Measure 37 claims galore. Like I said before I oppose the payment of money . . but that is a long winded argument.

The cost of Measure 37 development

M37 is the initiative from last November's election that has recklessly and shamelessly overturned Oregon's land use laws. And reckless it is: we're looking at claims for casino resorts, gravel mines, motorcycle/ATV/paintball parks, subdivisions in the Columbia River Gorge, mega malls in rural/forested areas (link for a more detailed list of these claims.)
[ New Frames: The cost of Measure 37 development ]

UPDATE:

Silly me, I hurriedly helped someone sell a home a couple years back. I have refused to help any young family into a low-interest nothing-down home purchase. (Late 2002 forward.) My timing might have been a little early.

If we could apply some of the tools of a pension actuary to the current and future financial condition of a modern home buyer then the underfunded actuarial liability should shock them, but the hope of future home price inflation (just as with the hope of further speculation of stocks in pension funds) makes people stupid, or just greedy.

Do you think a local government – a local government that is tied to property taxes for funding – would want me to chime in and argue that a M37 payoff should be REDUCED because the claim of loss by the property owner is way too high? It would conflict with their interest in perpetuation of the speculative bubble.

If I could make realtors and mortgage brokers view themselves as little Ken Lay's pushing Enron stock I would, but no one wants to here it. It will pop when pops, and no sooner.

The traditional focus for limiting sprawl was the cost to everyone of serving the folks that sprawled and then demanded services. Just refuse to spread the sprawl cost to the general public then see how far the developer can get with their plans, thereby smashing their plan for riches. The whole land use debate has morphed, unfortunately, into a religious sort of thing that is devoid of reasoning, in favor or pledges of loyalty. It is hard to simply offer old basic arguments today.