Yes on Measure 49

I don't have cable and I barely receive any mail, yet I've still managed to feel a little overloaded when it comes to pro/anti Measure 49 (and Measure 50) ads. I thought I'd take a minute and try and explain my view.

Measure 37 was a really bad idea.

Measure 49 is a partial fix; I would rather see a total repeal of 37, but I am much happier with 49 than no 49.

One of the main arguments opponents of 49 seem to use goes something like this:

"It's my land, so I should be able to do what I want with it."

This is painfully stupid. While it might be a great selling slogan, sounding like common sense, it's actually pretty vacuous.

Without delving into too much philosophy, let's talk a bit about private property, which is where I think lines like the above one come from.

Private property is not a natural right, though I suspect many, many folks think it is. (So goes the power of socialization). Instead, private property is a social construct: It only works because we all agree to respect it, and we've set up an enforcement mechanism (the government) to adjudicate claims of private property and enforce said claims. Notice how private property rights only hold within U.S. boundaries? If such a right was indeed natural or universal, they would hold true throughout the world - but they don't. Each country has developed its own sense of property, its own social contract around how it works.

I don't like the idea that land is considered private property in the same way material goods are considered private property, but I understand that's how people view it. So be it. Land is communal, and no amount of pretending will ever make it otherwise,

Given that private property and its ownership is a social construct, it stands to reason that we humans, as social creatures, make rules about its use - and among them are Oregon's land-use planning rules. We do this because there are a lot of us crammed into an increasingly small space, and it's functionally, organizationally necessary. Without it we'd be doing far more damage to the land than we already are, making it unlivable at an even faster rate.

Let me put it this way: In order for the land in, say, the Willamette Valley to offer even as much support to the folks that live here as it does, we - and it - must be organized in certain ways: Cities, suburbs, farmland, timberland, river easements, etc. These are not evil by design, but by necessity (if one thinks they are indeed evil after all).

Given this, there is a very good and overriding reason not to support the idea that a private property "owner" can do whatever they want with their land: The rest of us are ultimately reliant on that land as well.

"Ownership" of land is a privilege, not a right, even in the United States. Asserting a right to do whatever one wants is not only silly and in the long run impossible, it's not even true by historical U.S. standards.

So please, please, please vote YES on Measure 49. The results of ending land-use planning are going to be very, very ugly, and frankly, I LIKE Oregon. I don't want to see it turn into New Jersey, or Southern California with more rain.

That and decimating Oregon's economic base - agriculture is decidedly stupid.