Stacey's Web Page
Home | About Me | Fall 2005 | Claim of Fact | A Fist in the eye of God | Concept Formation: Attributes Dynamically Inhabited From Conscious Awareness | Women, Sex And Darwin | Darwin | Pedagogy Of The Oppressed | Neurology Summary | Emotional Intelligence | The Intellegent Eye | The Allegory of the Cave | Psychology From A Culturec Perspective | Thinking Styles | Who I Am, How I Learn | Winter 2006 | Claim of Fact | The Sane Society | Rethinking Primate Aggression | Domination & Subbordination | Blaming The Victim | The Social Construction of Reality & Stigma & Social Identity | Economic Justice: The American Class System | Deconstructing the Underclass & Constructing Race, Creating White Privilege | Citizenship as a Source of Obligation | Better Together: Restoring the American Community | Imperial, the Highest Stage | Imperialism 101, Shooting an Elephant & The Gentleman of the Jungle | Spring 2006
Claim of Fact

  1. Introduction to Academic Research Argument:


      A. Reason  Behind Topic Argument

           Measure 37: The ins & outs, the positive and negative effects

           Beyond just Portland & Oregon


      B. Background

            Oregon Supreme Court, local gov’t must go back to laws instated at time                      when property was purchased or pay for owners’ financial loss.


            County land- use staffers will take control of claims that deal with five or less                 property lots, and commissioners will take control of claims larger than five.


            “When reviewing a claim, the board is limited to determining a property’s                        ownership and whether a regulation was enforced, restricts use or devalues   

             the property. The board does not address or review a claim’s impact on   

             county roads, public services, flood plains, water rights or other  

             environmental issues of development. All of those issues would be addressed

             during any subsequent land- use application.”


             Landowner’s Pay $750 in application fees.

             County has 180 days to review claim, notify community, hold a public            

             hearing & make a decision.


C.      Elements of Controversy

                   Private property Confiscated By Fed. Gov’t To Boost Economy

                   Reimbursement Or Not?

                   Owners’ Doing What They Want With Land

                   Changing Landscape Of Communities


  1. Thesis:

             Private Property Owners should (not) have the right to do what they want   

             with their private land as it says in the Fifth Amendment in the U.S.



  1. Sub- Claims


    1. Sub-Claims: “Pro”:

                  1. Sub-Claim #1: Land Taken By Fed. Gov’t To Boost Local Economy.

                              a. in example of the Kelo case in New London, Conn. Land was                                                   purchased from a  private property owner and sold to a private                                               party to boost the town’s tax base.

                              b. Section 24 of U.S. Constitution states that court can determine                                                  what is considered as public use. “Excluded are the public                                           benefits of private development, including but not limited to an                                                   increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment or general                                                economic health.”


                  2. Sub-Claim #2: Makes More Jobs For Community

                              c. A bill passed in Alabama using U.S. Constitution to allow the                                                    city to condemn private property development to generate tax                                                 revenue.

                              d. In Japan a 1 mile long strip on a peninsula they are in the                                                process of building an open air mall, which will generate   

                                  50,000 jobs as well as boost the economy.


                  3. Sub-Claim #3: Fed. Gov’t Takes Land For Public Good Use

                              e. In West Linn, Oregon Private property was taken and                                                               turned into a skate park. This leaves the communities

                                  children a safe place to play.

                              f. Section 24 of U.S. Constitution limits what the courts can say

                                 is good public use and what is not good public use.


      B. Sub-Claims: “Cons”:

                  4. Sub-Claim #4: Owner’s Do What They Want With Private Property.

                              g. In England Modonna and her Husband have won part of the

                                  battle with Countryside Agency which allows public use of

                                  there estate. Modonna & her husband will not be having any

                                  people on their property.

                              h. Under U.S. Constitution private property owners are

                                  allowed to do whatever they want with their land as long as

                                  it follows, city and state regulations.


                  5. Sub-Claim #5: Changes Landscape Of Land.

                              i. West Linn, development of Stafford area will change the last                                       part of rural West Linn into condominiums and apartments.

                              j. Land changes can depreciate surrounding areas with change.

4. Summary:

      A.        Private Property Owners Have Their Rights

      B.        Gov’t can confiscate the land and put it to good public use

      C.        Changing Landscape


5. Conclusion:

      A.        Who really should be able to decide what is done with private                                       property.

      B.        Could Help Boost Economy

      C.        Is Measure 37 right or wrong?





Works Cited:


Barnwell, Matt. Legislature to strengthen private-property rights. 10/24/2005


Court Ruling not end of M37 fight. 03/01/06


Hollis, Paul L. Macon Telegraph,The. Southeast Farm Press 9/21/2005, Vol.32 Issue22, p11-14,p2.


Hurley, Micheal. Adapting to the new regulatory realities. The Oregonian. 03/06/2006


Oh! Get off my laaand! 06/18/2004


Oshiro, Gwenda Richards. Getting up to speed for Measure 37 claims. 03/02/2006


Private Property Rights Overview. Congressional Digest 01/2005



Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

Stacey Schiefelbein