Land-use claimants oppose Kulongoski bill
Join the discussion below, or Read more at News-Register.
#1 Feb 13, 2007
"Dutton said that she and her husband bought their property in 1967 and planned to farm the land for 20 or 30 years and then partition so they could retire."
So in 1967 they anticipated that rural land in Clackamas County would have value as a subdivision? In 1967, Clackamas County had a population of barely 140,000 people, and most of those would have been in Milwaukie, Oregon City, Lake Oswego, West Linn and Gladstone. I suspect the farthest things from anyone's mind in 1967 is that PDX would grow the way it has. In fact, if it wasn't for the High Tech boom which could not have been anticipated in 1967, PDX would still be a sleepy little town, and we'd still be getting our coffee from a Dunkin' Donuts.
Better sign these folks up for investment advice, they can truly see the future ...
#2 Feb 13, 2007
Good call ; listen to this one... "I'm going to continue no matter what the governor says," said Ollie Wilcox, a 78-year-old Clackamas County resident. Looks like the sprawl advocates have another 'Poster Child!" Remember Dorothy English, eighty-something, she only wanted a retirement house..? Her "Claim" turned into Eight Houses! And what about the multiple lumber companys that not only funded this measure, and waited until the last minute to sneak by their thousands of acres of "claims," who are now apparently hiding in the wings as they march in more old folks claiming losses...
I'm with the Governor: Kulongoski said this week that Measure 37 "has unleashed an unexpected rush to development" and that the Legislature "should act sooner rather than later to uphold what the voters intended when they passed this legislation.".
...A gripe I have with these so-called "Claimants" is their claiming a loss at all; with limited expansion into farm, timber and ranch land, not only were each one of them given special property tax breaks, saving them thousand and thousands of dollars as they've done their thing with the land, but the value on their land has skyrocketed beyond belief. Because everyone can't divide wily-nily and put umpteen houses on their lots, of course the sole ability of these folks to so has them claiming astronomical losses. In other words, their land's worth a hell of a lot more now than when they paid for it, and if we're going to maintain some of the most productive land on this planet (which was the reason behind our land use laws to begin with), these people should be forced to sell their property in the same sized block as they bought it --- believe me, there'll be enough money to go around!
#3 Feb 14, 2007
I sympathize with the folks that bought a parcel of land and looked forward to building a retirement cottage in their later years only to find out that the land use laws had changed. But most of these people are trying to cash in on a windfall. At the very least, we should be assessing taxes, retroactive to the date of purchase, assuming the "new" permitted uses, payable as soon as the land is put to that newly permitted use.
#4 Feb 14, 2007
Just as most of us alive today don't qualify for this measure, because we were too young to own property at the time, these folks were at the tail end of Oregon's land rush free for all... A line had to drawn to preserve our farm, forest, and ranch land; they just happened to be on it. Anyone with half a brain had seen this coming; you don't pass legislation like that behind closed doors. And, if someone hadn't acted to 'split their place' when they had the opportunity, it goes to show how intent they were in doing so.
If land is bought for speculation - is it up to the rest of us to guarantee they make a profit? Right now, their massive profits are at the expense of those who can't do the same - this measure was written, if not advertised to be unfair! And like I said above, none of the people making "claims of loss" would sell their places at a loss. They, or their heirs will make far more than they'd ever dreamed of prior to 1973...
Add your comments below
|Pedestrian injured in Damascus accident (Sep '10)||Dec 3||Driver||2|
|Clackamas County Criminal Mugshots and Arrests ...||Sep '16||Aubrey||2|
|Diversity is White Genocide||Jul '16||6948hldjgh||1|
|New survey shows Clackamas County divided on pa... (Apr '16)||Apr '16||Wally||1|
|Survey: Majority favors vehicle fee for road work (Apr '16)||Apr '16||Wally||1|
|Metro Council ratifies Riverwalk agreement (Apr '16)||Apr '16||flood gates||1|
|Woman at center of landmark immigration case se... (May '15)||May '15||wild child||1|
Find what you want!
Search Clackamas County Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC