Site search
sponsored by
News
<b>Measure 39</b>
Most people understand there are some rare circumstances when it’s appropriate for a government entity to condemn private property for the greater public good.
These would include the need for major highways, airports, or a public building, or perhaps even a school.
That all sounds reasonable, but should a government also be able to forcibly purchase private property for commercial development? Today, that’s allowable, thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Measure 39, on the Nov. 7 ballot, would prohibit the government from forcing property owners to sell land against their will, and then turn it over to a private party or company for development.
Proponents argue that this measure would prohibit the rare public-private partnership that could benefit a community. We think the bar should be set higher.
Since last year’s Supreme Court decision, a number of states have acted to restrict condemnation for commercial development, and rightly so. Measure 39 is a reasonable limitation on condemnation powers.
One potential downside to Measure 39 is it’s likely to add some cost to legitimate condemnation proceedings.
Under current law, a landowner has the right to appeal to a judge if he believes the price being offered for his property is too low. The government may make additional offers, but if the property owner rejects them and the judge awards a verdict higher than the greatest amount offered by the government, the government is responsible for the landowner’s legal costs.
Measure 39 will amend that rule to require the government to pay legal costs if the judge’s award is higher than the initial offer made by the government. Opponents of the measure have said this is likely to add substantially to the public costs of condemnation proceedings. However, it will also decrease the incentive for a public entity to low-ball a property owner in its initial offer.
The overriding protection of private property rights should trump the desire of a government to condemn land in hopes of creating some jobs or raising the tax base.
Measure 39 is one measure worthy of a yes vote this election.
<b>Measure 43</b>
In Oregon, those over the age of 15 can make their own decisions on medical care without a parent’s permission. Ballot Measure 43 would make abortion an exception to that law, requiring parental notification by medical providers for young women ages 15-17. At 18, teens are considered an adult and parents have no say.
Many people have surely made up their minds already on Measure 43. They properly recognize it as a pro-choice or pro-life question and will vote accordingly.
Those who support a woman’s right to choose would have an easier time considering Measure 43 if it were written differently. For example:
• While billed as a safety issue for young women, it does not include other medical procedures that carry the same risk or more.
• It also does not include an exception, common in many states, for rape or incest.
• Young women seeking an exception would need to appeal to an administrative law judge, probably through the Department of Human Services, to plead their case.
Many people who work with teens are opposed to this measure because they are well aware of the problems many of them face in abusive relationships at home. They fear this law could endanger the health and lives of some of these young women.
Opponents to this measure also point out that medical care providers can already contact the parents of a 15- to 17-year-old, if they choose. This measure takes decisions of what medical professionals believe is best for a patient out of their hands and gives it to a bureaucrat.
Oregonians who believe fervently that all abortions, with a rare exception, should be forbidden will comfortably support this measure.
Those who think it could put young women at risk, or that this is not a decision for government to make, should vote against it.
Most people understand there are some rare circumstances when it’s appropriate for a government entity to condemn private property for the greater public good.
These would include the need for major highways, airports, or a public building, or perhaps even a school.
That all sounds reasonable, but should a government also be able to forcibly purchase private property for commercial development? Today, that’s allowable, thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Measure 39, on the Nov. 7 ballot, would prohibit the government from forcing property owners to sell land against their will, and then turn it over to a private party or company for development.
Proponents argue that this measure would prohibit the rare public-private partnership that could benefit a community. We think the bar should be set higher.
Since last year’s Supreme Court decision, a number of states have acted to restrict condemnation for commercial development, and rightly so. Measure 39 is a reasonable limitation on condemnation powers.
One potential downside to Measure 39 is it’s likely to add some cost to legitimate condemnation proceedings.
Under current law, a landowner has the right to appeal to a judge if he believes the price being offered for his property is too low. The government may make additional offers, but if the property owner rejects them and the judge awards a verdict higher than the greatest amount offered by the government, the government is responsible for the landowner’s legal costs.
Measure 39 will amend that rule to require the government to pay legal costs if the judge’s award is higher than the initial offer made by the government. Opponents of the measure have said this is likely to add substantially to the public costs of condemnation proceedings. However, it will also decrease the incentive for a public entity to low-ball a property owner in its initial offer.
The overriding protection of private property rights should trump the desire of a government to condemn land in hopes of creating some jobs or raising the tax base.
Measure 39 is one measure worthy of a yes vote this election.
<b>Measure 43</b>
In Oregon, those over the age of 15 can make their own decisions on medical care without a parent’s permission. Ballot Measure 43 would make abortion an exception to that law, requiring parental notification by medical providers for young women ages 15-17. At 18, teens are considered an adult and parents have no say.
Many people have surely made up their minds already on Measure 43. They properly recognize it as a pro-choice or pro-life question and will vote accordingly.
Those who support a woman’s right to choose would have an easier time considering Measure 43 if it were written differently. For example:
• While billed as a safety issue for young women, it does not include other medical procedures that carry the same risk or more.
• It also does not include an exception, common in many states, for rape or incest.
• Young women seeking an exception would need to appeal to an administrative law judge, probably through the Department of Human Services, to plead their case.
Many people who work with teens are opposed to this measure because they are well aware of the problems many of them face in abusive relationships at home. They fear this law could endanger the health and lives of some of these young women.
Opponents to this measure also point out that medical care providers can already contact the parents of a 15- to 17-year-old, if they choose. This measure takes decisions of what medical professionals believe is best for a patient out of their hands and gives it to a bureaucrat.
Oregonians who believe fervently that all abortions, with a rare exception, should be forbidden will comfortably support this measure.
Those who think it could put young women at risk, or that this is not a decision for government to make, should vote against it.
