Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Hood River County Notice of Adopted Amendment (2010-09-30)

  43 pp. Adopted 2010-09-30. Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of Adopted Amendment

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Hood River County Notice of Adopted Amendment (2010-09-30) Author: Hood River County Year: 2014, 2010 43 pp. Adopted 2010-09-30. Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of Adopted Amendment Title: Hood River County Notice of Adopted Amendment (2010-09-30) Author: Hood River County Year: 2014, 2010 43 pp. Adopted 2010-09-30. Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of Adopted Amendment Close

• 2. [Article] Douglas County Notice of Adopted Amendment (2009-12-14)

  26 pp. Adopted 2009-12-14. Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of Adopted Amendment

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Douglas County Notice of Adopted Amendment (2009-12-14) Author: Douglas County Year: 2014, 2009 26 pp. Adopted 2009-12-14. Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of Adopted Amendment Title: Douglas County Notice of Adopted Amendment (2009-12-14) Author: Douglas County Year: 2014, 2009 26 pp. Adopted 2009-12-14. Department of Land Conservation and Development Notice of Adopted Amendment Close

• 3. [Article] The Influence of Measure 37 claims on the shift in vote between Measure 37 and Measure 49

  The passage of Measure 37 in 2004 was met with a great deal of controversy as a number of voters claimed the implications of the Measure did not represent their intentions for supporting the legislation. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Influence of Measure 37 claims on the shift in vote between Measure 37 and Measure 49 Author: Chrostek, Garrett The passage of Measure 37 in 2004 was met with a great deal of controversy as a number of voters claimed the implications of the Measure did not represent their intentions for supporting the legislation. Namely, significant opposition was aimed towards the Measure 37 claim which offered landowners financial compensation or waivers from land use regulations that reduced the value of their property. As a result, voters subsequently passed Measure 49 which drastically curtailed the size and scope of the Measure 37 claim. Both measures experienced strong support and passed with more than 60% of the vote. This paper seeks to identify voting patterns by examining those factors which led to the divergent outcomes between the two elections. A review of the literature reveals two primary theories for explaining the differing outcomes. The first is premised on the concept of NIMBY (not in my backyard) in which voters in areas with high concentrations of Measure 37 claims used their vote to resist unfavorable developments associated with Measure 37 claims. A second theory is rooted in traditional regional and partisan differences, which characterize the “two states” view of Oregon politics. This paper evaluates these theories by developing testable hypothesis to predict the “shift in vote” at the county and precinct levels of analysis. Results from this study will offer a better understanding of voting behavior on this issue and offer suggestions to policymakers looking to improve voter satisfaction with Oregon’s land use system. Title: The Influence of Measure 37 claims on the shift in vote between Measure 37 and Measure 49 Author: Chrostek, Garrett The passage of Measure 37 in 2004 was met with a great deal of controversy as a number of voters claimed the implications of the Measure did not represent their intentions for supporting the legislation. Namely, significant opposition was aimed towards the Measure 37 claim which offered landowners financial compensation or waivers from land use regulations that reduced the value of their property. As a result, voters subsequently passed Measure 49 which drastically curtailed the size and scope of the Measure 37 claim. Both measures experienced strong support and passed with more than 60% of the vote. This paper seeks to identify voting patterns by examining those factors which led to the divergent outcomes between the two elections. A review of the literature reveals two primary theories for explaining the differing outcomes. The first is premised on the concept of NIMBY (not in my backyard) in which voters in areas with high concentrations of Measure 37 claims used their vote to resist unfavorable developments associated with Measure 37 claims. A second theory is rooted in traditional regional and partisan differences, which characterize the “two states” view of Oregon politics. This paper evaluates these theories by developing testable hypothesis to predict the “shift in vote” at the county and precinct levels of analysis. Results from this study will offer a better understanding of voting behavior on this issue and offer suggestions to policymakers looking to improve voter satisfaction with Oregon’s land use system. Close