Measure 37 bad.
Measure 37 bad.
Measure 37 bad.
You were too stupid to know what you were voting for.
Measure 37 bad.
Measure 37 bad.
Oregon is ruined.
Measure 37 bad.
It only took four years of repetition but the mainstream media and ruling elite convinced the sheeple of Oregon that they were in fact too stupid to know what they voted for the first time. Sorry, first two times.
My vote NO vote on 49 had nothing to do with the number of houses you could or couldn't build, it had nothing to do with transferability, it had nothing to do with farmland and fields.
I voted on the underlying principle that it is Un-American for government to intrude on people's lives and infringe upon their private property rights. I believe that is what people voted for in Measure 37, subdivisions or no subdivisions.
Unalienable rights shouldn't be subject to the specifics such as "it's ok for 3 houses but not for 15." Either we accept the intrusion by government or we don't. Apparently Oregon voters have accepted it.
30 comments:
you must be a part of the "BORG" what makes you think you can function independently? The "BORG" is the only thing that matters.You are a small little person if you dont act for the benifit of the whole.
Does your theory about "ceaseless propaganda" apply to Measure 50, or just to the issue that didn't go your way?
Low voter turn out.
The tobacco addicts won. Good for them.
anon 7:09 - leave my people out of it!
Daniel, the problem wasn't the repetition of "Measure 37 bad." The problem was that the legislature, in crafting Measure 49, succeeded in convincing everyone that 49 was a logical step towards implementing the "Measure 37 everyone thought they voted for."
They managed to rig a ballot title that said, essentially, "this allows us to finally move forward with Dorothy English's claim" when in reality the measure guts 37. The average voter doesn't have the time or energy to invest in analyzing the measure, and is highly influenced by a few words in a ballot title.
I fully expect a lawsuit to be filed today. After all, every claimant under 37 has vested rights, according to the Oregon Supreme Court. That means, under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus the State Constitution, that the government can't take away that right without just compensation.
Measure 49 is, in a nutshell, unconstitutional. The legislature knows it. They just don't care. They are hoping to rig the case. After all, look who they are running for Attorney General:
Greg Macpherson, who helped lead the Measure 49 movement in the House, and whose father was the author of the original SB100 that stole everyone's property rights in the first place!
Gee, do you REALLY think that he, as AG, will fight for the proper rule of law under the Constitution?
And of course, just look at the new Oregon Supreme Court with Ginny Linder and Martha Walters added to the mix. Yeah, that's a sympathetic bunch.
Ultimately, this may need to go to SCOTUS. Problem is, SCOTUS isn't too keen on private property rights these days (Kelo anyone?). What we actually need here is for a GOP president in 2009 to appoint a strict constructionist who believes in private property to replace Stevens on SCOTUS. That's about the only chance we have of seeing M37 actually implemented.
The most biased voter pamphlet that I've ever seen. "Protects Groundwater"..blah blah blah.
Now, I voted "no" for the same reason that Daniel did. I'm tired of government sticking thier noses in my business.
City Gov't wants to prevent me from doing this to my property, (unless I get a 50 dolar permit)
County Gov't wants to prevent me from doing that, (but I'm responsible for paying for it's upkeep)
Metro says that I can only do such and such since I live accross the street from the taxpayer funded park, (and they are going to charge me another 3 dollar fee just to get into the park)
The State won't let me do another thing (unless of course I buy a "special use" permit)
The Fed's tell me that I can't do something else.
I'm done with all of the intrusion. Sick and tired of it all.
F#$% them all. It's MY property. If I want to cut down a tree to improve my view...I should be able to.
It's gone way too far and it has to stop somewhere.
It's not about being able to do whatever you want with your property. This is why we have zoning laws and public hearings. The goal is to balance property rights with the community good. You may have a right to sell your property to Walmart, but your neighbor also has the right to not have a Walmart next door driving down their property values and quality of life. You don't live on an island all by yourself, you live in a community and the good of that community must be taken into at least equal account. It's about responsibility, not just ownership.
Al Nonymous
Daniel,
Your post ignores the reality that whenever ANY ballot measure passes, there are often consequences down the road not anticipated by most voters when they initially voted for that measure. A great example of that was seen in a recent Willamette Week article, where it was discussed that due to the way Measure 5 was set up, the property tax system in Oregon is now grossly unfair. Even many conservatives agree that we need to update Measure 5, because of the unanticipated way its provisions have played out and led to grossly unequal taxation on properties with similar valuations.
Likewise, Measure 49 had little to do with people being “stupid”, and far more to do with people waking up to some of the financial realities and practicalities of Measure 37 that were not entirely apparent a couple of years ago. This is why 49 passed by a landslide. And it is also why, in the future, you’ll see other ballot measures revised by the electorate.
Now, in general, I agree with you that government should limit its intrusions in peoples’ lives and upon their property. But as a simple matter of legal fact, you are incorrect to assert that property rights are “inalienable”. Inalienable rights are absolute rights, which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the person possessing such rights. In fact, the body of law in America is filled with examples where property rights are indeed subject to some form of surrender or transfer without consent. The law of eminent domain is one well-known example. Zoning laws are another well-known example.
Daniel, say I wanted to open up a strip club on my property, right by your house! Further imagine that my club attracted all manner of vile people to the neighborhood, at all hours of the day. Would you still be arguing that my property rights are “inalienable” and that I can carry on with my business despite the effect on your own property, or would you argue that maybe there sometimes IS a legitimate government interest in limiting how we use our property...such as with zoning laws? If you acknowledge that government sometimes does have a legit right to regulate use of property - such as preventing me from opening a strip club mere feet away from your doorastep - then you’ve just refuted your own argument that property rights are inalienable. Aside, again, from the legal fact that property rights are not inalienable.
Sure, there is always a line to be drawn with these issues, and as a society, we need to decide where to draw that line. We do that through the democratic process, as happened last night with Measure 49. Some will not always agree with the outcome. But that, too, is part of the democratic process.
Collectivist clap-trap.
I limit my attraction to cheap and easy. Usually to the bar scene.
In Oregon, the dystopian Vision of cheap and easy has permeated every form of what has become government and daily life...as a majority, from a proud and self-reliant people to today's maundering sycophants.
Time to cowboy up!
The passing of Measure 49 is a perfect application to the old axiom: Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. In this case the people of Oregon are getting it --- right in the shorts.
the one that got me about 49 was that the legislature, who created 49, voted themselves able to bypass the normal ballot language procedure and write their own description and title, then they had the audacity to run a televised ad campaign pointing to the language on the ballot as proof that it does what they say it does.
I bet I could get a ballot measure passed that lets me stick licorice sticks down random pedestrian's pants with that kind of strategy.
WHEN CLINTON LIED....NO ONE DIED.....
You see? They come from all political parties:
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/11/democratic-operative-arraigned-on-child.html
Beaker,
You're stoned. Read this:
http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html
No, Beakeer isn't necessarily stoned. He does, however, limit his political thought to the sum total of one six word bumper sticker.
He's the future of this country, apparently.
It's the same two counties that get to decide everything for everyone else. This time it was city dwellers that got to decide for the farmers...they don't want to live there, they just want to look at it.
Hypocrites.
Welcome to Socialism. Eventually, this stuff will drive you mad to the point that you will want to leave the state. If not, be prepared to put up with them until your dying breath. God willing, I will not be in that position. I am out of here, baby. It's only a question of when. Hopefully it is sooner rather than later. I am a free person.
Al makes a good point above, and doesn't without the use of extremism. Thanks.
My response to your argument, however, is that the balance has been exceeded. In other words, Oregon has gone too far in their land planning. Anyone will tell you that Oregon has the most restrictive land use laws in the country. Is that something to be proud of? Depends on who you ask. Most of us here do not think so.
M37 attempted to rein in land use laws because they were restrictive to the point that the Left knew that there were people out there who would want to blow up the whole system. In fact, that is where I stand on the issue. M37 doesn't do enough for me, it was a bone. A crack in the pavement where some could get relief. The real problem as I see it is the whole land use system in this state. And particularly vexing is the fact that urban-dwellers are telling everyone else in this state how to use their land or not use their land. This is very problematic and is worthy of a fight in my book. This nonsense needs to stop. This back and forth with the ballot measures is ridiculous. Oh, and BTW, when I got the ballot, I was blown away by the language of the measure. It was clearly biased in favor of a Yes vote. Whereas, M50 seemed to be a lot more straight-forward. While I can't blame the outcome of 49 directly on the language (who knows what's in people's minds), I finally understood why the opponents wanted to challenge the language in court a few months ago. In my mind, this election had the potential of being rigged from the start. If this is the future of elections in Oregon, then why vote? The politicians are stooping to new lows all the time. The language of 49 was a new all-time low, at least from my vantage point.
There's a procedure for ballot initiatives regarding the language. You submit the measure to the Secretary of State's office and they frame the title and description in an ostensibly non-partisan fashion. In the case of 49 the legislature, the same body that drew up the measure, passed a one-time bill allowing them to bypass the regular process and write the ballot language themselves. Then they went ahead and ran an ad campaign pointing to the ballot language as proof of their claims...
Whether or not you support the measure, it's impossible to support gaming the system is such a heavy-handed fashion.
------------
As to measure 50, I'm sorry, but I believe it's wrong to single out a distinct group of people, whom you don't like, to tax "for their own good" and tie the funds to an unrelated group of people who you deem sympathetic to the masses (It's the children! the childreeeeen!)
I don't like people who wear baseball caps sideways... should we tax them to pay for a bunny rescue farm? Bunnies are cute and fuzzy, who could wish them harm?
My point is, it's a bad precedent, tax across the board, or not at all... is Salem really that desperate for money?
In the land of Miglavians, when a ballot measure you support passes, you proudly boast that "the people" have spoken.
When a ballot measure you don't support passes, it's because "sheeple" were lied to, misled by "propaganda," etc.
This is Miglavia.
I don't know much about measure 49 and I did not vote either way. But the way I look at it, the majority of Portland homes are/were probably built on former farmlands. Why can't the farm owners or property owners sell their plots to get some value out of their investment.
Do people who voted for measure 49 actually believe that there was going to be nothing but Walmarts and cookie-cutter homes from Astoria all the way down to Medford? I mean Oregon has a fairly small population compared to total land mass. I think hysterics got in the way a bit here.
anon 7:43 pm-Sorry but you have your head up your ass. Measure 49 was introduced solely because the pro-land restriction bunch could not contend with giving up their power to control. They even stated that the reason 49 was needed was because the sheeple (voting public) were mislead and didn't realize what they were voting on in measure 37. You have your facts ass-backwards.
Anon 1:49,
Anon 7:13 doesn’t have his head up his ass. In fact, the phenomenon he points out is indeed quite real. I have yet to see a single conservative say something to the effect of, “Well, I didn’t vote for 49, and I didn’t want it to pass. But the people have spoken, and that is that.” No, instead we get a lot of sour grapes, a lot of “sheeple” comments, and in general a great deal of denial that Measure 49 wasn’t even close. (It passed by an almost unheard of 2 to 1 margin.)
And of course, I don’t see any conservatives claiming that those who voted “no” on Measure 50 were “sheeple”, even though the anti-50 effort was almost exclusively funded by out-of-state interests who have a long and well-documented history of flat-out lying to protect their bottom lie. (As a related aside, I fondly remember Lars Larson talking trash about the medical marijuana ballot measure a couple years ago, and no small amount of his objection was based on the fact that the measure was mostly funded by out-of -state interests. So fast forward to 2007…do you think Lars voiced his displeasure that Measure 50 was mostly funded by out-of-state interests? Of course not! That would require a level of intellectual honesty sometimes lacking with Larson.)
BTW, on an unrelated note, would it kill you people to use some kind of moniker or handle, as opposed to “anonymous”? When posting, it takes all of five seconds to click “other” and type in a name, and you don’t even have to register to do it! In the last week since I found this blog, I’ve seen at least two people who misdirected their comments because of the confusion as to which “anonymous” they were responding to. Daniel, I know this is your blog, and thus we have to play by your rules. But if you’d like my two cents on how you can improve your blog, requiring people to use some sort of name (although not requiring them to register) would be my suggestion.
Well, I don't believe I've commented here before. So Stevie...Here's my 'other' name for you...not anonymous.
“Well, I didn’t vote for 49, and I didn’t want it to pass. But the people have spoken, and that is that.” No, instead we get a lot of sour grapes" Seems to me that when 37 passed by a land slide the pro restrict your rights group started sounding off with sour grapes, complete with name calling that the voters were too stupid to understand. Then immediately marched into court. Later drafting the behind closed doors M 49.
This group of 'I know better than you' began the pro 49 campagin when 37 was on the ballot and continued to shove it down our throats all along. When the lies of 49 are revealed the voters will be pretty mad. Stall, delay and lie is the mantra of this group. Don't forget their whole agenda is to save dirt and control people.
I am a free thinking person. To be part of the BORG collective you have to be without thought, able only to follow where the leader ("D" government in this case)tells you to go. Which is why Picard wasn't able to recover well from his time in the collective.
Did you know that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' orginally was drafted as 'life, liberty and property ownership'? Even then the wacked out liberal was in this country thus 'happiness' the warm and fuzzy bit.
Hey, BEAKEER...
WHEN CLINTON LIED....NO ONE DIED..... Tell that to those who died when Clinton dropped those bombs on the asprin factory...Clinton lies, both of them.
Yes Socialism is alive and well in Oregon. I too plan an excape before I am required by Oregon to give papers of transport at the borders...although I'm sure the illegal aliens won't need to because it's only us slimy Americans that need to be kept under thumb.
You rock Daniel! Keep it up.
I have to agree with stevie on the anonymous postings. Victoria doesn't allow postings under the name "anonymous" on her blogspot. And it seems to be working out quite well there. We would all appreciate it if you would at least try it, Daniel.
And beakeer needs to get outside into the fresh air once in a while. Maybe then he could get with the program and post something that is more or less relevent to the subject at hand.
Do you think you could do that, beakeer?
Thanks for the response “not stevie”. I’m particularly happy to see that you’re such a fan of the literary device called irony!
First, you chastise the “pro restrict your rights” group for marching into court after measure 37 passed, well aware I’m sure that even before the polls closed on Tuesday, the anti-Measure 49 folks were proudly declaring that they would…you guessed it…march into court if they lost.
But wait, there’s more! You then proceed to describe pro-49 elements as the “I know better than you” crowd, and subsequently draft a long message yourself that tries to send the clear message “I know better than you” on this issue. Oh “not stevie”, you’re so coy!
But in all seriousness, and as I discussed in a previous post, the reason Measure 37 was amended by Measure 49 was that the initial Measure 37 created unanticipated problems that are well-documented if you’d care to look at them. If you know anything about ballot measures, you’ll know that this is not unusual. Ballot measures are often poorly written, and often have the potential to create problems in the future that no one anticipated. Measure 5 is another great example of that. And IF your prognostications of doom and gloom with regard to 49 come true in the future, I have enough confidence in the electorate that those problems, too, will need to be addressed. That is the way our system of politics work. And although it isn’t perfect, it’s the best around. Ain’t democracy grand?!?
Now, if you don’t like this – or Oregon in general – then sure, it is certainly your prerogative to leave. Although I hasten to remind you that in this regard, actions always speak louder than words. Just ask Alec Baldwin.
Boo Hoo. What a cry baby bitch. My whole family, including my inlaws voted in favor of 49. We all own property-- three of us have ranches with 60 + acres. 1 of us has 300 acre farm. Most of the family members have 15+ acres of land. There was no propaganda. 37 was poorly written and voters were swindled by Hunnibucket and shysters that call themselves Oregonians in Action.
Thier case against 49 was so bad and week that they had to lie about Lewis & Clark College being opposed to it. It actually has nothing to do with land use rights and more about common sense.
Dororthy "screamin bitch" English was a poster child that was used as a puppet to scam voters into thinking 37 was a good thing. Seeing that strip malls, huge subdivisions, and smelters were going to destroy Oregon's forest, farmland and natural resources woke Oregon Voters up. They spoke loud and clear that Measure 37 needed limits. I am glad they saw 37 for what it was. It is too bad that you hate farmers and want Oregon to be concrete from border to border. You do still have the "right" to buy your vegetables from China. Reading over the idiot comments you write daily, I am inclined to think you are probably already consuming your lead fortified veggies. Please continue to do so.
Life is good. The wealthy vintner on the hill over Dundee will not have to look down on a valley full of the small farms or rural homes of the lower classes. His neighbor will be prevented from selling his land to the merchant class and thus be forced to one day sell, at bargain basement prices, to the same wealthy vintner or one of his elite competitors. Mr. Vanasch and Mr. Duyck of the Washington County Farm Bureau will still be able to force the children of their relatives and friends to move into the ever tighter, congested, and restrictive, in-filled local villages. They will not hire these village kids to work on their farm. They will pay the rural landowners rock bottom rent on their heavily restricted properties until their nursery buddies, friendly competitors who are blessed by the state after all, buy the rural parcel to cover the long protected farm soil in several feet of drain rock for their potted plant nursery. It is too bad Oregon didn't have these new Democrats in charge when the Cattlemen of old wanted to run the farmers and sheep men off the land. Hell, they could have prevented most or all of the settlers of the 1800's from ever setting root here! Better late than never I guess.
Unfortunately, the NIMBY mentality has become quite mainstream in America. Saint Consulting (tscg.biz) specializes in land use and development issues, and consucts an annual nationwide survey. Their data show that NIMBY has widespread support. (Interestingly, while liberals are somewhat more likely to oppose new development than conservatives and moderates, the difference is not huge.)
M37 petitioners framed the issue as one of basic liberty, property rights, and fairness.
M49 was written by liberal NIMBYs to appeal to NIMBY sentiment. Putting it on the ballot in a low-turnout off-year - not to mention bypassing the normal ballot title review process - certainly helped its proponents.
Whichever side succeeds in putting the next proposal will have the advantage.
anon 1026:
If Wal-Mart puts a colossus next door to you and drives down your property value and quality of life, you have an action against Wal-Mart. (Bad example, I know - hard to fight a colossus - but given the level of opposition to WM, you've probably got a good shot at getting a piece of them, and the case should be decided on its merits anyway.)
Zoning and land use regs have collectivized property rights because it's easier for people to run to government than to exercise personal responsibility in upholding their property rights.
Yes, we all live in a community. Does your right to not have a WM in your neighborhood trump the right of the rest of us to enjoy more consumer choices and lower prices?
"WalMart and the right of the rest of us to enjoy more consumer choices and lower prices?"
The right to have a bunch of lead based, cheap crap from China? Why don't you get a higher paying job there Minimum Wage so you can buy quality items that will last you?
Post a Comment