Browse
Search
APB agenda 032101
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Agricultural Preservation Board
>
Agendas
>
2001
>
APB agenda 032101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 2:04:29 PM
Creation date
5/10/2018 2:03:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/21/2001
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
March 2001 <br />farmland preservation report <br />Md. lot exclusions, continued from page 2 <br />Maryland Farm Bureau president Steve Weber <br />said he needed more time to review the proposal, <br />but so far he is "very uncomfortable" with it. <br />"It seems like you're almost guaranteeing a <br />sale ... I'm not sure what the impact will be." <br />Weber said the Maryland Farm Bureau, noted <br />for its lukewarm support of the farmland program <br />since its inception, is "trying to make it a higher <br />priority. We want to build the case for bumping <br />up ag preservation." <br />According to Weber, farm bureau membership <br />is now "60 to 70 percent preservation people. The <br />agricultural community is shifting. We want to <br />build something for the long - term.'' <br />Contact: Paul Scheidt, 410 841 -5860, Wally <br />Lippincott, 410 887 -4488 x 241; Tim Blaser, 301694- <br />2513; Donna Mennitto, 410461 -4534; Steve Weber, <br />410 922 -3426. <br />OREGON <br />Voter - approved Measure 7 <br />ruled unconstitutional <br />continued from page 1 <br />issues or aspects of an issue. <br />Lipscomb wrote, "several of the provisions of <br />Ballot Measure 7 do not appear to be 'closely <br />related' in that a voter's support of one provision <br />does not necessarily imply support for any of the <br />others." <br />The decision was based on recent rulings by <br />the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Court <br />of Appeals. <br />"The requirement that a ballot -measure fully <br />explain all the changes it makes to,the Oregon <br />Constitution and the prohibition against bundling <br />together multiple Constitutional amendments in <br />one ballot measure are fundamental protections to <br />voters in our initiative system.7hese protections <br />are especially important in a case like this ..." <br />Lipscomb wrote. <br />The ruling came following a lawsuit brought <br />by Audrey McCall, widow of former Governor <br />Page 3 <br />Tom McCall, a Republican who helped found 1000 <br />Friends of Oregon in 1975 to protect the longevity <br />of Senate Bill 100, the state's land use planning <br />law he shepherded through the legislature in 1973. <br />Hector Macpherson, a retired farmer who <br />helped draft and pass Senate Bill 100 joined in the <br />suit, along with the mayors of Salem and Jackson- <br />ville and a Union County rancher and lawyer. The <br />plaintiffs were represented pro bono by an attor- <br />ney at the request of 1.000 Friends. <br />According to observers, the new law could <br />have bankrupted state agencies and local govern- <br />ments with landowner claims it would have <br />allowed. <br />According to Oregon land use expert Mitch <br />Rohse, the effect of Measure 7 would have been <br />"even worse than we thought," based on analysis <br />in Judge Lipscomb's decision. <br />"First, its application to regulations that <br />restrict the use of land applies more broadly than <br />most folks expected," Rohse said, noting that the <br />law probably would have affected even the state's <br />recycling law because supermarkets could have <br />filed for compensation for being required to <br />maintain recycling operations on their property. <br />Rohse also believes that if the legislature did <br />not appropriate funds to a state agency specifi- <br />cally to pay compensation claims, that agency <br />would still be obligated to pay claims. <br />"The Department of Land Conservation and <br />Development, for example, has a budget of about <br />$16 million per biennium. So, if the agency re- <br />ceived claims for, say, $20 million, it Would have <br />to suspend all discretional actions — such as <br />enforcing the state's planning laws — pay as many <br />of the claims as it could, up to $16 million, and <br />essentially close its doors until the next bien- <br />nium. <br />According to Rohse, House Republicans will <br />likely draft new legislation that will put the issue <br />before the voters again in November 2002, with <br />more careful language. <br />"The Senate will hang back and see how that's <br />please turn to page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.