a bit more about Oregon, _This Land_, etc.

When Flint wrote _This Land_ (which, by the way, I was not entirely fair to when I said he wasn't covering the larger economic environment very well. I still haven't seen any indication he recognized the boom, but he definitely grasps the developer/lobbying/conservative thing going on with the backlash, I just hadn't gotten to that chapter yet), Measure 37 (property rights over 30 years of anti-sprawl/farmland/openland protection) had passed and Measure 49 had not yet happened yet (oh, dear, maybe that wasn't such a great idea). John Abrams of Yamhill County got what he wanted, and as a result, West Wind Country Estates is currently being marketed as "green real estate" just outside the old growth boundary -- nice timing on the bust!

But not everyone sneaked in that tiny window in which to sue, win and build. Want to read more?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/in_the_heart_of_oregons.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/yamhill_county_developments_hi.html

Wow.

I'm on the side of the growth boundary. I hope everyone involved in West Wind Country Estates gets screwed and goes bankrupt, and I'm prepared to include in that anyone who thinks that buying in that location is somehow "green", regardless of how the buildings themselves are constructed. I _like_ European towns and cities, which a clear demarcation: here end the attached townhouses and apartments and right next to them are working farms. It means you can get on public transit and take a ride out to the end of the line and hang out in the countryside, have a picnic, whatever.

But realistically, it looks like it might be a bit of a battle getting there from here, and I bet Measure 37 won't be the only setback along the way.

ETA:

And a bit more of the aftermath of the two measures: conservation land trusts are willing to pony up to make sure land stays protected -- they don't trust the guv'mint to do it any more.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/18321124-41/story.csp

Today's activities include: exploring the couch

When I was a child, one of the few ways to get money was to do additional housework or other work for my parents. They were cheap and evil as bosses so of course soon as I could get babysitting gigs, there was no way I'd do any of that any more, and once I was 16, obviously, that was the end of the babysitting. Anyone who thinks child labor laws are obviously a good thing need to meet my parents. Child labor laws for me has the primary impact of guaranteeing that I was overworked, underpaid and generally treated badly by my bosses.

I mention this because of my mother's crazy ideas about housekeeping (they included raking the carpet after vacuuming, to remove the marks the vacuum cleaner left). She thought soft furniture should be vacuumed inside and out at least once a week (well, until she had to pay market rate for it. My guess is she backed off at that point, because I never saw the woman she hired when I started babysitting do it. Who made $30 for what I'd been stuck doing for $2. Not an hour, mind you. And it took more than an hour.). I think that soft furniture should be vacuumed when I've lost enough stuff in the couch to make it worth digging for it.

Today, I found a cordless phone that had gone missing. Very exciting! Also the red ring from the stacker toy (altho to be fair, that was under the couch. Which I did not move, much less vacuum under). And may I also add how much I love my Miele vacuum.

that Toll Brothers loss today

Am I correctly interpreting that big tax deferred blah blah blah writedown as: there was a tax change early on in the bust to expand the ability to write losses off against profits both forwards and backwards by extra years (I remember getting pissed off about this), they were carrying this on the books as an asset against future earnings BUT since they haven't made any money in a while, they no longer have a 50/50 chance of ever using it so the accounting rules say they have to write the rest of it off.

Did I get that right?

And should I be happy? Because I _think_ I'm happy, but I'm not entirely certain.

what is the sound a wonk makes?

I'm not sure, but probably you can hear me making it right now.

I know no one can possibly care, but here:

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/m37finalstaffreports.shtml

You can find out just how all that measure 37 stuff turned out -- not. Because of course 49 came along later. So if you were to read _This Land_ and got curious about what happened with the Bentons land on Nunamaker Road near Hood River, OR, you could find out what the decision was (yes, Benton, you can go back to the rules as they were in 1977 when you got the land from dear old dad). But that isn't the whole story, quite clearly visible on Zillow, because no homes were ever built.

As near as I can tell, with the exception of the rare property like Wind wtf Estates, despite getting their claims in in a timely fashion, they did not successfully get through the subdividing and permitting process (even under the old rules) fast enough to beat Measure 49, much less actually build -- hardly surprising, given that the housing cycle peaked as they were filing their claims.

While Flint contrasts a Republican who wanted to subdivide and sell out (Benton) with a Republican who wants to keep housing at a good distance so he could do Farm Crap without hearing about it from the parents with small children next door (Nemarnik), you can also go peruse federal campaign donations for the region. It's pretty clear that Benton's politics are not the politics of his neighbors, and that may well have hurt his case, as well as the cases of innumerable other property rights activists who were surprised that their overturning of zoning got re-overturned right quick when people realized that it wasn't about 93 year old women who wanted to build a couple houses for their children (well, one assumes by that point grandchildren, a flaw in the storyline if you ask me), but rather landlords of farmland looking to grab a gold ring.

I feel like I should quit poking through the carcass of property rights activists hopes and dreams in Oregon and go see how that turned out in Washington, because I _know_ some related shit was going down there, too.

ETA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_933_%282006%29

Looks like 2006 was the high water mark for property rights folk. Surprise.

ha! Arizona property values

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0705prop207.html

Arizona was one of the few (possibly only) property rights propositions to survive the 2006 slaughter. Here's a little update on how that's going.

I'm just finding this really, really, really funny. I mean, they're worried about _zoning_ affecting property values in _Arizona_?!

Bwahahahahah...

ETA: This is a bit more recent, but mostly just exposes how 207 was really written to fight anti-sprawl legislation, but leave other kinds of land use regulation intact. Which is a little odd. On the one hand, apparently some takings are okay, but others are not? On the other hand, tactically wise to take a bunch of people who are otherwise going to be quite furious (and have the capability to override you) out of the game.