Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

The dream of most Americans is to eventually own their own little piece of heaven - their home.  Usually it will sit on an acre or less of land that we get to rake leaves and mow the grass.  But hey!  It is exercise!

That is for most of this country.  But not in Oregon!  The environmentally friendly state passed a law 30 years ago that took all power to regulate land use away from localities and gave it to the state.  And since then, the State has decided what you can and cannot do with our land.  Period, no discussion.  So you lose the right to use your land as you see fit.

Well, when the citizens woke up and realized what the legislature had done, they sought relief.  But the legislature turned a deaf ear on them.  So what to do?  How about pass a law revoking the old law!

So they did.  Twice.  In 2000, and 2004.  And in both cases, Judges, the self appointed naysayers and gods struck down what a majority of Oregonians wanted!  The last time by 61%!  And the reason that the last judge gave for striking down the law?  Right out of the Ruth Buzzi School of law!  Because it would limit the ability of the state to determine what they wanted to do with your land!  That is right!  Not what they could do to their land, but to with your land!

Even more insidious, it appears the quack, err Judge that struck down the original law had a BIG conflict of interest!

The proletariats of the Union of Socialized Counties of Oregon have one last chance.  As with 38 other states in the US, they do elect their judges.  So the only way they are going to overthrow their yokes of judicial oppression is to vote the clowns out!  And some have taken that up as their sole purpose in elections.  I wish them well.  It will be nice to welcome Oregon back into the free states of the United States, instead of a communist dictatorship of judges and environmentalists.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 16, 2005
This is not something that can be taken to a higher court? Supreme court? I mean after all a 61% are against the original law. Which makes me wonder how did they get that law in in the first place? The Ad campaign must have been one hell of a campaign, Kerry should hire then should he feel the need to run from President again.

Who in their right minds , besides those who benefited, voted in favor of this law?
on Dec 16, 2005
Larry, Curly and Moe.......
on Dec 16, 2005
and don't forget....Tom, Dick and Harry
on Dec 16, 2005

Who in their right minds , besides those who benefited, voted in favor of this law?

According to the piece, the big cities on the coast decided they did not want the yokels to spoil their pristine wilderness by actually using their land for their (yokel's) own purpose.  However, like most laws, it did more than just freeze development in the 'pristine' areas, so the people who got what they wanted, realized that all they got was the shaft.

on Dec 16, 2005

Larry, Curly and Moe.......

ELF, ALF and The Sierra Club.

on Dec 16, 2005

and don't forget....Tom, Dick and Harry

But not Bubba, Mary Jo, and Billy Bob.

on Dec 16, 2005
This just reminded me of something that i heard last night on Hannity & Colmes....

Remember that Immenent Domain ruling a few months back? Well, there is an organization that is out to get the judges' land that ruled on that case. Well, the judges ARE fighting it....but, I thought it was kinda funny to hear about that.

Chris
on Dec 17, 2005
power to regulate land use away from localities and gave it to the state.
Not much different from home associations.
on Dec 17, 2005
I thought it was kinda funny to hear about that.
Very funny.

Who in their right minds , besides those who benefited, voted in favor of this law?


what else is new
on Dec 17, 2005
power to regulate land use away from localities and gave it to the state.
Not much different from home associations.


Big difference! With a HOA you have to agree to their authority by signing papers saying so. These people have signed no such document.
on Dec 17, 2005
Not much different from home associations.


Vastly different from home associations. Home associations are private contracts, entered into voluntarily and regulated by the home owners. The consequences of breaking the contract are understood when the contract is signed. State laws are not voluntary, they are mandatory.

Please tell me you know the difference between private organizations and government mandates.
on Dec 17, 2005
DJBandit,
In State issues like local ballots and local elections, the Federal Government rarely gets involved. Its the one are the Federal Courts don't stick their noses in very often.

Dimez
on Dec 17, 2005
This is not something that can be taken to a higher court?

The state of Oregon falls under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. We'll see just how far an appeal gets you there. They're even more activist than the state of Ogre-on.

Remember that Immenent Domain ruling a few months back?

The Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court is exactly what we're talking about.
It said that the local authorities have the legal right to take your property away from you if they feel it is in the best interest of the municipality, state, whatever. So yes, this is absolutely a case of eminent domain on the part of the state of Oregon.
on Dec 17, 2005

Remember that Immenent Domain ruling a few months back? Well, there is an organization that is out to get the judges' land that ruled on that case. Well, the judges ARE fighting it....but, I thought it was kinda funny to hear about that.

I hope they do get the judges land!  First hand experience is a very good teacher.

on Dec 17, 2005

Not much different from home associations.

Ah!  But that is voluntary!  You dont have to buy in those places (and I never do).

2 Pages1 2