potentially a way to counter M37

[0rganism]

I happened by a copy of the Oregonian metro section today, saw this editorial piece:
Inject some clarity in our land-use laws
and also a related letter from someone in Newberg whose property values are being diminished by an out-of-state developer thanks to M37.

Got me thinkin'. M37 passed on the basis of protecting the long-term property value of "ordinary citizens", and holds municipal governments liable for diminishment of potential use values due to post-purchase zoning restrictions. Let's put forward another ballot measure, or perhaps put through the legislature, to protect people from this kind of abuse this measure has enabled.

The gist of the measure would be something like this: When the results of a M37 property use claim enable development that potentially diminishes the value of neighboring properties, the owner can be held liable for the potential loss in value due to M37 development just like the municipal gov't is liable for potential loss due to land-use regulation. Just as in M37, the liable party can opt to pay for potential loss, or reverse their actions that "caused" said loss.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. brilliant!

:D