YES on Measure 49
YES on Measure 50
YES on Measure 3-272 (Clackamas County)

I love vote by mail!

I know where I stand on 50 (Hell No, Just makes logical sense when you really look at it carefully).

I am not done yet researching 49 as it is very confusing to me.

(Marion County)

NO on 49
NO on 50
YES on 26-93 (Portland)

Hell YES on 49
YES on 50 (pretty sure)
gotta check out the rest...

Easiest ballot in years... done in the signed return envelope already. Now to go drop it off... looking forward to the @#*! political robocalls to stop!

"very confusing"

Vote NO on 49 if you think its OK that the prime farmland and forest land we stole from the Indians should be chopped up into hundreds (sometimes thousands) of small pieces (house site) per landowner and sold for highest possible maxiumum dollars.

Vote Yes on 49 if you want to limit the greed to 2 or 3 houses per landowner.

Not confusing at all.

To add the the pdxradio tally sheet:

49: NO - everyone should be more careful of the petitions they sign and the measures they vote for. What became Measure 37 was the last petition I signed, under the guise of 'restoring the other measure that was struck down.' I now no longer accept solicitations to sign petitions.

50: NO - 'hey kids - don't smoke, but make sure your parents keep buying 10 packs a day...' this is the wrong message, and the wrong way to fund children's healthcare (IMO) - instead, they should say 'this is more of a priority than (insert some other commission or cause that's funded by the state here),' and divert the funds from that.

26-93 - YES.

"What became Measure 37 was the last petition I signed, under the guise of 'restoring the other measure that was struck down."

So you're not gonna fix that first mistake you made by voting YES on 49? BTW, Measure 49 isn't a petition, it is being presented to the voters for approval straight from the Oregon legislators instead of them voting it into law themselves.

OK. I don't live in Oregon so I can't vote on any of these but let me ask a question for my own edification.

If you own a piece of property that you legally purchased and have made payments on and paid taxes on, why shouldn't you be allowed to develop it?

Any development has to go through all the approval stages anyway, so it's not like presto there is a subdivision where the once was a field.

I'm just curious. Everybody is screaming that the government is taking away our rights, and here they want to take away or limit the land owner’s rights.

At least that's how I see it from the 963 bazillion commercials on TV.

X100000 on what Newflyer about the robocalls except, I can't wait for the TV commercials to stop.

I wish Sirius would come out with commercial free TV!

Wow, multiple hijacks in the same post.....Sorry!

"If you own a piece of property that you legally purchased and have made payments on and paid taxes on, why shouldn't you be allowed to develop it?"

If you want to develop land then buy land that is zoned for development. Do you feel it should be legal for your neighbor to build a garbage dump next to your farm if the area is designated as "farm use"? What about a rock quarry? Or even better, how about a strip club next door? Society as a whole must carefully consider land use decisions, because once land is developed, it's gone forever. M37 has turned our land use system into a free-for-all.

And, let's remember that purchasing land is an INVESTMENT that carries risk. Why should taxpayers be extorted by certain landowners because they made an investment that didn't pan out as they thought?

I'm not sure exactly what measure 37 says, but no argument there about the tax payers. It shouldn’t be their responsibility for things not working out the way you planned.

Now on the other hand, if you have a piece of property and the government does something arbitrary that changes (lowers) the value of your land, then I think you have a valid case to be reimbursed. Maybe. It depends.

As far as someone just coming in and digging a quarry or building a dump or strip club, if the land is zoned "farm use" then they would have to go through the rezoning process which has public comment time built into the approval process.

Theoretically (that's the key word here), if there is enough public opposition to it, the city council or county council shouldn't approve the zoning change.

However, we all know it doesn't work that way. Whoever has the deepest pockets or whatever will generate the most tax revenue usually prevails.

Measure 37 gives the property owner the right to have all land use regulations waived or the government has to reimburse them for the lost value. So, everyone that has land files for a M37 claim saying they want to build 35 houses, and if they don't get the waiver, then they say the county must pay them for lost value, usually in the millions (based on the proposed value of the development). Of course, the county doesn't have the funds to compensate them, so the rules are waived.

"Now on the other hand, if you have a piece of property and the government does something arbitrary that changes (lowers) the value of your land, then I think you have a valid case to be reimbursed."

I disagree. If I put all my life's savings into Phillip-Morris, and then the government decides to allow tobacco to be regulated by the FDA, can I come back to the government for reimbursement of losses? Nope! So, I don't see that case for landowners either. Investments carry risk, otherwise there'd be no expectation for healthy return.

OK. If that's what measure 37 does then I disagree with it. But I'm not sure I agree with 49 either. Moot point since I don't live in Oregon.

On a different note, I think the government should have to pay fair market value if they need your property to build a highway or school, etc. And I don't think they should be able to arbitrarily be able to condemn your land so a developer can build whatever. I know that is happening a lot everywhere.

49 is not the best case scenario either, but it's way better than 37. Plus, 49 will allow folks to build a few houses, but not massive subdivisions. I think we can all agree that this was how 37 was sold to the public, but low and behold, people are using 37 to put up advertising billboards and build massive subdivisions and stripmalls, which was not what people were sold on.

I agree with you that government should pay fair market value when eminent domain is used. In fact, I think it should be slightly above fair market value even though that would cost taxpayers more, as it's only fair to compensate someone who will have to give up ownership of their property for the society's benefit. However, I'm troubled by the fact that eminent domain has been used for private development too.

1 house per acre.

There problem solved!

This idea of cramming 50 condo type homes on a tract with a greenbelt is crap. Then not too much later crowding and lack of resources becomes an issue. Tacoma to Everett is SO OVERBUILT, Traffic and water is an issue, too many people, and still they build more. you reap what you sow.

The lifestyle of the area was great, now it will continue to degrade due to the influx of population. Hope the Big O doesn't follow suit!

Here are my thoughts on 50.

-First IMO when it comes to banning smoking it should be left up to the individual business owner to decide what works best for their business model. With that said and having nothing to do with 50 here is my problem.

- At this point most likely we are going to see a Democratic president in the WH in 09. More than a few if not all of the Dem canidates have said they are in favor of a nationwide public smoking ban, and advocates of national health care.

- Recently when I tried to apply for OHP I was told that the only ones currently getting OHP were children.

-Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more popular. Would it not make sense then that if a nationwide or even a more widespread of smoking bans have even a small effect on tabacco sales?

-You raise taxes higher on tabacco and you are sure to find some users that will choose to stop smoking rather than continue OR cut back OR change to a cheaper inferior brand.

-Why not raise taxes on hard liqour too? Fast Food? Obviously because those industries wield more power when it comes to lobbying.

-Why create a black market when little to no black market already exists? Usually when black markets are created people end up dying in acts of violence.

Disclaimer: I am a smoker

Since Oregon's largest metro area is close to a state boundary, I think that Plaid Pantry and other merchants who sell cigarettes have a good reason to oppose Measure 50: smokers can circumvent the tax by buying their cigarettes in Vancouver. In general, I am not a fan of "sin" taxes because if they are successful in modifying people's behavior in the intended manner, then the money supply generated by them decreases.

One other argument against the measure that I haven't heard but I believe should be made is that this tax hike will hit low-income smokers the most because:

1) The tax is a fixed amount, regardless of whether the cigarettes are "brand name" cigarettes, such as Camels or whether they are "budget" cigarettes, such as Broncos.

2) It is less likely to be feasible for low-income smokers to buy their cigarettes by the carton, thus making going to Washington to buy cigarettes or buying on the Internet less feasible.

This tax won't affect the more affluent cigarette smokers, they will just buy them in washingtom or idaho. There will be people buying them for co workers, groups sending someone to buy them in bulk, or more Indian smokeshops.

I don't think the creaters really care, once the entiltement is required in the constitution, funding will have to be found elsewhere.

So Alfredo, to play devil's advocate, you think cigs should be cheaper so poor people can afford to smoke? If tobacco companies are worried about sliding sales, they can charge less for their product that is enormously profitable. Are you aware of the cost burden tobacco users pose to all of us when it comes to healthcare? The free ride is over, and it's time for those that smoke to pay up. And I'll also say that anyone that is a smoker should not be eligible for health insurance through OHP. If you can't afford health insurance, you can't afford to smoke!

From what I've heard, Oregon's tobacco tax is among the lowest around. And, I believe it's illegal to order smokes on the internet to avoid taxes.

If your going to tax cigarette smokers because of their conduct, how about gays? How about people over 50 lb overweight, how about mountain climbers. Where do you stop.

More important than states raising taxes on tobacco products, what REALLY needs to happen is the federal gummint needs to END the tobacco subsidies.

It's just typical of how f'd up the government is.

Let’s raise taxes so people won't smoke, but we'll still subsidize the farmers for growing tobacco.

How about we ONLY give the farmers a subsidy if they STOP growing tobacco and start growing a food crop. Then the subsidy is only for 2 or 3 years.

Agreed skybill.

"1 house per acre."

NO! 1 house per 20 acres, and then, only maybe.




Have you driven in Clark county lately?? UGH! BUTT UGLY! This is what 1 house per acre will get you.

Just curious, does Al Gore still get his tobacco subsidy?

. . . and George W Bush still doesn't have to pay back the investors and gov't for the numerous businesses he ran into bankrupty, right?

Oh, Clark county is still BUTT UGLY. I had to go by there today Ugh!!! The "countryside" south and west of Battleground is so . . . IDAHO! I realize some of you live in Clark co., but I lived there too, once upon a time -- a truly messed-up section of our beautiful planet. For Heavens sake, vote YESON49!

Hit a nerve id I, It must have been horrible for Mr Gore, to cash those tobacco subsidies, after his sister died of cancer. But he just sucked it up, and cashed them.

Nope, no nerve hit. It just pains you that Gore gets a Nobel Prize AND and Oscar in the same year. I'd say that tobacco subsidy was well spent.

The icing on the cake is the fact that Global Warming has made it impossible to grow tobacco in Tennessee (or anywhere near there) for nearly a year and a half now, and counting.

Measure 49's intentions are to avoid exactly what has occured in Clark County.

And I don't know if Al Gore gets a tobacco subsidy, but who gives a crap? If a subsidy or tax break is legal, you're an idiot for not using it.

"The icing on the cake is the fact that Global Warming has made it impossible to grow tobacco in Tennessee (or anywhere near there) for nearly a year and a half now, and counting."

Where did you find that factoid? The drought has been bad in Tennessee, and tobacco production is down 38%, but they're still growing a hell of a lot of it in Tennessee!

Admittedly I don't know anything about growing tobacco, but something tells me Tennessee farmers aren't exactly having a ball.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/NEWS01/710210438/1 006/NEWS01

"The toll has already been taken on this year, and now it's having an impact on next year," he said.

Rye that farmers planted this fall to hold soil in place and graze cattle through the winter as an option to hay has shriveled without rain.

Farmers are hesitant to plant winter crops, including wheat that would be harvested as grain next spring, since rains are not forecast to make the seeds sprout and grow.

good idea!!!! Tax overweight, gay mountain climbers.

Rather 1 house per acre than a fifty condo complex one after another. Then again, people don't spend much time at home anymore... 8 hours work 2 hour commute, pick up this kid, drop off that one, both parents working to satisfy the wants before the needs............

Roger-
Your description of today's family life is why my wife and I do just the opposite.

We are fortunate and we know it. And if anyone else can pull it off I highly encourage it.

"Tax overweight, gay mountain climbers." Roger, I think they have their own private Idaho.

I'm happy for you Chris. My folks were always around for the kids, and not always around for the money. Love has no price tag or base salary.

I voted too.

Thanks LS.

We need to vote.

> So Alfredo, to play devil's advocate, you think
> cigs should be cheaper so poor people can afford
> to smoke?

I'm not arguing that cigarettes should be cheaper to make them more affordable. What I am against is the concept of the government trying to force people's hands in personal decisions by increasing "sin" taxes on certain products until a threshold of pain is reached. Yes, there are social costs to smoking, eating fast foods, playing certain types of sports, sitting in front of a TV or computer for too long, etc. But, if it is OK to have a tax that discourages smoking, why not have similar taxes for other behaviors that are deemed to be harmful to public health? Why not put "sin" taxes on Cable/Satellite TV, cheeseburgers, video game systems, and Internet access? Where will it stop?

"What I am against is the concept of the government trying to force people's hands in personal decisions by increasing "sin" taxes on certain products until a threshold of pain is reached."

Would you prefer that tobacco use be banned outright? Sounds as if you are saying that any substance should be totally illegal, or totally legal with the fewest barriers possible to access.

I think society has a right to tax tobacco because of the cost of tobacco to society. I don't see it as sin tax, I see it as a recovery tax for the financial burden to society that smokers cause.

Not to mention, Oregon is currently 18th in total tobacco taxes: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html

I love how RJR -- who owns fast food chains and soda manufacturers -- mentions "soft drinks" and "fast food" as potentially taxed items. I think it is a dandy suggestion, and they ought to be given credit for suggesting it to thousands of Oregonians in their ad campaign.

Yes, they should both be taxed for the very same reason as cigarettes. Diabetes and obesity are killing Americans of all ages every day. Both of those problems have a direct root cause: Soft drinks and fast food. I am all for taxes on products that affect health.

The problem with taxing fast food would be establishing the bar as to what should be taxed. Tobacco on the other and is cut and dry.

Start Rant.

OK. As much as I hate cigarettes and being around smokers and I'd love to see cigarettes go up to $20 a pack, enough is enough.

Tax, tax, tax, tax that's all the government wants to do.

If I want to eat Big Macs until my heart explodes, that's my choice.

If you are going to tax junk food because it's fattening, then you'll have to tax candy bars, potato chips, fettuccine alfredo because of all the cream and butter, steamer clams because they are steamed in butter and wine, etc, etc, etc.

There is no end to what they'll tax.

FIRE the ENTIRE government.

I'm not voting for ANY new tax or if it's some kind of bond issue that is expiring, then I'm voting no. I don't care what it is or what it's for if it increases MY taxes even a penny, I'm voting no. F&%@ all of them.

Why don't we get them to do like the morons in NY and ban trans fats? Or in NJ where you can't get an egg sunny side up or over easy. Have to cook the yokes hard. They think they can legislate common sense. They can’t. How could they? They don’t have any themselves.

I purposely order my burgers rare just to piss off anybody that says I have to have my hamburger burnt.

My message to the government; Stay the F%@# out of my life.

Screw em.

End Rant

but, but, but, the "government" is US. They are people that we voted into office.

Screw us?

I love you Bill. In that appropriate Libertarian, music loving, no bullshit kind of way. I'll meet you in the parking lot at the Inn at the Quay and we can throw a few cases of tea into the Columbia. :0)

Tea? Condoms would be more appropriate!

They have a condom tax now?!

but, but, but, the "government" is US. They are people that we voted into office.

That's the way it is supposed to be.

The problem is that all the politicians want to do is fill their own pockets with OUR money.

One thing we really need is term limits so that there are NO career politicians.

It should also be a very low paying job so that anyone that wants to be elected must do so on their own merits and because they want to be a public SERVANT.

All the media can focus on is; Hillary raised this much, Obama raised that much Rudy raised so much, etc.

One way to end a lot of the corruption would be to eliminate lobbyists and corporate campaign donations. Also limit personal donations to $500 per person per year (total of all contributions)

Oh well, it'll never happen.

The politicians and the system suck, BUT it is still the BEST in the world!

"Also limit personal donations to $500 per person per year"

But we'll end up with more of the likes of Bud Clark and Tom Potter. I mean, I'm ok with it, but are you?

They have a condom tax now?!

Shhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas!

"Also limit personal donations to $500 per person per year"

But we'll end up with more of the likes of Bud Clark and Tom Potter. I mean, I'm ok with it, but are you?

My thinking is by limiting donations that no one person, group or corporation could "buy" a politician.

I'm sure they'd figure out some other way though.

Limiting campaign contributions is a direct violation of the first amendment, like it or not.

"Limiting campaign contributions is a direct violation of the first amendment, like it or not."

Yes and No, according to the current interpretation under Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The law can limit your contributions to a particular campaign or candidate, but not your overall contributions.

"The politicians and the system suck, BUT it is still the BEST in the world!"

How are you so sure of that?

The USA was one of the earliest to adopt a Democratic government. Isn't it possible that some improvements were made after the fact?

It's like we're running Democracy 1.0. We need an upgrade!

Bill, I'm with you about dumping the gov and starting over... right up to the voting no on everything. That's just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Whichever way you choose to vote on 49 or 50, GET YOUR BALLOTS IN ASAP! Too late to mail them - stop by your local library or find a ballot drop box!

This is an important election, and people seem to have forgotten about it. Turnout is low.

I voted earlier in the week. On Friday afternoon, I stood with a few other people holding a "Vote" sign at the east end of the Ross Island Bridge for about 3 hours. (I was with some Yes-on-49 people who were holding 49 signs, but I opted for the simple "Vote" sign.) It was really fun - lots of people honking and waving at us.

You can drop off your ballot until 8PM Tuesday at libraries and even your county elections office. Postmark is meaningless for Oregon ballots - it must be received somewhere by 8PM.

Andrew

If you're voting NO on 49, you can still mail your ballots here:

Oregonians In Action

An association of property owners
working together to protect property rights in Oregon.

PO Box 230637,
Tigard OR 97281

I'm sure they'll be happy to get mail from their supporters!