Tuesday, September 11, 2007

What color will you allow me to paint my house Kathy?

I just got a sad letter from farmer Kathy. You see, she was under the impression that we lived in the Sovient Union as was very upset by the notion that her neighbors might be able to use their property as they see fit. That's why she's supporting Measure 49. (referred to on this blog as the "we'll go back to not having property rights" measure)

First thing, Kathy does actually exist, I looked at satellite images of her farm.

Second she has some bad news: houses and agriculture "don't mix." She warns of "dust" and "smoke" and insists that people "like to see farms as they drive by" but that "living next to them is a different story."

This is your first clue that Kathy is a democrat. Only a democrat would assume that a developer would BUILD HOMES WHERE NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE. Government might do that but not those crazy profit making folks.

Shortly after warning that "farmers often live on slim profit margins" she laments that "small, indepentdent producers" will "go out of bussiness" if farmland turns into subdivisions.

I guess by "go out of bussiness" she means that the farmer will "make more money." This is like saying that my lemonade stand "went out of bussiness" when I transformed it into a car dealership. You can complain that you now have to go somewhere else for your lemonade but I'm pretty darn happy with this development.

I feel bad for Kathy. It must be one heck of a psychological complex she has if she thinks it is her place to tell her neighbors what they can and can't do with their property.

27 comments:

gullyborg said...

these kooks never explain WHY a small independent local farmer will go out of business. if they are making a profit on their land today, they will probably continue to do so tomorrow, no matter what the neighbors do. it's not like Farmer John has to quit slopping the hogs because the empty land on the other side of the fence suddenly sprouts a high-rise. oh, and the well established law of "first come, first annoy" states that the new people have no "right" to shut down the preexisting farm because it is a nusiance. However, the owner of the preexisting farm has the right (a right not affected by M37 or M49 but rooted in the common law) to stop an adjoining landowner from developing in a way that would negatively impact his business (imagine neighors that put up something that blocks the sun, for instance).

so please, "Kathy," explain to me HOW, EXACTLY, farmers will go out of business if we don't pass M49?

Anonymous said...

I think I'm going to use the nest egg left to me by my rich uncle to build a 50-story office and apartment complex, with street-level retail that includes a taco stand, a Mexican grocery, and an adult video store. I suppose I'll have to inform the neighbors, so they know why earthmovers and a crane is arriving. Let's see ... who's next door? Ah yes. Daniel Miglavs.

Anonymous said...

no one ever talks about birth control as a control measure for these types of problems. Dan how many kids do you have?? 4 kids = 20 grand kids -- do the math

Anthony DeLucca said...

"Kathy" won't be able to explain shit, and neither can the moron anon posters like Anon 7:11. (How the hell do you connect the dots from birth control to property rights???)

All of these swag-bellied little liberal measles who post here on a daily basis simply to oppose ANY viewpoint that Daniel and the other regulars have, are starting to reveal themselves as true idiots. Half of their posts make absolutely no sense at all, and are merely conclusions they read about somewhere but don't have the brain power to adequately explain on this forum.

THINKING is what makes forums like this effective, not blind ranting.

p.s. within three posts, someone will either spell my last name as "DeLuggi" ar call me a used cardealer in Gresham.

Bob said...

Farmers are behind M49 because they will no longer be able to buy or lease their neighbor's land at artifically low prices.

gullyborg said...

so farmers should be able to take advantage of their neighbors?

oh, anon 8:47 PM:

you clearly have no idea how the laws work, or what M37 does, or what M49 would do.

if your land is already zoned for single-family residential, you can't suddenly build a high rise on it because of M37. And if your land is already zoned commercial/industrial, M49 isn't going to suddenly stop you.

Here is the nutshell:

M37 simply guarantees that if a unit of government CHANGES the laws in such a way that you can NO LONGER use your land, the government must compensate you. So if you have industrial land and you would like to build a factory on it, but then it is rezoned commercial, you will be compensated for your loss -- OR, the government will be required to allow your building plan through.

And it is not simply hypothetical, either. You need to go through the process of getting building permits and stuff. You don't just get to wave a magic wand and say "I think a semiconductor fab would have been fabulous here, with a nice $5 billion price tag on it."

The people who use the "I'll build a megacomplex adjacent to your suburban home" meme need to one of two things:

1) learn about the issue in order to make intelligent comments, or

2) admit they are deliberately using false facts and illogic to spread disinformation about the issue.

I am sure most of you will fall into camp 1. However, there are too damn many of you out there in camp 2, knowingly pushing lies in order to advace your big-government screw-the-people socialist-utopian agenda.

But you aren't fooling us.

Scottiebill said...

There is a fairly large housing development near my place that is on what used to be a large hay field. Near the front of the land next to it is a small acreage that has an old house and a barn that was clearly built at least 100 years ago and in disrepair. And the owner has 2 or 3 horses pastured there.

Last spring one of the new houses that is right next to the pasture where the horses and the old barn are was sold to a young couple with a couple of kids. Within a week of moving in they started complaining loud and long about the old barn and the horses. They want the owner to tear down the barn and get rid of the horses for the "safety" of the kids. They knew about all this before they bought, but did so anyway. And they make no effort to keep their kids out of the pasture.

This is like the people who build or move in next to the airport or the railroad and complain about all the noise.

My opinion is that people like this are stupid and think the world must comply to their wishes. Apparently this "Kathy" person is one of those.

Troutdale Councilor Canfield said...

Best damn blog post I've read in a long time, Daniel. Great job.

Bobkatt said...

anon 7:11-ever consider immigration control as an answer to these problems? Ever wonder why so many Californians are leaving sunny Cal. for Oregon? Believe me it isn't for the weather.
What's the point of asking Americans to limit their number of children when you invite 30 million illegals to come here, especially when most of the illegals don't believe in birth control. Do the math, stop the population explosion, have less land use problems.

Doug Glover said...

After we had to listen to that stupid old bitch Dorothy English over the last couple years, the least you can do is hear Kathy out.

One more thing, don't be such a naive idiot to think that only Dems support M49. There are plenty of Republicans that do. It isn't a partisan issue. It is a common sense issue, something I know many on this blog, including the editor, have very little of.

Anonymous said...

RIGHT ON BOBKATT
you understand the real cause of our problems

BEAKEER said...

YOU STILL NEED A HOBBY.....

MAX Redline said...

anony-Mouse 5:19 -

It appears that the only hate-monger around her is you.

Anthony "I dare you to post MY address" DeLucca said...

I notice that anon 5:19 is a f-ing coward. He'll put that address out there, but won't even post his own name.

By the way, IP addresses are traceable. Let Daniel someone post YOUR address up here.

Anonymous said...

Fuck her.

Bob said...

"so farmers should be able to take advantage of their neighbors?"

Geeeze NO! That's just tha dirty secret behind M49.

Positive Solutions said...

Apparently there are not a lot of farmers in this blog community. Ms Freeborn's letter does not say that if a condo is built Sept. 20, that her farm goes out of business on Sept. 21. Zoning is meant to keep like and compatible uses of land together. Once that principle is breached, agriculture is uniquely vulnerable to successive waves of undermining activity. First, the ag community in the area has lost a piece of its critical mass and irreplaceable farm land has been lost. That critical mass diminution means less business for the equipment dealer, the processor, the input dealer, the repair shop, and others that area farmers all rely on (and vice versa). Next, new neighbors who don't understand what all "life in the country" entails begin complaining. And though they cannot necessarily prevail legally, they can cause untold numbers of hours of response and work and expense by the farmer to address the concerns and prove that she can continue farming. Maybe the aerial applicator won't or can't do work on a farm where houses are right next door. Then more traffic clogs small rural roads, and on and on until a farmer just can't make it any more. It's death by a thousand cuts.
There is a lot of black and white painting of the issues on this thread. When you really think about the limits on individuals for the benefit of civil society and the limits on government to intrude on individual liberties, there is quite a bit of gray. We're talking about what shade of gray is best for Oregon here. Don't attack Kathy Freeborn because she believes in a different shade of gray than you do, put your idea out there and defend it on the merits.

OregonGuy said...

Defend it on its merits.

So often this is reduced to "no change, or at least only change my way."

Let's start with the genesis of this concern for the farmers. While serfs in the Old World, farm workers coming to America achieved something that heretofore was unthinkable. Economic independence. And, it was a close run thing as to whether Men or Land was more important to our fledgling democracy. As a nation, we were very close to restricting voting rights to land owners...not mere citizens. Reading arguments for such a policy introduces the American thinker into the first pages of this agrarian mythology. Land owners were more temperate in their thinking and their attitudes.

Farmers do honest work. Husbandry. Breadbasket of the World. The Family Farm. The Ploughboy Goes to War. Images of farm and farming are ingrained images on American culture. Tom Joad.

All these cultural images, icons, signs and symbols populate any "vision" thingy. "...irreplaceable farm land has been lost." Yet, the concurrent utilization is never characterized as "irreplaceable home sub-divisions have been created" or "irreplaceable manufacturing sites have been created" because such statements are simply silly. Irreplaceable farm lands? Should be create a new--ridiculous--subset of land management that calls for "farm offsets"?

Where would such offsets be available? In Harney county? Klamath county?

Well, obviously not...as farmers there are facing the "vision" think in their own way. The "vision" advocates want to close down irrigation to farmers. Obviously, "When you really think about the limits on individuals for the ben to intrude on individual liberties, there is quite a bit of gray."

Especially if you're a farmer. Rather than worry about a neighbor efit of civil society and the limits on governmentwho doesn't understand why cow poop smells bad, consider the Klamath county farmer who can no longer irrigate his crops. With the same intellectual brush that allows us to mitigate in favor of the farmer, we are also able to work against his best interests. When you take property rights away from property owners, this is the intellectual and legal morass of "limits on individuals for the benefit of civil society and the limits on government to intrude on individual liberties, there is quite a bit of gray."

There are those of us who choose property rights over community privilege. Without the ideological baggage of the Myth of the Agrarian Farmer.

Once you restrict your thinking about a property owner to that of a property owner per se, and ascribe to him such rights as are due to property owners, then you can begin an examination of the value of farmers and farming to the market. You're still going to see television ads for California Cows Playing Games in the Fog. Because the agrarian myth has motive force in our society. But happy cows playing Marco Polo isn't really what the ad campaign is about. It's about moving a product from California to Oregon, Oklahoma and Florida. If Farmer Brown in California decides to butcher old Betsy I don't think you're going to see that during a California Cow spot, soon.

If you don't farm, you don't have a clue as to what it takes to sustain a farm. Click on wheat prices here. Does it take a genius to figure out that there is more encouragement to farm wheat today than, say, ten years ago?

And imagine, wheat at $2.65 a bushel. Yes, it's windfall for the consumer. Bread prices are affordable. Spaghetti noodles are affordable. Life is good. 30 years ago the joke among farmers was what happened when the farmer won the Lottery. "Well, I guess I try to keep farming" was the punchline. When you don't fantisize about farming you begin to see that it is a business. And increasingly a business where the risks associated by that business are created by government actions where "there is quite a bit of gray." Farm use, or non-farm use? Irrigation, or no irrigation?

As we remove ourselves from the restrictions placed upon governments to recognize property rights, yes, increasingly we move into large areas of gray. Because individuals no longer have rights.

To opine that lack of government enforcement of the privileges of land-use is causing a reduction of land-use by farmers is counterintuitive. It is only when the farmer is the sole determiner of what his land-use is, or should be, that the real value of his assets can be determined.

Take a drive to the intersection of Scholls Ferry and Allen Avenue. As you sit in the Taco Bell, look across the street. The barber shop that is there, was there forty years ago. To your left would be where the GAF plant was. A fascinating factory for a child. That's where they made Viewmasters.

Just to the right of the gas station across the street was the Progress Feed Store and Storage. Just imagine a grain elevator in the middle of that intersection.

And, of course, on all sides surrounding you were filbert trees. I mean, way past Bed, Baths and Beyond. Irreplaceable farm land, being replaced by irreplaceable retail stores. Or where else would you have built them? Do you have some other vision of development and growth that you're not sharing with us? Do you envision a Mega-Super Building where all that you want us to buy would be on sale in the only government approved place "visioned" to build it exists?

Some of the issues you raise are real concerns of those who engage in farming as a livelyhood. But, determining "best use" is a cesspool, for all the reasons you've asserted. It creates that area of gray that makes rational use of property hard to value and determine--and makes determination of risk impossible to assess.

So, don't cloak yourself in dungareees and try to pass off a revisionist assessment of the role of agriculture in Oregon based upon appeals to cultural agrarian stereotypes. Yes, there are collisions when uses collide. But no one, farmer or stock investor, was guaranteed success by the employemnt path he chose.

Unless that path was to help kids, help seniors, or teach.

Anonymous said...

To oregonguy,

If I remember my history lessons, way back in the 50s and 60s, the US did restrict voting to land owners.

I can't remember when it was changed to citizens.

Jack Van Nostrand
Troutdale

OregonGuy said...

Well, Jack, you got me there!

Okay, people without land didn't get to participate in voting until the late '50's/early '60's.

See what an education can do for you?

Ignore that part, read the rest.

Anonymous said...

No they had made the switch long before the 50s or 60s.

It was sometime in the 1800 I believe.

I just meant I went to school in the 50s and 60s. Graduated from HS in '66

Jack Van Nostrand
Troutdale

htwtrman said...

I FORGET...WHAT WAS IT YOU WERE IN PRISON FOR DANIEL? HOW MUCH DO YOU FIGURE YOU COST TAXPAYERS ALL TOGETHER....A HALF MIL? ARE YOU ALLOWED TO VOTE BEING AS HOW YOU ARE A FELON? JUST CURIOUS.

Anonymous said...

You have been listening to Lars Larson and Lush Bimbo for too long Daniel. It is making you crazier by the moment. Well lets just get crazier lets just get pave over all Farms and get more tainted food from mexico. Well atleast maybe the mexicans willstop coming. Hmmmm

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Lars "likes to have people think he's a friend of farmers and other rural Oregonians" Larson, a couple of times I've heard him say something is "a tough road to hoe."

You'd think a guy who lived the early part of his life in Tillamook would know that rows are hoed, not roads.

Bob said...

Cut and paste is an amazing tool.

Kristopher said...

The amendments passed after the American Civil War pretty much ended state control of the franchise for adult males.

Kristopher said...

I think the confusion about the date may patially stem from the Voting Rights Act ... which allowed the feds to specifically punish officials who used state voting law dodges to undermine the 15th amendment.