Measure 7 Threatens Fish & Fishing

[garyk]

Vote No on Oregon's Measure 7

Today's Oregonian front page, showing Measure 7 ahead by 3-points, should be a shocking wake-up call to anyone concerned about fish conservation or Oregon's nationally recognized land-use planning.

Measure 7 requires cash payment to anyone claiming a government rule reduces the POTENTIAL value of their land.

Read the State's explanation in the voter guide – while the ballot measure is aimed as conservation regulations, almost any rule could be subject to Measure 7. An opinion which the chief petitioners DID NOT disagree with.

So many policies that define Oregon and make it the best place to live - the public beach access law, the Department of Forestry's logging regulations, rules to protect fish, rivers, farms, wildlife areas, ad infinitum -- will be lost. There is not enough money in the whole state to pay every landowner who claims a rule, any rule, reduces the potential use and value of their property.

Here's a fishing scenario: I pay an extra $20,000 premium for property on the Nehalem River. I gladly pay the premium as that is what the ability to salmon fish outside my back door is worth to me. I'm happy and the seller's very happy that I paid their asking price. The value I paid becomes the new value of the property on the county tax roles. Some time later, for any reason - it doesn't matter - the state closes the salmon season. I can't fish. I paid a $20,000 premium for nothing. My appraiser agrees that closing the salmon season has reduced the value of my property by the $20,000 premium.

Under Measure 7, I can now go to all of you taxpayers and demand cash compensation.

At least 3 times Oregonians have rejected the question of -- "should we do away with land-use rules". It now seems that voters are poised to do just that and even more as Measure 7 goes beyond land-use rules to any rule that affects property.

Measure 7 will bankrupt conservation efforts in Oregon. The results are so far-reaching and so expensive it's just incredible to see this initiative ahead in the polls.

The Steelheaders have proposed rules to codify the public's right to wade rivers – their proposal won't stand a chance in hell under Measure 7.

I you like to fish, walk on the beach, want to preserve Oregon's agriculture lands, or not watch development sprawl turn us into California North - please vote no on #7.

[garyk]

Here are some laws that we will now have to pay people to follow (or more likely, do away with). Those impacting fish are about half-way down the list. Please scroll...

Potential Impacts of Measure 7, "Takings"

Initial legal analysis indicates the following laws would require payment
under Measure 7 ("Takings")

Land Use
Urban Growth Boundaries
Open Space Preservation
Farmland Protection
Building Moratoria or Limitations
Concurrency Requirements
Any Zoning Decision (Particularly Downzoning)

Building Height Limitations
Setback Requirements
Minimum Parking Requirements
Maximum Parking Allowances
Access/Driveway Requirements
Minimum Density Requirements
Maximum Density Allowances
Minimum Lot Size Requirements
Maximum Lot Size Allowances
Road Design Requirements for Subdivisions
Traffic Generation Limitations
Lighting Restrictions
Restriction on Hours of Operation
View Protection
Fence or Hedge Restrictions
Requirement for Public Plaza or Public Open Space
Requirement for Pedestrian Corridor or other Public Access
Requirement for Sidewalk Construction
Landscaping Requirements
Requirement for Ground Floor Retail
Requirement for Façade Improvements
Requirement for Public Restrooms
Requirement for Bicycle Parking

Prohibition on Condominium-Apartment Conversion

Housing Requirement for Commercial Development

Heavy Truck Restrictions on Streets

Agricultural
Irrigation Restrictions

Environment
Logging Restrictions, including Oregon Forest Practices Act
Grazing Limitations or Restrictions
Fishing and Hunting Regulations
Restriction on Tree or Vegetation Removal
Restriction on Coastal Walls or Barriers
Restriction on Tsunami Zone Construction
Grading Restrictions
Impervious Surface Restrictions
Solid Waste Disposal Restrictions
Recycling Requirements
Setback Requirements for Erosion Control and Habitat
Preservation
Construction Site Erosion Control Requirements
Limitation or Moratorium on Water Use
Limitation or Moratorium on Water Hookup
Expenditure Required to Protect, Provide, or Preserve Wildlife
Habitat
Expenditure Required to Protect, Provide, or Preserve Wetlands

Expenditure Required to Protect, Provide, or Preserve
Ecosystems

Expenditure Required to Protect, Provide, or Preserve Open
Space

Expenditure Required to Protect, or Preserve Other Natural Areas

Expenditure Required to Plant Street Trees

Structural and Other

Hiring Requirements (e.g. permits based on local hiring)

Most Building Codes

Closure of Business due to Building Code Violations

Building Design Standards

Fire Exit Requirements

Other Health and Safety Regulations Affecting Property Design or
Use

Sign Regulations

Disabled Access Requirements

Restriction on Building or Property Use Due to Seismic Issue

Restriction on Building Demolition, Addition, Alteration or
Redevelopment Due to Historic Preservation Requirements

Rent Control

Expenditure Required for Seismic Upgrade

Expenditure Required to Protect, Provide, or Preserve Historical
Archaelogical, or Cultural Resources

Expenditure Required to Build Low-income Housing

[Clamman]

Excellent topic and great research. This measure should be incredibly important to any person who claims to care about fish habitat. Granted the fish habitat portion is only a fraction of the whole aspect of the measure, but it could lead to some disturbing problems. In causing the state to pay for the aforementioned (garyk's posts) is going to take monies away from other programs. In regards to salmon recovery, it will take what little control the state has and basically hand it over to the Federal government. From what my sources have deciphered from the potential ramifications of the measure, Federal ESA restrictions/laws could be exempt from the payments. So landowners with salmon bearing streams would still have to deal with the ESA 4(d) rule along with others and not receive compensation. These rules and regulations have and will be more restrictive than most state imposed salmon recovery actions.


IFS

[Trick]

I'll vote no and my wife will do the same. What a **** poor written mess. Any good intentions that were planned with this measure are lost in all the negative impacts it would have on the general public.

[garyk]

Last night four Directors of the Steelheaders who have been involved in fighting to preserve fishermans' (and thereby the public's) right to access and fish streams gave me their opinion that under Measure 7, fisherman can only lose the access battle.

Furthermore if #7 passes, any additional rules to protect fish, or fish habitat are extremely unlikely.

[garyk]

The following is the Oregonian Newspaper's editorial piece on why we should vote against Measure 7.

"It was a chilly day in November, dripping rain, just like Wednesday, Audrey McCall said, when her late husband Gov. Tom McCall stood up for Oregon and its beloved environment one last time.

It was a day just like this one, she said at a news conference Wednesday, when Oregonians faced a direct threat to their quality of life. It was 1982,and Tom McCall was dying of cancer, but he insisted on speaking out against a ballot measure that would repeal Oregon's land-use planning system.

In a soft voice barely audible over the hiss of cars passing Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland yesterday, Audrey McCall repeated her husband's words:

"This activist loves Oregon more than life. . . . But if the legacy we have helped to give Oregon and which made it twinkle afar, well, if it goes, I guess I wouldn't want to live in Oregon anyhow."

Oregonians need to hear and heed McCall's
words now as they vote on Measure 7, a radical effort to block land-use planning and roll back Oregon's environmental protections.

Measure 7 would require local governments and
the state to pay property owners whenever any
regulation restricts the use of private property in virtually any way. The measure's authors insist this is about "fairness," as if it's fair to require Oregonians to pay corporations and other landowners to comply with air and water pollution laws, or rules that preserve farmland and forests,or even pay them for following the law that guarantees public access to Oregon beaches.

Measure 7 would force Oregonians to pay dearly. This is the most expensive initiative ever to make the ballot in Oregon. The independent committee asked to assess the fiscal impact of Measure 7 concluded that it would cost Oregon taxpayers $5.4 billion a year.

Measure 7 would give this money to property
owners who object to the local and state laws
protecting our public health, our communities and our environment. Either Oregonians pay that cost, year after year after year, or give up those environmental protections. It is, as Gov. John Kitzhaber said Wednesday, "the ultimate lose-lose proposition."

And yet, many Oregonians seem to be
considering supporting Measure 7. The
Oregonian/KATU-TV poll, published on page one
today, shows Measure 7 actually leading 47
percent to 42 percent among decided voters, and closer, 49 percent yes to 46 percent no, when voters leaning one way or the other on the measure are included.

The only explanation is that many voters have not looked beneath the superficial appeal of Measure 7. It is the sleeper measure of the 2000 election, all but obscured by the screeching debate over tax cuts, gay rights and other issues on the crowded ballot.

In this cacophony, it's hard to hear the soft voice of Audrey McCall. But even on cold, damp November day, it's easy to look around Oregon -- to the beautiful public beaches, to the still-intact Willamette Valley farms, to the vast open space of Eastern Oregon -- and see what Tom McCall was talking about 18 years ago. And to see clearly why Oregonians should reject Measure 7." (end)

[Phish_on]

I'm going to bring this back up to the top - since it passed !

My town can't afford to compensate anyone for anything - how about yours ?