well, you may be right, but it's an uphill battle all the way...Oregonians will never willingly give up their right to put initiatives, albeit stupid ones, on the ballot.

and, we did get medical marijuana too.

I tend to think you are being a little bit dramatic. One of the great things about Oregon is that if just one single person has an idea, that person can introduce their ideas in a public arena and eventually, if they have enough justification and support, make their idea public policy.

Instead of taking draconian steps and eliminating the inititave process altogether, we could perhaps look into changing the system, making it harder for people to collect the required amount of signatures by raising the requirement's bar, but not eliminate that right altogether.

I agree, the likes of Mabon and McIntire have truly perverted the initiative process. Together they recently have been trying to push such asinine policy that it has hurt this state more than help it, but if the voters choose to be so uninformed and vote to restrict a group of people's rights, gut our land use laws or tie our state government's ability to raise the revenue they need in order to provide necessary services, like K-12 funding, than the voters should reap what they sow.

Jeff-

These same uninformed voters that you say "spent a few minutes considering the measure on their way to Starbucks" are the ones that you also trust to elect the president, governor, mayor, etc. These are the same people that sit on juries and decide whether a person is guilty or not, do they deserve the death penalty or no. These same uninformed people can award millions of dollars to plaintiffs on civil juries.

Why is it that so many on the left are so very willing to defend the role of the common man in a citizen-involved government, except when it comes to the initiative/referendum process?

Unfortunately, the initiative process isn't always the "progressive answer to entrenched power." In fact, entrenched power often uses the initiative process to its advantage. The cost of paying signature gatherers and advertising is more easily handled by entrenched powers than common citizens.

The fact that the initiative process is so popular indicates that 1) the "traditional" political process is broken; and/or 2) the initiative process is broken. Yet I haven't seen anything from the initiative process that seeks to fix either of these problems.

According to MarkDaMan, an uninformed community deserves a perverted initiative process. I would contend that only an educated community deserves any initiative process, and an uneducated or uniformed community should stick with elected leaders who can make tough or important decisions for them.

Obviously, the initiative process can produce good laws, but I think that's the exception to the rule.

Puh-leeze, just because an initiative you don't agree with passes, I am sorry. However, the initiative seems a perfectly reasonable check on legislative powers.

Accusing politicians of careful consideration by professionals is really dream-land. If you look locally at Vera's actions, her careful consideration consists of being button-holed by a small number of developers (H Williams, Gerdling, etc.) and being sold some idea Portland should look like the film lot from "Friends".

What is your issue with allowing people to control their future thru voting on initiatives. I mean if these things go against current government action, might it be possible, that outside of their own circle these might not be such "professional" ideas that they have?

Nice, take the power from the people. More proof Progressives are the "New Communists".

jc, you are mad as a hatter...

Having moved to Oregon from a non-initiative state (and then moved on further) -- I think there's a fair bit of good in the initiative system but at the same time a whole lot of stupid.

On the plus it does allow for The People who feel pasionate about their issue to get it before their fellows directly.

But on the other hand -- we elect people to do the work that the rest of us haven't the time or inclination to do. Which includes sitting in committee rooms questioning experts on various legislative proposals, weighing the financial pros and cons, debating the finer points, etc. Sometimes the best solution will involve the raising of taxes/fees and it's a long shot that a majority of voters will ever vote Yes for an increase that applies to them even if the funds are desperately needed.

JS-I do think you took my comments out of context with your paraphrasing. It is ridiculous that you suggest only an informed community deserves the initiative process. Are we to give all citizens an IQ test before we allow that community the initiative? Citizens who choose to vote on issues have a community responsiblity to be informed of what they are voting for. However, you cannot strong arm someone into looking deeper than soundbites. Hence the passage of M36 and M37.

We have the right, and should exercise our ability to review aspect about the initiative and change it. Such as I don't think the process should be allowed to change our state constitution. The collection of just over 100,000 signatures and a simple majority is a much to simple and shortsighted way to govern our states most precious doctorine a doctorine that is the final word for all time.

In response to MarkDaMan,

I think it is fair to say that it is better that people be informed on the decisions that they make. This is a different point than IQ testing. Being informed means you understand what is happening, the consequences and that you then choose to accept or reject those consequences. Which is where M.37 falls short.

I'd argue that beyond the simple words of the ballot title people didn't understand the full scope of what M.37 does. For instance, after the election the Oregonian ran an article admitting that they didn't report on the measure in a way that fully informed the voting public. That mea culpa article still failed to include a description of M.37's retroactive scope.

Did the electors really know that a person could file a claim that goes back to when your grandparents bought that piece of land in 1904? Or did they know that this measure may allow a big timber company to clearcut big chunks of forest?

I don't think the majority did know what the measure will do. So in response to MarkDaMan, I believe it is fair to be critical when people make uninformed decisions, and to go further to allow a discussion of wether we should keep a law on the books that is not what people thought they were voting on.

The initiative process seems to always be the end result of a legislative branch that doesn't get things done, responds idiotically, or just makes bad policy. Why? I think because we've turned politics into a never-ending election cycle. Policy debate rarely focuses on doing what's best, consensually, for Oregon. Instead, it is polluted by the aspirations for the future.

In the end, I believe the electorate has a share in this failure. We expect the government to do what best serves us as an individual, not usually what is best for all involved. This is why tax debates fail, this is why simplisitic initiaitives passed.

I beleive we would not have faced M.37 if we had responded to the old woman who couldn't build a house on her acreage of many years. We would not have faced M.37 if we could have an open admission of failures in implementation, not intent. Instead, we held dearly to regulations that hurt some people. In the end, we voted to help the few who deserve it, and the many who exploited them for their own gains.

And likening the initiative process to the jury process is not a comparison I find all that valid. Indeed, the jury process, and true citizen involvement in government is an informative process. If you've ever sat on an advisory committee, attended public hearings or met with your elected official then you are indeed actively engaging in the process.

The initiative process is not informative. It brings legislative matters to folks who are more often than not ill-equipped to make such decisions. I think, sadly, we have put in place very few good initiatives, if any. Instead, our initiatives work against one another, negating the spirit of their intent, and slowly bankrupting our government and, perhaps, our economy.

The tax package defeated by voters, M.28, is a great example. Our legislature, bi-partisan as it is, was able to reach a compromise to keep this state fully funded. A compromise. A consensus. Yet, acting in our self-interested ways, were not interested. Yet, in our self-interested ways, we point to the government to rescue us from economic hard times, to reinvigorate the economy. Well, as they say on another continent, you can't have the cask full and the wife drunk.

A whim? Are you serious? Do you really have no idea how many Oregonians have lost the right to use their property because of elitist land use regulations that did everything but take away the title to their land? Oregonians have debated this issue twice now, and they have had plenty of time to reconsider their Measure 7 decision. And they voted again for Measure 37. Your despondency is really unnecessary, anyway. Measure 37 is a statute, fully changeable by the Legislature and fully capable of being emasculated. Additionally, all the local jurisdictions are busy erecting all the roadblocks possible for a person attempting to gain compensation. I think the reality is that all this measure will do is give regulators reason to pause before further imposing confiscatory land use regulations.

By the way, I'm one of those Oregonians whose property was "taken" by regulation. An environmental overlay in Portland barred any development or use (other than picnics) of my residentially zoned and developable land, costing my husband and me about $25,000 in property value - we were even able on that basis to get a drastic reduction in our property taxes. And don't be thinking that was any bargain, either. All it meant was we were paying property taxes and mortgage payments on land that was functioning as open space for the city of Portland. I don't have a problem with a city protecting sensitive areas if they want to do so - but they should buy the land, not take it through regulation.

I, too, take exception to Jeff's barely concealed assumption that the measure passed because the masses were too stupid or self-involved to understand what they were voting on.

Perhaps they were.

But I subscribe to the notion that people are entitled to the kind of government services they want, or don't want. In this age of me-ism the notion of a greater civic good seems like something I only read about in the history books.

If they want to gut land use or spend ever-dwindling tax dollars on lining Becky's or that old woman's pocket -- it is ultimately their choice. If the resulting catastrophes become unbearable for you, Jeff, you can simply move. And when Oregon has become the Missippii of the West, you won't have to endure it.

One interesting thing I do find about the measure is the apparent possibilities of folks who are forced to endure Becky's hog farm or whatever she wanted to put in there may be able to sue HER for the damages she caused to their property or life.

After paying lawyers and affected neighbors, I'll bet Becky would be wishing for the good ol' days.

How can you equate building houses on residentially zoned land in a neighborhood with pig farming? I doubt any of my neighbors would have sued me. And just because property values in the area increased and we made money, doesn't mean we didn't suffer a loss. We could have made far more had we been able to do with the property what we bought it for - build two more houses on it. It was a big hit to young newlyweds who had stretched ourselves to the limit to make our first investment and I personally find it amazing that people can't understand that. Besides, the same city government that took the use of my property proposed high density development on Alpenrose Dairy right next door to our property, and forced the creek-crossed residential area in which I was located to accept upzoning to add housing to the area in order to hold the UGB steady. How does it make sense to take away my land, particularly when all up and down the same creek were homes living in harmony with the ecosystem? OK, yes, we're getting off topic, but my point is there is usually much more to a story and a situation than is reported by the often lazy press.

You may not remember, but I was the one who went after US West for FIVE YEARS because the City of Portland would not require the company to comply with the same environmental rules it was imposing on little ol' me. US West tore up the woods and mucked up the stream because they hadn't gotten their act together to put their phone lines through where they were supposed to go. Only after a long fight were they required to fix the mess they made.

The initiative process could use some work, there's no doubt about it. The focus, however, should be on fixing the ballot title process so people get a better, fairer idea of what they're voting on, not making it harder to reach the ballot. Increasing the number of signatures required only ensures that special, moneyed interests will get measures on the ballot. And the reason no one has seen an initiative to fix the initiative process is because of the extreme level to which the Oregon Supreme Court has taken the single subject rule. You can't fix the tax system, the initiative process, or anything else in a meaningful way under their interpretation because you can't include any of the subtleties, exceptions or clarifications necessary to avoid potential problems. We're in a mess in this because ideologues on both sides will go to any length to get what they want and stop their opponents, regardless of what is destroyed in the process. That's how I see it, anyway.

The initiative process allows any well funded group (or individual) with an axe to grind to change state law to their advantage. With the passage of M37 we will now see forest/farm/ranch lands sprouting homes, roads and other infrastructure to support them. I suppose if this is what the voters wanted, than that's the way it is, but I suspect most voters did not consider what the true impacts would be.

The home ownership rate of 54% in Multnomah County is below the national rate of 66%. Maybe the voters were able to put one and one together and realize that the land use laws make owning a home in this county difficult at best. Democrats used to care about the idea of home ownership. I guess not any more.

Chuck says, "They are afraid to take bold steps out of fear that something will be referred or an initiative will easily get on the ballot"

Bold steps? Like huge tax increases without the worry of a measure 30 vote?

Chuck says, "At a minimum it ought to be a lot harder to start an initiative or refer a matter to the voters."

Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and company have been working to make it more difficult. Even changing the rules after petitions have been turned in.

The problem Chuck avoids is that the initiative process is sticking around and needs to look for a plan B. Plan A to raise taxes is not an option and will never keep pace with the demand for more.

If we continue to recycle the dialogue/campaigns of M28, M30, "Tax Reform" and other revenue pursuits we will get the same results.

In this regard I fail to see how having more democrats in Salem will be any different from the last session. After all the last session passed a huge tax increase just as democrats wanted and would or will do again.

Is it the view of Chuck and other progressives that somehow a stronger Democrat contingent in Salem will simply be more persuasive in preserving the tax increases they intend on passing?

Given the width and depth of the M28 and M30 campaigns to increase revenue what more could possibly be said?

Having attended one of the "tax reform" hearings I know that little ever changes in that camp. To sum it up, every program and agency is worthy of continuing and expanding. All of them need more revenue and more revenue will make all of them more effective. Leave all of our land use laws alone but pour more money into affordable housing. Change nothing at the Oregon Department of Education and State Board but spend another billion or so towards the Quality Education Model. Keep the Oregon Health Plan but pour much more into it every year. Same goes for OLCC, ODOT, Public Safety, our Universities, the environment, public employee retirement funds and health care coverage. OHSU, our Port, regional government and planning planning and more planning. All of them worthy and desperately competing for more revenue. Question: Where's plan B? There isn't enough money and all signs signal there will not be in the near or likely semi-distant future.

Becky's entry's rais an interesting question that is unanswered by the text of M.37. Does the measure mean that a person can file a claim when they have had their property value diminished in real dollar terms, or when they've lost the most lucrative possible use.

As One True pointed out Becky did make a profit but not as much of one as she would have liked. Do we have to compensate and waive for all possible profit making, even theoretical?

Suppose that the folks who want to build a west side freeway condemn land to build that new freeway. Do all the property owners have a claim because their land can't be used to build high rise buildings?

One real problem with the measure is how to evaluate actual land values against all possible values. I'd like Becky to refer to the lines in the measure that answer this question. Where is the text in M.37 that answers this?

Jeff,

Great comment. This is just the point I tried to make earlier.

i will say that there is nothing theoretically wrong with the initiative process. Having an alternative way of passing needed legislation when the legislature is too timid (or corrupt, as the legislature was as the turn of the 20th century when the I&R came about) allows the public to express its will. That being stated, there are several things wrong with the way Oregon's process works.

First, as several posters previously mentioned, legislation is opten complex and even the best legislation produces unintended consequences. I do not mean to state that only legislators are able to understand the complexities of legislation, but legislators hold hearings and develop "expertise" about certain issues that most members of the general public are unable to possess.

In addition, the way the public recieves its information (15 or 30) second soundbites, emotional appeals are likely to win the day (or just whichever side has the most money). Is this the way how important policy debates should be conducted?

While these two points address some shortfallings of legislation by initiative, there are certain ways to fix the process. A start would be to require that all legislation passed by the initiative go into effect on July 1, so the legislature can clean up problems with a particular initiative. In the case of M.37, the legislature could pass clarifying legislation to address several of the sections, including if a deposit is required for appeal.

A second problem with Oregon's initiative process is allowing amendments to the Constitution. Amedning Oregon's highest law should not be the same as ordinary legislation. In some elections, the Constitution has been amended with about a quarter of the vote of the entire population. While in this past election, over 70% of Oregonians voted, in some off-year and primary elections, this number sinks to barely 50%. If amendment to the Constitution through the initiative should be premitted at all, push the requirement for adoption to 60%. That way, Oregonians can be sure that constitutional change is supported by the vast population (and presumably in all parts of the state) rather than voters in select few counties.

As a 4th generation Oregonian temporarily living in Texas for work reasons I can tell you exactly how things will work under measure 37. Just go drive through suburban Houston or Dallas.

The Texas model of land-use planning works like this.

Developers carve out HUGE swaths of farmland or forestland into new upscale gated subdivisions that are found at the ends of long lanes. Within each gated subdivision the homeowners associations regulate every last detail of life to create some stepford-like version of perfection. The bylaws of my own homeowers assocation is 28 pages and regulates what sort of grass I can grow, how tall it can get, what sort of fence I can build, what sort of vehicles I can park in my drive (no campers or boats), what colors I can paint my house, where I must keep my garbage can, etc, etc. The homeowners assocation rules are 100-times more intrustive than typical Oregon zoning laws.

Then, after all the wealthy and upper-middle class have created their own little worlds behind their gates the rest of Texas is devoted to an unregulated free-fire zone for development of any kind. And it just leap-frogs outward and outward. The stripmalls of 15 years ago are just abandoned where they sit as new development further on the fringes sucks everything outward.

Now I doubt Oregon will ever be quite as extreme as Texas because land is far more scarce in Oregon. Most of Texas is just empty scrubland with little obvious aestetic so it's easy for people to use and waste.

In any event, my advice for reforming the initiative process is to require a super-majority, especially for constitutional amendments. If super-majorities are required for school funding, then they sure as hell should be required for massive sweeping changes to law. Super-majorities are in effect required for laws through the legislative process because they must pass so many levels of approval. Put a 60% super-majority requirement on all initiatives and only the truly consensus ones will make it through.

Excellent posts! Does anyone think the 05 legislature will have the will to bring some sanity to this M37 debacle?

Don't any of you think a Texan could or has come here and cringed at the ugly, Urban growth boundary created developments. You know. The ones with a sea of small lot units creating a sea of roof, concrete and asphalt? The worst things we've seen are a product of the central planning which ignores at detriments while dwelling on that evil sprawl. Take a trip to San Antonio and you'll find a far better functioning metropolitan area. Roughly the same size as the Portland region but much more affordable, a slick network of freeway loops and spokes with access roads on most of them for easy use of businesses, restaurants and shopping. What some of you find sickening in large lot single family homes others see as opportunities for families to flourish in family friendly environments. Measure 37 will hopefully be the beginning of a return to sanity and a reversal not of wise land use practices you imagine, but of common sense. While our well intended land use planning meant to promote "livability and healthy neighborhoods, it actually has been introducing so many new residential units and cars that the city becomes unlivable and unsafe for cars, pedestrians and bikes." Borrowed words from unknown source.

The end of Oregon as we know it. Hopefully so. Because the Oregon and planning YOU know has been bad for Oregon.

Even the simplest supposed benefit, "stopping sprawl" has resulted in a grotesque loss of urban green in most of our cities and suburbs. Progressives, seemingly unable to figure out what went wrong, have been scrambling to pile on more regulations restricting and prohibiting land uses of all types. Quite the mess we've created in Oregon. Despite the impression so many folks have.

I have a suggestion that would be a win-win for everyone.

Why don't you move to Texas Mr. Schopp?

I have a suggestion that would be a win-win for everyone.

Why don't you move to Texas Mr. Schopp?

Why is it that so many on the left are so very willing to defend the role of the common man in a citizen-involved government, except when it comes to the initiative/referendum process?

WOW! what a statement, So true. I bet Dorthy English has not been to Starbucks in years or ever, nor the farmer in K-falls, or the rancher in Bly.

You (no name calling, Jack) people forget there is really alive people outside of Vera's "Visons" and the land of "0Z" Multnomah county.

In response to Varner, I can now understand why you are so freaked out about Measure 37. You don't understand it. Rest assured there is no compensation for theoretical loss. The compensation required is only for actual, measurable loss - and determining the credibility and value of that loss will be done by certified, licensed appraisers.

To help you understand how the measure works, let's suppose that in 1965 you bought a new T-Bird for $8,000 (I have no idea what it actually cost, but am trying to create an example that you could follow). You drove it for years, but now it's really old and parked in your garage. You intend to fix it up someday and you think when you do it might be worth $50,000, but as it sits it's worth about $20,000 to a collector. One morning you wake up to find out that some thieves have stolen its wheels, seats, and some engine parts. Consequently, the car is now only worth $15,000. You are so disgusted you just sell the thing and move on. Sure, you made $6,000 on the car, but does that mean you don't have a claim against the thief who dropped its current value from $20,000 to $15,000? Not at all. If you were to catch the thief and recover compensation for what he stole from you, under a Measure 37 type of law you would be able to be compensated for $5,000, because that was the value of your loss. Sure, there was the theoretical loss of $35,000 that you could have made if you had been allowed to fix the car up, but you couldn't go after the thief for that, because that value did not exist at the time of the theft.

It was the same with my property. Yes, we made money on it because property values increased all over Portland over the eight years we owned it. We did not, however, make the money we could have made had we been allowed to develop the land as we intended when we decided to purchase the property. In fact, we bought the property specifically as an investment because we intended to build two more homes on it according to its zoning. Despite the potential profit we could have made on the property (easily as much as $200,000 more than we made on it), under Measure 37 we would only have been able to gain compensation for the actual drop in real market value of the land - $25,000 - something a certified real estate appraiser could reliably determine.

Property has value because of what you can do with it, and people buy property because they can make money with it. Whether you like that or not is immaterial - we are each free to choose a lifestyle we want in this country, and that includes being wealthy, and none of us has the right to help himself to other people's property. When a person invests in land that is valued at a particular level specifically because of its potential uses, and then those uses are regulated away, the property simply loses value in the marketplace because fewer people, if any, want to buy it. It's really that simple. Measure 37 is not the land use nightmare that the extremists are claiming, and believing it is no different than believing Rush Limbaugh when he says the public schools are teaching our kids to be socialists. Do you want to move forward in this country, or live in fear based on the rantings of radicals who can't understand another's position?

It seems entirely fair to me (and to the majority of Oregonians) that if the government chooses to protect an environmental resource, and in doing so the real market value of a piece of property is reduced, the property owner should be compensated by the government for that loss because his investment has been taken from him. It is not the same thing as mandating setbacks or sewer connections or compatible uses because those things do not harm property values. In my case, when Portland decided my property should become a virtual public park and it reniged on its commitment to allow the land to be developed (a commitment it made when it designated the land for future development), it had an obligation to buy my right to build on my property, not just take it away from me. I paid for a buildable lot. I would not have purchased the lot had it not been buildable. After I purchased it, the right to build was taken, and that right had a measurable value. I was basically forced to donate my land to the people of Portland. That's not right.

With every law comes abuses and unforseen problems, but keep in mind that Measure 37 is a statute, and all concerns related to its implementation can be addressed through furhter legislation.

Yeah, I know I'm doing another post in just a few minutes, but another example occurred to me and I thought it might help.

Imagine you're just an ordinary person, you work for a living and do OK, but you have to be careful. You're worried Social Security won't be there for you when you retire, so you decide do make an investment that you hope will grow for you through the years and help you in your retirement. A lot of people invest that way in property (that was our motivation), but assume you invested in the stock market.

Over time, your investment grew, and now it's worth three times your original investment. But Congress has decided that the war in Iraq is so important to national security that it decides every stockholder must contribute a third of their stocks to the war effort because this country needs to pull together and we all have to sacrifice for the common good. You still are money ahead on your investment, but it's not as much as you should have had. Should you be happy that you made some money? Was a wrong committed here? Was it the rich, or the everyday American who was hurt by this? Is this any different than taking the use of property "for the common good" and not paying compensation? The people who get hurt by property takings are everyday working Americans who are just trying to better their financial security. Yes, some people become rich on it, but a whole lot more people just work for security. It seems such a liberal cause to me that I'm really confounded that the left has not looked out for people better on this issue. One would even have to wonder whether the left opposes the right to own property at all, and believes rather that all should do their best and work their hardest and share everything they have with everyone else so we're all equal. Please don't tell me that Rush is right after all.

Please don't tell me that Rush is right after all.

Becky,They will never say that, but, that is what they think here in "la la"land.

Annoymous Tualatin Resident says, "I have a suggestion that would be a win-win for everyone. Why don't you move to Texas Mr. Schopp?"

I have a suggestion. Come out of your childish self and get over your hate and nonsense about me.

And who the heck do you think you are anyway?

I've lived in Oregon all of my 50 years. In Coos Bay, Eugene, Cottage Grove, Grants Pass, SE Portland in Eastmoreland, SW in Raliegh Hills, Clackamas County near Lake Grove and now Tualtin for 13 years. All of which were better off prior to the meddling you call central planning.

I think it it is you who needs to travel for a while. Try San Antonio Texas. it's the number vaction destination for Texans and for good reasons. There is much to do there. Or even Grand Rapids Michigan and the lakes around that region.

Telling me it would be a win win for me to move makes you sound like a childish fool. If you can't handle critisism or an exchange of ideas because of some absurd notion about me then shut up and ignore me.

Why is it that so many on the left are so very willing to defend the role of the common man in a citizen-involved government, except when it comes to the initiative/referendum process?

Dear Resident: You will love Texas, try Houston

The best way to take the initiative process back for the people is to limit contributions to intiative campaigns to $500. The signature drives that cause the most problems are the ones funded almost primarily by a single individual like Loren Parks used to to for Bill Sizemore or the ones where money is collected by a big PAC and then contributed in a lump sum to the petition. That hides the real contributors and most citizens will not be savvy enough to have multiple PACs. This will also force petition drives to be more grassroots oriented. Does anyone know if we legally limit contributions to signature drives without violating the First Amendment?

A ways up on this thread I asked why those on the left were so supportive of citizen-involved government when it comes to elections and juries but not for the initiative and referendum process.

Jeff Alworth responded by trying to distinguish between informed jurors and uninformed initiative voters, ignoring once again that those are the same voters he trusts to elect Presidents/Governors/Mayors/etc.

Maybe I'm the only person who finds it ironic that todays "progressives" get so fired up every four years to register any kid with a pulse, using guilt tactics to rally the uninformed to vote for your candidate ("don't be an apathetic loser") or fear to vote against the other side ("the draft is coming"). Afterward, you are shocked when many of these same people vote for measures with which you disagree.

Struck with cognitive dissonance, you latch upon the idea of ending the initiative because public policy arguments are much too complicated for the common people (forgetting that legislators used those same arguments against the real Progressives in Oregon just a century ago).

Of courses PanchoPdx is correct! The voters always know what's best. Let's just do away with the legislature and have the voters weigh in on every issue! While we're at it let's scrap the Constitution since the voters from time to time pass measures which are unconstitutional, but clearly the voters are always right! Power to the people!

Again, Pancho, I think there's a difference between voting for a candidate, serving on a jury and the initiative process.

As I said, serving on a jury is an informative process, one learns the intricacies and details of a case and is therefore able to make an informed decision. Of course you don't know all there is to know of law, but you have learned a great deal about a particular case.

Voting for a candidate is a bit more inline with voting for an intiative, but it's still different. You are electing someone to make informed decisions in accordance with your general political values. You, informed or not, place the responsibility of delving into topics, reaching consensus and working for the common good into a persons hands so that they may intimately work with the intricacies of law-making.

An initiative, crafted by either progressive or conservative lots, is a potential law with little forethought. There is no thoughtful consensus, discussion or rationale for many voters. It is a gut instinct, pretty on paper sort of decision and it depends on uninformed and misinformed voters to pass. This is not how permanent law should be made. This is a process that will, eventually, play itself out as a bad idea. I think our legislature and economy, limping in part because of so many bad measures, can attest to this--regardless of party affiliation.

And as far as registering voters, I think both sides have done their darndest to register the uninformed and informed alike, with or without pulses, with or without scare tactics.

This isn't about the will of the voters. The initiative process is about failed political leadership by both parties and failed civic participation by us all.

Engineer,

Trying to flex the right side of your brain by trying your hand at rhetoric?

Please.

I never suggested that we should have universal deomocracy for every public issue. This sort of hyperbole is of no use in this sort of forum.

If I played by your rules, I'd have to paint you as a authoritarian bent on empowering government to run every portion of our lives.

Jesse,

Just how you approve changes to the Oregon Constitution without having the uninformed public vote on it?

Would you want to follow the model in the US Constitution and require a supermajority of county governments to ratify constitutional amendments?

I'm curious. I always hear that the constitution is too important to have ordinary people voting to change it, but I never hear who should assume that responsibility in their stead.

I must say, it's highly gratifying to see a Progressive (Jesse) defending representative government against more direct forms of democracy.

However, I don't think Republicans deserve as much credit for their registration tacticts.

Also, initiatives most certainly are "about the will of the voters," for good or ill.

Regarding the derogatory comments above about Houston, Texas – a city that has developed entirely without government-controlled zoning or land use sector specification, in 2001, the Economist magazine (in an article entitled “The next global city? The blob that ate east Texas,” June 23, 2001, pg. 30) stated that not only is Houston’s unique lack of zoning an “advantage” in terms of giving birth to start-up businesses, creating jobs, and keeping land costs down, but also that it has resulted in a greater mix of uses and a higher level of racial integration, with a remarkable lack of racial tension. The reason for this is simple. Zoning and the administrative processes involved in zoning often allow for discrimination by those with power against unwanted individuals. Indianapolis is another clear example of how land use decisions have been used to keep minorities from gaining political power.

With regard to land use decisions that impact the rights of individual property owners, the courts have a relatively lax standard (known as Rational Basis Review) which land use regulations are required to meet when challenged: so long as the law is rationally related to its stated objectives, the courts will uphold the law; further, the burden of proof falls to the person challenging the law, and that burden is extremely heavy and prohibitively costly. A regulatory format that has as its only “check” the ability of the citizenry at large to “vote the rascals out” can run roughshod over the rights of individual citizens, who often lack the knowledge or financial capacity to challenge the regulatory body or alert their fellow citizens as to the problems being created by the elected officials. Without Oregon’s initiative process, the thousands of Oregonians who have been subjected to unjustifiable intrusions upon their property rights would not have had a forum in which to rally the public in response to the unfair regulatory treatment inflicted upon them. Now they have a fighting chance to protect their private property rights.

Becky:

"Now they have a fighting chance to protect their private property rights."

As we do if you decide to put in your hog farm next to my house. You want to talk about prohibitively expensive lawsuits?

Be careful what you wish for.

Randy,

Funny you should mention it, but I've been thinking about starting a hog farm in Portland for a while. What with the cheap land values, great access for my livestock trucks and the many feed shops on every corner, it's the perfect investment.

Can't decide between Pearl District, Overlook, Hillsdale.....

Maybe if I knew where you lived it would be easier.

On the subject of planning, can someone support the placement of a grouphome for 5, judged guilty but insane men with a violent crime history, next to a grade school? Love to hear the "spin" if you do.

Randy - That is a really incredibly stupid statement on your part, and I only hope you weren't serious. First, there is no way that any land within Portland that could possibly be used for pig farming (is there any such land?) would be more valuable as a pig farm than it would be under any other subsequent zoning restrictions that had been placed on the property since it was purchased, so there would be no "taking." Anyone who has ever purchased land would quickly realize that land that is parcelable and zoned for housing or any other use would be more valuable than land designated for farm use, particularly in a city with so little suitable farming infrastructure. Second, as I said before, building a house in an existing neighborhood is not even remotely comparable to building a pig farm next to a residence. And third, if for some reason someone did decide to file a Measure 37 claim because they weren't allowed to put in a pig farm next to your house, I'd be happy to see such a complete moron spend all that money on their own lawsuit seeking compensation, as well as on defending their idiocy against you, who, if possible, are somewhat less idiotic.

As much as I hate derogatory posts, I am afraid yours deserves this harsh response. It's pretty third grade.

[off-topic comment deleted.]

Pancho,

With 287 million or so people, I believe direct democracy would be a big mistake. Having folks involved is far different than everyone voting on every darn thing. Accountability from citizens and electeds figures in to this question of a broken intitiave process.

I'd go back to why the US constitution is so hard to change to find precedence for holding the same spirit of requirements for our state constitution. Because the founders believed that a tyranny of the majority could indeed exist, they saw it necessary to ensure that fundamental rights were safeguarded from the simple will of the majority. Looking at the rights that many minorities have fought for over the years, it's not too hard to see that our majority has still managed to keep quite a good reign on things it didn't quite like.

Our state constitution doesn't hold such rights in quite as high regard, but it does address inalienable rights and equal privileges. When these rights exist in the same document as motor home regulations, it certainly complicates things. However, a change to our constitution, I believe should require a bit more than the will of the voters. And, in our democratic republic, we satisfy that "bit more" with a less direct form of democracy. Often, we look to the courts. And we should.

If we are to change our state constitution, I think a supermajority of the legislature should be just fine. It's a far more difficult--and earned in my opinion--vote than a simple majority of people.

Now, reforming how we choose our elected officials is what all of this leads to, I think. That's a very big argument and the initiative process is perhaps a tiny band-aid for a much bigger problem in our democracy.

Since I have been asked not to post anymore, until another issue is solved.

May I propose something that says basically that when an initiative pass's say by, oh pick a number, 61 percent, you guys, and your elected, can't touch it, or amend it, PERIOD!

Posted by: JACK PEEK | December 8, 2004 09:58 PM