This Space for Rent

The idea of prohibiting the state and its agents from condemning property so that it can be handed over to developers is a wonderful one. After all, who doesn't loathe the PDC and the horse it rode in on? (And, if you're unaware of the PDC's hamfisted redevelopment efforts, just look at the super-depressing south end of downtown Portland, which is all horrible tower blocks and office buildings. There used to be a real neighborhood there, with detached houses and the like, but it was redefined as "blighted" during the 1960s and bulldozed away so that the current crop of architectural monstrosities could be built in its place.)

But measure 39's got a little fiscal surprise in it, in the form of rewriting the compensation rules. Currently, if the state wants to acquire property, it makes an offer to the landowner. If the landowner declines the offer, the state has to make another offer before being allowed to seek a condemnation order, and if the landowner contests this order, they're liable for their court costs unless the court determines that the final state offer was less than the value of the property (at which point the state gets to pay all the court costs.) Measure 39 tweaks that so that the state has to pay court costs if the first offer is less than the court-appraised value of the property.

What does this have to do with condemning private property for developers? Well, nothing, but it's a another way to screw money out of the state, which I strongly suspect is the whole purpose of this measure. After all, it's an Oregonians in Action-sponsored measure, and that crowd doesn't give a damn about Oregon except as a source of free money.

The arguments in favor of this measure (most of which are sockpuppet arguments made on behalf of a "Russ Walker", who is apparently part of the crowd of conservative peckerheads that's been buzzing around the state proposing stupid "tax relief" bills that don't really give you any tax relief unless you're making .gt. US$100,000/year) can better be described as "there are too many Willamette valley LIBERALS on the court, so we want to carve out districts that will reliably elect conservative activist judges."

They're looking at the undemocratic arrangement of the federal government (where districts (states) with a small population have more voting power than the larger states) and are thinking that they'll be able to gerrymander a bunch of little Scalias onto the court if they do the same to Oregon.

Another classic "fuck the state" measure by the usual crop of conservative mulletheads, including the "Russ Walker" from the previous measure. If you're rich, you'll save a lot of money on state taxes. No matter who you are, you'll pay more federal taxes. But, neveryoumind this, the important thing is that Measure 41 will screw the state of Oregon for the benefit of a dozen or so wealthy land and factory owners, so while you're bouncing down the pothole-covered highway towards work, you can think of just how happy you've made Bill Sizemore and the founders of Oregonians in Action, who are most certainly not thinking of you while they relax in their Hawaiian vacation condos.

This measure is a Bill Sizemore joint, so he's probably doing it just because he's been redlined by his insurance company. But, be that as it may, I'm still going to vote for it, because redlining is one of the classic sleazy stunts that's used to discriminate against poor people. If you read the arguments against this measure, they all boil down to "we want to charge poor people more than we charge rich people."

I'm not a libertoonian, so this argument doesn't hold much weight for me.

This offensive little turd from the anti-choice crowd forces legitimate doctors to tattle on 15-18 year old women who come to them seeking abortions.

If you're a back-alley abortionist, this is a full-employment act, so you'd want to vote for this measure. If you want to see more babies abandoned to die in dumpsters, you'd want to vote for this measure. If you feel that all women are sluts and need to be saddled with humiliating restrictions at all times to remind them that they are not equal to real humans (the ones with penises), you'd want to vote for this measure.

The women who don't want to talk to their parents about getting an abortion are most likely the women who are afraid of being harmed by their parents if those parents discovered that they have an independent existance. Given the choice between a back-alley abortion and having a legitimate doctor tattle on them, they'll take the back-alley abortion, just as they do in all the parts of the world where abortions are officially prohibited.

I could see that this would be bad if you're a pharmacutical company executive that relies on screwing over individual purchasers to keep the profit margins up. But other than that, there's no downside to this measure.

Term limits worked so well the last time around, didn't they?

Whether or not regulating campaign contributions is a good idea or not, it's not a good idea to require increasingly large supermajorities to pass campaign finance reform laws. The last thing I want to see is a situation where people can be bullied into passing stupid campaign finance reform measures which the legislature can't remedy because of dumb supermajority requirements.

Regulating campaign contributions is a good idea, but measures to enforce them have had a mixed fate at the hand of the courts. "A good idea" ceases to be a good idea if it can be gamed to prohibit contributions from one class while allowing contributions from another class.

Yet another stupid "tax reform" measure pushed by upper class libertarians (who don't even live in Oregon) who want to use some poor western state as a guinea pig for their failed economic policies.

Pay no attention to their cries of "If there's this much shit, there's got to be a pony!"; this, like most of the other libertoonian tax policies that are being foisted on the west, will not work at anything except for making the state poorer and less attractive to businesses.