Stories of Abuse

Stories of Abuse

Your stories of how land-use laws have impaired your economic prosperity. Send us your story by emailing info@cascadepolicy.org with “Land Use – Story of Abuse” as the subject.

From Scott Johnson…

I haven’t been affected directly … My dad has, he has 150 acres of scab ground in Crook County … it’s got numerous … (200) 5 acre parcels within a half mile … we haven’t wanted to split it up, we run a few cows, horses and sheep and enjoy the lifestyle … I see how land use laws have artificially increased land and housing prices where we are just a community of the wealthy unless you were born here. When I came out of high school in 1970 there were over 2,000 buildable 5-acre lots for sale and land was affordable for the young people wanting to start out in life … instead of $8,000 for a five acre chunk it’s now over $100,000 and up.

From Gary Lovegren…

My father purchased 230 acers of forest property on a lake in central Oregon in 1960 (no zoning restrictions). At the time is was a small family resort. With a few cabins and some campsites. We as a family ran the resort, building it into a family business that we all participated in (my self and three sisters)for 35 years. In 1981-82 my father subdivided five parcels for himself and his four children for homesites, 1-2 acres each. We also subdivided 1-100 acres pasrcel for the grandchildren and left the rest as resort property. At the time the property was zoned resort/residential minimum of one acre for homes. My father passed away in 1995 and we sold the resort portion of the property, and kept the 120 acres that had been set aside for our family. This was his intent from the very begining. We went to Jefferson County in 1995 to work on subdividing the 100 acres for 9 grandchildren. We found out that the 100 acre parcel had been changed to Forest Management with out our notification. This made it unbuildable in any way shape or form. We are now unable to do anything with the property except look at it and pay taxes on it. When we asked the county clerk why we were not notified that they were going to rezone the property they said they posted it in the local paper at the county seat as per law and it was up to us to read the posting. Unfortunatly we live over 60 miles from the county
seat and do not get the paper.

We tried to use measure 37 and measure 48 to turn over the zoning change but were denied. We even had a study completed to prove our property is not suitible for forest management. Our soil is poor and the trees grow so slow it would take more than 3 times the normal years to grow a marketable timber harvest. This makes no difference to the county as they are required to have a certian percentage of forest management property to meet a state standard. Ours was easy to grab and change. We have been trying for 14 years to try and change this back so our children can have a homesite on the family land. This is not what our forefathers had in mind when they came and settled in America.

From Anonymous…

I live in Central Oregon and I am starting a vineyard and winery. There are stumbling blocks throughout the system including right off the start that you need a 15 acre vineyard in order to have a winery, or have a contract with a 15 acre contiguous vineyard to purchase their grapes for your winery. It is quite difficult to do that in an area where this is just in it’s early stages. There are no “contiguous vineyards” therefore you are required to establish a 15 acre vineyard in order to start a winery on EFU ground. Almost impossible unless you have very affluent investors and are a huge risk taker.

On this same farm we tried to host weddings. A total of 5 in an entire summer. This again is a violation and resulted in citations.

Our next hurdle is to try to get a guest ranch zoning. There are so many hurdles in this application that we don’t know if it will provide more road blocks.

The truth is that you can own a 312 acre farm, and pay amazing taxes on that farm, but you can not make a living on it because of all the restrictive codes on EFU property that donot fit today’s Central Oregon.

From Steve Turner…

I’m a 58 year old native of Oregon. I grew up believing that we in the rural Oregon communties had the perfect world that included the manufacture of renewable resources in timber and agriculture. We had good schools, well-maintained service centers and pride in what we did. As I look now at our burned out, collapsing forests and crumbling communities I’m inclined to believe that the urban-bred masses and eco-nazis have conquered us. Our once beautiful, family oriented communities are now nothing more than welfare slums and safe harbors for drug addicts. I am ashamed to admit this undeniable fact. My generation gave this country and the incredible experience that was Oregon away.

From John C. Graham…

In 1976 my wife and I bought 18 acres three miles east of Clackamas to raise our three children and then develop for industrial and residential use when the kids left home. We went in over our heads a little to do it, but being thrifty were able to do it using a State GI loan. This was to be our retirement. Our youngest was in her senior year in Clackamas HS when I started to proccess of laying out the development.

I had been a Civil Engineer for many years by then, having graduated from Oregon State in 1969, and even then had worked in the field since 1958, so had a very good idea of what I had to do.

In 1994 I laid out on my property a plan for 16 nice residential view lots and 110,000 sq. ft. of “incubator” warehouseing. I thought it was real good timing as it was ahead of any other plans in the Clackamas industrial area. I went to Clackamas County Bank with the plans and discussed how they could help me with the financing and we reached an agreement that that would be done. I then engaged an engineering and land surveying firm (I could have that but didn’t have the time as I was still working), a environmental scientist, a traffic engineer, and a building designer for the warehouse. About that time I was informed by Clackamas County that there was evidence of a wetland on two parts of my property. The environmental scientist determined that at most the areas were about 0.27 and 0.14 acres.

I saw that as no problem because I had an idea place to which to move it that would actually provide a much better protected area and a constant water supply. Besides, the regulations at that time exempted areas under 1/2 acre from any need for mitigation. But, being a good guy, I went ahead with design of a replacement wetland. Maybe that was my mistake, the county, the state, and the Corps of Engineers all jumped into the middle of my design and seems to have decided that my development wasn’t to be. I did hear through the grapevine that the gal at the Corps didn’t like develpment and would do anything she could to slow it down. Whether that was true or not, I do know she came out to my property and saw tire tracks where my truck had driven that had water in them and declared that to also be wetland that had to be mitigated for. She outlined the areas and I had to have my surveyor come back out and measure the areas and show them on a new map.

In the meamtime, I had been having a traffic engineer working on traffic studies, and a bulding designer designing the warehouse layout and buldings. Then the county came out, looked around at what I was doing and raised my property taxes from $1300 to $13,000. The bank then by 1998 decided that I wasn’t getting things done as quickly as they had expected and raised my interest rate from 7 percent to 21 percent and then two months later decided to call my loan. They wouldn’t back off unless I could get the wetland issue resoved. I was forced to find a “savior” and sold my property for about 60 percent of what my appraiser estimated it was worth by comparables.

Two weeks after the sale closed, the Corps gal was reassigned to projects in the southern Oregon vallely and a week later the permit to move the wetland was issued. It was too late for me though. I got enough cash to pay the bank and six rental houses that I ended up selling for less than their basis after all repairs were done.

What opportunity have I lost? It was expected that the 16 residential lots would have netted about $40,000, the warehouse spaces would have been paid off in 7 years and then given me at least $300,000 a year after that. And my wife and I would have had a very nice retirement. Who can guess how much the county, state and feds would have gained in taxes. As it is now the land is sitting vacant.

From Joe and Mary Johnson…

In 1979, my husband and I purchased a 40-acre parcel of selectively-logged land in the Coast Range of Lincoln County. Zoning at the time of purchase was RR3, suitable for multi-family homes near the adjacent golf course. After purchase, we tried to apply for a subdivision permit to split the land into two-acre parcels and were told that the land was being designated as Timber Conservation in the new Comprehensive Plan. We protested, wound up being used as a “test case” by LUBA and found ourselves in the unenviable position of paying our own lawyer to fight our own tax-supported government bureaucrats. After over $40,000 in legal fees and several years of battle, the case reached the State Supreme Court where it was rendered moot, since Lincoln County had by then adopted its Comprehensive Plan. The property was allowed to be developed as RR5, five-acre minimum lot size, but by then the market had collapsed in the recession of 1983. We never recovered economically from that debacle.

From Chris Hesse…

I have a story, but it goes back 30 years.

Instead, why not a story on the split between farmers, some who insist on land use planning so that they always have some farm land to farm, and others would don’t want to continue farming, and would like to sell their land for development? We have one group of farmers (the continuing farmers) desiring restrictions on land at the cost to the retiring farmers, yet the retiring farmers are not paid any compensation for this taking.

The continuing farmers view it as their right to restrict the use of neighboring land. An article as to why that violates all of the principles of private property would incite much discussion, I suspect.

Regards,
Christopher W. Hesse, CPA
Camas, WA (and former Oregonian, the son of a farmer who was denied full FMV for land sold due to land use limitations; we farmed at Scholls for over 100 years)

From Lisa McDonald…

My husband and I own a 20 acre partial just East of Bend, which we run as a hay farm. That is the extent of any crop we can grow on this poor soil and in this natively rocky area. It is currently zoned EFU, which has strict restrictions on land use in this state.

We had hosted family weddings in the past, as ours is a very desirable location, very private, and very beautiful.Then we began having friends-of-friends beg us to host their weddings at our home as there is currently a severe venue shortage of affordable, outdoor sites in Central Oregon.

Our County Commisioners held us up in meeting after meeting for 1.5 years at an expense greater than $15000 for the text ammendment we put forth to try and change the laws to this end. Basically we ended without any changes being made although we had 42 local business’s testify in person regarding the impact to them, and also provided the County with over 500 letters in support of this change. The trickle-down economic impact to Deshutes County exceeds $4 million dollars a year from the 12 ranches involved doing just 10-15 weddings each summer!! In our text ammendment we voluntarily restriced ourselves to just 15 events during the summer months of June-July-August-September, volunteered to end them at 9 pm so as not to effect neighbors adversely, volunteered to provide security, parking, and number controls—-all to no avail.

If this land was capable of making a living as a farm pure and simple, we would have no problem with it being definmed as EFU land. However in Bend we can grow hay—–period. With the increased cost of irrigation, insurance, fertilizers, and fuel we count ourselves fortunate indeed, to even break even!

Our land— our taxes—our hard work. We believe we should have had, and should have in the future, a much more un-biased look at local land use. Shame on the commisioners for putting their heads in the sand hoping we would just go away. They did not act on behalf of their County, but on the behalf of a very small number of restrictive land use advocates.

From Clark Couch…

Karla, This is a story of a state agency using administrative rule to destroy both jobs and the use of your land. Background: Our business was started in 1956 as a game ranch. It was a alternative to cattle ranching and provided income to our family as well as our help and small rural community.

In 1990 Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) decided to change the rules on game ranching. They inacted a rule that said you can use no more than 300 acres of your land and you have to see every animal from one spot at ground level. Our ranch was over two thousand acres and very mountainous, so there for no longer qualified for a license. We were given 60 days to get rid of the animals that they said we had to, or they would take them. In 1997 ODFW through administrative rule decided to change classification of animals that were currently used as livestock on our ranch to wildlife and the property of the state under ORS.498.002. In 2000 ODFW raided our ranch with 31 employees of the state, seized property and wrote a $251,000 ticket for processing and selling their animals even though I had bought and raised the animals for over 40 years. We went to court and the circuit judge dismissed the case. ODFW then appealed to the Appellate court and lost.

They then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. The court ruled if the animals were private property and kept in a fence they were not wildlife but domestic livestock. ODFW again took the case back to the circuit court and again the judge dismissed the case. Last year ODFW then went to the Oregon legislature to have them enact a law that would give them the sole authority to determine what privately owned animals would now be wildlife and the property of the state. The Legislature passed the bill but made no compensation for the taking of our property. We are now back in the court of appeals with ODFW to determine whether or not they can over turn the supreme court ruling. We have been in court with ODFW for 20 years trying to save our livelihood and the use of our property. They have spent over two million in taxpayers money to eliminate jobs in Oregon.

From Johny A Belgarde…

My mother was giving me 2 acres of her property as a gift to build a home. The new measure was passed before we finished getting the survey done. Our previously granted request was denied in consideration of the new legislation. We spent $700.00 to file for the property to be divided and ran a temporary electrical service to the property. So instead of owning a home, I now make monthly mortgage payments. With all the added expense of living in Portland the amount is quite a lot of money (water, sewer, garbage, taxes and other hidden fees). With the money I would have saved I wanted to send my children to Hillsdale College.

Thank You Ignorant Oregon voter.

From Christopher W. Osborn…

I used to be self employed as a carpenter/contractor and I look forward to such status again. I enjoyed being an entrepreneur and I am not ashamed to say I was good at it. Land use laws in Oregon, in many ways, mirror the surface ambiguity of the City of Portland’s Zoning Code, Title 33. Earl [Blumenauer] had a hand in writing that and at the beginning of that 1500 page document is the give away. We are told that the document is not intended to be read in full yet Title 33 is structured in a ‘if this than that’ fashion that is tantamount to the same manner of ‘gotcha’ polices that Oregon land Use laws are rife with. To overcome the hidden and often spring-loaded unpleasant surprises littered throughout Title 33, I end up having to build projects in reverse sometimes because what the client may want violates some obscure aspect of Title 33 and because a plans examiner didn’t catch it, doesn’t mean that a building inspector, with aspiration towards upward mobility in the Building and Development Services Department, won’t red flag the project. Yes, as a builder, I need to be on my game but when the playing field begins to shift or the players on the bureaucrat side of the field are not on their game, it is the consumer/end user that ends up paying the price. Don’t get me started on the Oregon Construction Contractors Board. Currently, there isn’t enough work for me to be licensed, bonded and insured and as such, I am out of the jurisdiction of the CCB and I am considering the notion of continuing to function as a ‘Nontractor’.

Back to land use laws and other travesties.

It isn’t just that the land use laws are Command and Control, the cut goes to the bone. Like Cap and Tax or Obamascare or Oregon’s Bicycle Assisted Suicide laws, Oregon’s land use laws are a ‘Set It And Forget It’ approach that fly in the face of one of the cradles of bottle bills and recycling. Oregonians don’t need blinders. They are amply capable of forward thought and they want Oregon to be run in a conscientious and inclusive fashion as opposed to an ‘Our Way Or The Highway’ leadership.

I can’t work with clients to develop their ideas and desires based on any other protocol than that which is mandated by the state. If a client and myself work towards developing a new building process that is environmentally conscientious, has a low impact on the environment, is consistent with what is being built elsewhere and is even built to standards that exceed the minimum standard of reactionary protocol that is known as the Unified Building Code, my client and I are still subject to the whiles of those who are nearly as vested in the project as my client and myself.

The tail wags the dog as we in the building industry are no longer the innovators that set the standards for construction and buildings. Sure, we can apply for variances but that is a costly crapshoot that can backfire after a project gets started because a bureaucrat didn’t understand something and we builders and private citizens bear the burden of disclosure, or so we are kind of told.

What this is beginning to mean is that Oregon won’t enjoy a place on the cutting edge of building technology. Why shouldn’t myself, and so many other great folks in the trades, pack up our tools and split? In the same way that there appears to be no exit strategy for Portland’s mass transit addiction, there seems to be no end to the ‘ifs, ands or buts’ that are the self defeating unmovable object that the Progressive Movement has placed in its own path.

Anyway, you wanted to know so there it is. As a carpenter that wants to run a business again, there are greener pastures outside the state of Oregon.