser, not her descendants, can make a measure 37 claim.
To make matters worse, voters did a turnaround and passed measure 49 by almost the same margin as 37. Measure 49 allowed people like English to subdivide their properties into three parcels, and in a few cases up to 10 parcels. But beyond that it greatly limited the effects of measure 37.
Planning advocates attacked English for waiting so long after the rules were passed to complain about them, but that misses the point. The real point is, should planners have the right to arbitrarily change people’s property rights without their permission or compensation? Many, perhaps most, planners believe they should. Dorothy English stood as an example of the kind of people who are hurt when governments give a small group of people that kind of power.
The real point is, should planners have the right to arbitrarily change people’s property rights without their permission or compensation?
How are planning laws different in this respect from other laws?
“The real point is, should planners have the right to arbitrarily change people’s property rights without their permission or compensation?â€Â
Societies where the public does not respect the individual and his dreams degenrerate into societies where nobody respects anybody.
These societies become a never ending round robin of temporary majorities who tyrranize temporary minorities, where every individual is simultaneously perpetrator and victim. Jim and Joe get together today and screw Jeff, tomorrow Jeff and Joe screw Jim, then Jim and Jeff screw Joe etc. Everyone gets raped.
More importantly, even for those who like to put the greater good ahead of the individual, in such a society, nobody wants to do anything productive since there’s no guarantee of any long term personal benefit from their work. Nobody ever knows when the whim of the public will take away his dreams, wealth, property etc. So why bother to do anything, if you then have to live with Damocle’s sword above your head? When you don’t know every morning that you wake up whether you will be Jeff, Jim or Joe?
Why accept the social contract “I will do X for the public and be rewarded with Y when, after you have produced X, the whim of the public can get Y back retroactively. You stop dreaming and live day to day engaging in corruption and petty theft whenever you can. That was the environment of the collectivist societies of the 20th century (right and left) and to some extent the predominant environment in today’s Europe.
America had not been that way so far, and in my view this is the overwhelming reason why it is the most prosperous nation in the world. Nothing accounts more for America’s success in the world than respect for the individual. Nothing else! I just cannot stress that enough.
However, as Dorothy’s example indicates America is becoming more and more like the rest of the world; its prosperity will follow.
Nothing accounts more for America’s success in the world than respect for the individual. Nothing else! I just cannot stress that enough.
What if Native Americans had been respected as individuals…?
Dan,
A few mistakes do not invalidate an entire philosophy. The overwhelming distinction remains.
Sorry, I meant D4P (I wonder why I thought it was Dan…)
D4p –> The Native Americans problem wasn’t a matter of individual respect. The foremost problem they faced was a lack of respect for their nations.
It’s funny how so many people accept if not outright endorse zoning & other measures like these until they realize what it’s done to them.
It’s funny how so many people accept if not outright endorse zoning & other measures like these until they realize what it’s done to them. [emphasis added]
Yeah. Sad. It’s done:
o Protect their property values,
o protect their investment,
o protect the existing character,
o protection from the crazy-*ss neighbor with the kooky idea who won’t listen to negotiation (includin’ th’ gummint),
Sure.
DS
Dan said: “Yeah. Sad. It’s done:….â€Â
Yeah indeed!
…and why won’t that Dorothy English woman just shut up and accept the fact that she must be sacrificed for the greater good. I just hate it when sacrificial lambs scream on their way to the altar.
No need to mischaracterize or misdirect. I listed the benefits the public enjoys and expects, and thinks about when anti-zoning laws are resoundingly defeated at the polls.
Address the argument. Or not, and hand-wave about lambs and how individuals should be able to lower the neighbor’s property values and ruin the peace.
After all, it’s worked so well in the past…
DS
I think the point is the effect zoning had on Dorothy English. It suppressed here property values and damaged her investment. I suppose it did “protect the existing character” by stopping her from improving her property as she wished, but some might not think that was a good thing.
As for crazy neighbors, they may do strange things that hurt their neighbors, but at least they don’t tell their neighbors what use they can make of their property. Only governments get to do that.
…and we should also collectively plan, for example, the availability and production of bicycles. We could set production quotas and dictate that most new bicycles built are, say, monocycles. That way we would:
o Protect our current bicycle values,
o protect our bicycle investment,
o protect the existing character of our bike lanes and trails
o protect ourselves from some of our crazy fellow cyclists.
And since the system works so well, why not expand the planning controls to other products and, why not, services. At least the ones that some committee of experts deems to be the important core products and services of a proper society. With higher values, everyone would be richer, while at the same time, because of the production quotas we would also work less.
Love how D4P gets flustered so easily and throws in a total non sequitur about them there Injuns!
Okay, I’ll bite. Which Native Americans are you referring to? The Natives that were invading other Natives hunting grounds. The continuous state of war among most Native American communities because there was no concept of hard rule property rights.
Property rights and the respect for property rights do not, of course, guaratee a more peaceful environment, but they sure as hell do a lot more for it than the alternatives.
From John Adams:
“Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws.”
“But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people.”
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Oh, what the heck does he know anyway….
Ettinger claimed that “Nothing accounts more for America’s success in the world than respect for the individual”. I found that ironic, given that “America” as we know it was founded largely through the massacre of the individuals who were here first. Had they been respected (i.e. not massacred), “America” as we know it likely wouldn’t exist, and thus wouldn’t be “successful”.
How do you know they were here first? It is quite possible that they simply massacred the people before them.
Were bad things done? Of course.
But, before Europeans arrived, most lived in abject poverty, ignorance, and superstition. No offense to them, Europeans did too a long time ago. Western civilization, despite the process, affords Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government.
The bad stuff usually happened when Indians were treated collectively, as “nations” entitled to permanent occupancy of semi-sovereign reservations. Instead, Indians should have been treated as individuals deserving full and equal American citizenship in exchange for embracing individual rights, including private ownership of land.
But, before Europeans arrived, most lived in abject poverty, ignorance, and superstition. No offense to them, Europeans did too a long time ago. Western civilization, despite the process, affords Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government.
Generally, jg, I respect your reasoning. This comment however, excuse me, is cr*p. Totally conqueror-centric. Wow.
I can tell you, after spending a good deal of time on a res doing service projects, that forced assimilation has mostly been bad for this race, and many don’t give a rat’s *ss about these so-called “accomplishments”.
And the private ownership of land? Total cr*p, esp when you are, say, the Cheyenne or Arapaho who followed the seasons and the elk-bison. Even when the horses got out, most of the tribes didn’t stay in one place.
Sheesh.
DS
D4P brought up a good point when it comes to natives.
White people took their land from them at gun point, now some other white people are complaining that they can’t trash their stolen land?
Whatever the issue with Native Americans may be,
I don’t understand why the public has volunteered Dorothy English to be the one who pays for America’s primordial sin? What about the rest of you / us? If compensation is to be given, or if punishment should be received for wrongdoings to Native Americans then everybody should participate. Or, I guess, promoters of high rises are ok since high rises would have been ok with the Native Americans (that’s perhaps what they really wanted, but, they too, like us suburbanites, didn’t really know it).
Also, seems like, anybody who is a citizen of a nation who has done anything wrong should be liable to be victimized at random. So say, if one is Danish and the Vikings used to rape foreign villages, then the Danish public can demand that any particular Dane, at any random point in time, just bend over?
Death to Denmark as the Taliban would say…
And since every nation can be retroactively analyzed to have done something wrong in the past, any individual in any nation is open to be randomly victimized without compensation.
I don’t understand why the public has volunteered Dorothy English to be the one who pays for America’s primordial sin?
Apparently you hadn’t noticed, but the public has overwhelmingly rejected this argument at the ballot box – that is: it don’t make no sense to them.
So why do you keep using it? Do you want to continue to see your pet project of outlawing zoning get trashed every time?
Or, I guess, promoters of high rises are ok since high rises would have been ok with the Native Americans
This extremely weak argumentation is why your pet project of outlawing zoning gets trashed at the ballot box every time. Tell the lobbyists to step up their game.
DS
Dan,
Perhaps one day 10 guys will corner you on a dark alley. I guess, as long as they take a majoritarian vote before mugging you, raping you or whatever, then their action is leggitimate?
Perhaps many of these property owners would consider mugging or even rape a lesser offence compared to derailment of their family’s life plan.
Pingback: Getting Even With the Bastards » The Antiplanner
Dorothy English was the face of measure 37, but most of the claims for compensation (under measure 37) were not of this nature. Once measure 37 passed, people realized it had little to do with Dorothy and it was quickly erased under a new measure.
English also did not want to develop her property under codes for building on slopes w/ proper fire access because of the costs. This is just opening the city up to lawsuits if something went wrong in her proposed development.