In addition to everything else that happened on November 2nd, Oregon passed Measure 37, which requires the state, counties and towns to pay "compensation" to landowners if they can construe a government action as reducing the commercial or sale value of their estates.
Now communities are trying to develop procedures to carry out this law. I have one suggestion:
Let the checks be held by the secretary of the nearest elementary school, to be collected by the landowner in person.
2 comments:
Peni again (I hate posting as anonymous). This is a confusing measure as described. I work in a real estate appraisal office, and we do a lot of work for government agencies, and for people whose property is being acquired by government agencies and who are disputing the compensation, and this should be covered under "damages."
If, for example, a road widening renders unusable two parking spaces out of a parking lot, and the business using the parking lot had the minimum number of spaces for its size (parking requirements are usually expressed as a ratio of lots per square feet in the building), the business will either have to reduce its square footage in use (perhaps by transforming a rental area into storage), find a way to replace the parking spaces (perhaps by buying adjacent land or sacrificing landscaping), or move. This is recognized as a hardship and is figured into the total compensation.
Although there are always individuals who are too careless or selfish to do their jobs properly, in general appraisers who work for government entities are conscientious about this. After all, going to court costs everyone money; the money to pay the property owner comes from the taxes paid by the property owner; and the ultimate goal is to solve a problem that everyone, including the property owner, is having. Disagreements about fair damages should already be handled as a normal part of the acquisition process.
In this case, the ultimate goal is to destroy Oregon's land-use planning system.
The argument is that a regulation which diminishes the (potential) commercial value of property (by preventing a wetland from being turned into condos, or barring an owner from opening a porn shop next door to a school) is a "taking", and should be compensated. Under Measure 37, the county or whatever body must either pay a pile of money (which they don't have, under current conditions) or else waive the rules for the complainant.
There's a germ of truth in the principles behind this law, and one day I hope that a more balanced system will be created. Measure 37 does not create balance, but perhaps it will serve as a spur to the Legislature to achieve it.
Of course, I've been waiting for more or less my son Waldy's entire lifetime for stable school funding with reasonable tax rates (which we used to have).
Post a Comment