Talk:Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
B This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article is rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
  This article was a Collaboration of the Week for WikiProject Oregon from November 12-November 19, 2007.
This article is supported by the Oregon Government & Politics Workgroup.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Clean up

I think this article is in need of some clean-up and reorganization. I'm proposing a new structure, for example clear pros and cons sections with better referencing. There are also some violations of NPOV which should be cleaned up. Any thoughts on how best to accomplish this before I take a stab at it? SlipperyN 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it for cleanup (once I noticed some recent POV creep) and I say go ahead and take a stab at it. The pros and cons section sounds like a great idea. Definitely make sure it's in line with WP:MOS and wikify too (it's currently lacking in those areas). You might take a look at some of the other ballot measures in Category:Oregon Ballot Measures--perhaps some of them already have a format such as you are proposing. (I'd look it up but I'm supposed to be working.) Happy editing! Katr67 16:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I did a clean-up. I think more could still be added to the 'Support For' section, and there are a few unreferenced claims that need citations. I'll try to come back to these issues soon. SlipperyN 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I messed with it a little too. I'll see if I can get to the wikification soon. Katr67 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
While you're at it, if you could give some attention to the citations (per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Full_citations), I'd appreciate it. I've been looking up and revising minimalist cites in articles in Oregon history, politics, government and locations which are rampant, and can only work at it a few hours at a time before the tedium produces a brain cramp. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning up this article will be much easier if the info that's relevant to numerous states/initiatives can be separated into a different article. Ultimately, I'd like to see this page have just the Oregon-specific info here, and move everything else to a more general page. Not sure about a title - perhaps "regulatory takings initiative from the 1990s to present"? or "property rights ballot initiatives"? I'd love more suggestions, and am happy to work on that separation and reorganization. -Pete 08:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think I like "land use regulation" better than "regulatory taking" (too jargony, and excludes eminent domain initiatives like 39) and "property rights" (too much POV.) Yet another option might be to make a new page with an even more general scope: "Nationwide coordination of ballot initiatives since 1992", with sub-sections on land use regs, TABOR, term limits, etc. -Pete 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legislative text

I am wondering why the first 3 sections of the legislative text are included. The choice seems arbitrary. There are about 13 sections, the measure is about 2 pages long. Should ANY of it be quoted word for word? If so, how should it be determined how much? -Pete 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upped level of importance

Considering the major impact on Oregon from the measure and its national significance, I upped the importance level. User:calbear22 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to get territorial, but WPOR determines the importance of an article to our project. I don't recall seeing your name on the member list, but feel free to join if you like. The importance level for our project is guided by the guidelines you can access by clicking on the link on the Project template above. This article is important and has a significant impact and news coverage to the state right now. The key being right now. If the revision gets passed by voters, well then it has less impact. Not to mention it has a limited time frame impact (any new regulations passed, new owners, and all the exceptions). So though it has a significant impact, and some of those impacts will be felt for years to come with new developments, few people are actually impacted on a personal basis. Unless you owned land and had government regulations reduce the value, then you are not affected directly. Everyone is impacted indirectly, but then again pretty much anything will effect people indirectly. A ballot measure such as Measure 5 passed in 1990 not only directly impacted every school kid in the state, it also directly impacted every property owner, every local entity that collected property taxes, and the state government, and those people/entities are still efected to this day. But even there, that is a 17 year effect that has lessended as time has gone by, which is why it is only a High level of importance. Basically when applying an importance classification (which is really a priority classification) we try not to do a knee-jerk reaction, instead look at how many people are actually effected and what is the long term impact (are people going to be talking about this in 50 years?). Based off of national news coverage Larry Craig should be a Top level for WikiProject Biography, but it is not and will likely never be that high of a priority, except maybe to WikiProject bathroom sex in MN airports. Aboutmovies 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the Week -- starting point

Before embarking on a project to give this article a makeover, an important question: should Measure 49 (and, possibly, Measure 7 as well) be included in this article, or should we be aiming toward separate articles?

I have edited a lot of Oregon Ballot Measure articles, and in many cases have found that it works best to make a combined article where multiple measures address the same issue. It has generally been easy to establish consensus among other editors that this is the way to go. I think the clearest case is the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which resulted from a merger of articles on Measure 16 and 51. The resulting article does a better job of capturing the general context of the issue, and saves the reader from having to click around multiple articles.

I would like to see the same thing happen here, though I think it only makes sense if we can come up with an article title that establishes clear boundaries around the issue. Land use regulation in Oregon would make an excellent article, but it would probably cover too much to allow a lot of detail on Measures 37 and 49. Any other thoughts on how to carve this up? Or should we just accept that with such a complex and ongoing issue, an individual article on each piece of legislation is the best way to go? (If so, let's get an article going on Senate Bill 100, too!) -Pete 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think each BM should have its own article. Each one has lots of WP:RSs to provide a very deep coverage of the topic, a level that would be too much for an overarching article on land use. But at some point we do need the overarching article to cover the topic including coverage of the BMs, the original land use laws/UGB, LUBA, Metro's role in the Portland area, and the various court decisions. At the overarching article enough detail could be added about each BM to where the reader does not need to click through to the main BM article. Plus, I doubt this battle is over, I'm sure there will be court challenges and more BMs to come, but the BMs should stay fairly stable. Aboutmovies 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I agree with both points of view. Perhaps articles for measures 37 and 49 should be succinct (votes, description, dollars spent, etc.) and the bulk of the material be in Oregon land use law history which contains all the context. —EncMstr 21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree with Pete's call for an umbrella article titled along the lines of Land use planning in Oregon (a somewhat broader moniker than "regulation" or "law"), which I would rate with "Top" importance. I was kind of stunned just now that there isn't one already. Oregon's approach to land use planning is one the defining characteristics of the state (whether for good or ill), has influenced land use planning in other jurisdictions, is a lens for viewing some of our deepest cultural values, has inspired numerous items of exremely high-profile legislation and court cases (including SCOTUS), and kicked off a bunch of very visible governmental and non-governmental organizations. EncMstr has wisely suggested a very good approach: there should be separate articles about the legislative and political history and specific impact of several items of legislation: SB 100, Measure 7, Measure 37, Measure 49, etc, as well as 1000 Friends, Oregonians in Action, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, etc. But all rolled up into the overall theme. Ipoellet 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems like we have an emerging consensus. Thanks for your thoughts. As for the project at hand, then, sounds like (among other things) we should look to spruce up the M49 part to the point where it can be spun off into its own article. Now comes the fun part! -Pete 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Lest anybody be confused, as of just now, the M49 blue link on the M37 article leads to a redirect that brings the reader right back to M37. I'd view it as within the scope of COTW to clear up that reflexoloop, if only with an M49 stub. This is a bad week for me, but I'll try to do it if nobody else does. Ipoellet 20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I finally read this article: Most of it isn't about measure 37, but about Land use planning in Oregon (I like Ipoellet's article name better), so it would be a great starting point. I'd do it myself, but I won't have enough time to do it justice for a few days. —EncMstr 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Article about how M49 affects existing M37 claims: Barnard, Jeff. "Uncertainty remains for many Oregon property-rights claims", Associated Press, Seattle Post Intelligencer, 2007-11-22. 

[edit] Consensus from Collaboration of the Week

So, wrapping up…it seems we are all more or less agreed that in the long term, an umbrella article titled Land use planning in Oregon would be a good thing, and that the most comprehensive info should be there. Then, notable pieces of legislation like SB100, M37, and M49 can have their own short articles.

To get there, I think this article is the most comprehensive we've got (though it definitely leaves a lot to be desired.) I think expanding this one, as though it were Land use planning in Oregon, probably makes sense, and once it is a little more comprehensive, we can move it, and create a briefer article for M37. That approach will take the least "management," and it seems we all have other things we're focused on.

Another option might be to copy this into a "draft" page, delete out the non-M37 stuff here, and build it up outside of main space. I don't prefer that, but I'd be OK with it. -Pete (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay gals 'n' guys, I started a draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Land use planning in Oregon -Pete (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)