see The Sisters of Hawthorne Are Going to Hell

Then come back here.

Who here will argue that the description of rights that are appurtenant to land are, well . . . appurtenant to land?

Those rights -- those that are appurtenant to land -- do not go anywhere merely by two parties agreeing to exchange the land to which those rights are appurtenant. Any PERSONAL limits, perhaps by a deal between two private folks for a limited term easement to enable temporary passage or even a Measure 37 payment, are of a personal nature and limited by the rule against perpetuities. Such is the nature of land having rights appurtenant to it rather than to the fleeting owner of the land.

A complete repeal of SB100 and the local rules passed under it's guidelines would render all of Measure 37 stuff moot, whether waiver or payment. The only thing affected by Measure 37 really, was an affront to the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause. If anything, it was a frontal assault on the perception of what constitutes the definition of real "property," rather than who owns property however it is defined, by hoisting up the plausibility that rights that are appurtenant to land are instead like the floating heads in a Scooby Doo movie on Spooky Island.

OOOoooooo

Will the real property rights advocate please stand up? Ironically it was 1000 friends that were slightly closer to representing the real definition of property in the challenge that went to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Suppose every last piece of property and every last remnant of land use law was shaped like that of Measure 37 -- pay or waive -- and the government choose to buy up all the "apparent" rights, as if it meant in perpetuity, what then would be left of one's rights to land upon which they place their little castles? Would they be secure, or could the government say that the house had been a temporary approval kind of thing and the instant the occupant dies that they have no rights to pass on the structure to their kids, as the approval had been "PERSONAL."

Property and private ownership of it (meaning against government) is one of those little quirks that are related to a broader vision of protecting individual liberty. Pardon my little rant here, but does Measure 37 increase or decrease the level of arbitrariness exercised by our little government leaders (as they play a game of virtual tennis with the floating heads from Scooby Doo, here called development rights)? It is unnatural, particularly for folks that love individual liberty.

Let's test your understanding of the concept. Take casino gambling. Suppose Measure 37 instead said that owners could offer casino gambling on their land if they held it prior to the approval of the first gambling facility in Oregon. Would it be primarily a property right description or is the property part of it just a secondary matter to the primary concern over who owns the subject property? If I had my druthers I too would rather put up a gambling house than a few residential structures.

The notion of a common set of laws that are universally applied to all seems to be a stronger principal than that of division. It is less arbitrary. It is far more conductive to protection of liberty, universally.

Could someone argue that casino gambling is inherently tied to land? Only some land? Or only that it is not property unless it is a universally applied law. You have to tie it to the notion of liberty, individual liberty, to break out of a catch 22 definition of rights appurtenant to land that are otherwise just dry words without much meaning other than by reference to the words themselves.