I love how Duinn calls the Democrat's victory in adding 3 seats in the Oregon senate a "landslide" and an "overwhelming majority" but when Republicans add seats in the national Senate, House, and win the White House it "isn't a mandate."

Maybe the Oregon Senate Republicans should fillibuster SB1000. You know, to avoid "one-party rule" and to preserve "the rights of the minority."

Daniel's Political Musings

Okay, two things.

1: The OR Senate has no fillibuster and the R's do control the House. 2. The OR D's did not win a landslide but made solid gains and were oh so close to making the House ours (even in Minnis's district a switch of about 1,600 votes and she loses).

That being said, while I wish the Senate D's were sometimes more outspoken, they are trying to actually make deals with Karen Minnis is busy shoving through a bunch of extremist measures for pure political gain. The D's are also towing the line where it matters, schools, gay rights, and environmental policy (SB 555, M 37 legislation and the like).

Finally, Peter Courtney is not Karen Minnis, he is much more of a consensus builder and is frankly doing a pretty good job.

I agree that Peter Courtney is doing a good job with the hand he is dealt.

But just as it was nice to see AuCoin defeated (what a diverse coalition that was!) it would be nice to see someone discuss why budget negotiations go on in small groups rather than in public hearing.

I was glad to see SB 1000 because Measure 36 (no matter who tries to spin it) was not "Oregon hates gays and wants them to go away". It was a combination of telling Mult. County they went too far, those who believe marriage is a sacrament (fine, but what about those who were married by a judge--must an Oregon marriage between a man and a woman be performed by clergy to be a "real marriage" and why is that the government's business?), and a dandy Republican strategy to boost turnout.

Where are the new ideas? Where are those who talk specifically about what needs to be cut to sustain a no new taxes budget? Where are the opponents of reconnecting to federal tax breaks? Where are supporters of examining the tax expenditure report, doing something about the cigarette tax and the min. corporate tax?

In districts that went Democratic in 2004 after being Republican, were the voters not saying they wanted a new perspective on old debates?

Democrats are "towing the line" on Measure 37, huh? What does that mean, exactly? Charlie Ringo, the Democrats' agenda-setter for the Environment and Land Use Committee (and also a former Sierra Club commandant) may end up sending something to the floor of the Senate that has more R support than D. Go figure. That may be good for the 60-plus percent of Oregon voters who value fairness and constitutional restraints on government over unchecked soviet-style central planning, but the land-use nazis are going to regard it as an unmitigated disaster, I can assure you. If you don't believe me, drop ol' BS from 1000 Fiends a query, or go read their b.s. for yourselves to see what they think about Sen. Chuck's SB1037.

The Sierra Club has the rank commandant? Cool. Maybe I'll join after all.

Todd's conveniently ignoring the poll that showed that fewer than a third of Oregonians think that our land use laws are too strict.

Don't push your agenda by telling us what a million individual voters wanted. They want different things, and many weren't voting on land use issues -- as Measure 37 doesn't just touch land use.

I'm afraid Duin has much to complain about. Although D's in power are certainly preferable to R's, the Senate's behavior complies with historical trend: Democrats in power are timid and subservient to corporate interest. Ditto for the governor. This is sad.

For Tom, I was going to say the opposite, that R's in the majority is preferable to D's. But, the sad agreement is that both are "subservient to corporate interest". I would think that with a Democratic Governor who had a clear vision, things would happen. Although, I didn't agree with all Gov Kitzhaber put up, he sure had a vision and went after it.

K,

The difference is that R's are honest about being lapdogs, while D's are embarrassed by it.

I'm the one "ignoring the poll"? Just so we're on the same page, are we talking about the study sponsored by Portland State University and the Oregon Business Association that shows 67% of "Oregonians firmly believe protecting the rights of the property owner is very important," and that they value individual property rights protection in "clear preference...over a responsibility to the community"? Is that the poll you're talking about? If it is, then I can assure you I'm not ignoring it one bit, but y'all who voted NO on M37 would do well to. Because even though the study was bought and paid for by people who voted NO with a passion, it shows - to their eternal chagrin, I'm sure - that among other things in Oregon "private rights (56%) are more valued than the public good (38%)." Am I making that up? Go read it and find out.

It also shows that more Oregonians (32%) think land use laws "too strict" than "not strict enough (21%)". And then there's the tidbit that 35% believe landowners are treated unfairly by government, to 29% that believe otherwise and have probably never had a run-in with DLCD or LUBA.

Here's another neat result written up in the survey: "When given a choice, Oregonians are more likely to side with the right of a landowner to reasonably use their property (52%) rather than believing reasonable land use planning serves the public good (44%)." That alone ought to be enough to set off 1000 heart fibrillations.

Of course, the anti-property rights crowd in Oregon (the numbers of which are getting smaller, thankfully) has been ignoring political reality for 20 years as to majority public opinions about land use laws. I don't expect that to change now just because we've had two elections and a major poll that shows people are desperate to make the system more in keeping with something one might find in America, rather than, say, China or Cuba. But rational people, like Ringo perhaps, have gotten it figured out that if the state doesn't do something to show it respects the will of the voters, the next measure that comes along is likely to make the whole unwieldy and oppressive system go bye-bye.

Todd, the issue at hand in Ringo's bill is:

Should we weaken our land use laws?

In the poll, 32% felt our land use laws were too strict. The rest thought they were about right or should be more strict (don't forget about that middle group!)

So, 68% of people think land use laws are ok or should be stronger, and only 61% of folks supported Measure 37.

The problem with this whole thing is people are asked abstract questions. When asked to give an example of land use laws, people bring up the spotted owl. Or people say that Measure 37 will help a landowner when a Wal-mart is being built next door, that they'll be compensated.

When Oregonians are asked to vote, up or down, on our land use laws, they've voted to support them, again and again (1976, 1978, 1982). That's why the anti-land use people pitch it as paying people off, not weakening our laws.

When people are asked to have government pay people who are impacted by the laws, they say yes. When people are asked to have taxpayers pay people who are impacted by the laws, they say no.

So tell me BillO, what does this mean:

"When given a choice, Oregonians are more likely to side with the right of a landowner to reasonably use their property (52%) rather than believing reasonable land use planning serves the public good (44%)."

Or this one:

"private rights (56%) are more valued than the public good (38%)."

Again, those are abstract concepts -- what does "reasonably use" mean?

and are our land use laws about protecting private rights (they were created to do so, protecting folks from harm of pig farms, protecting private farmers from urban anti-pesticide folks, etc. in the neighborhood) or the public good? To assume they're only the latter is wrong.

Well, BillO, bottom line I guess is that until legislative developments or court decisions direct otherwise, Measure 37 - as written and as endorsed by the voters - is Law O' The Land in the Land O' Oregon.

You can toy around with your coffeehouse semantics all you want, and argue about which constitutional freedoms and principles are too "abstract" for your typical public high school graduate to comprehend, or which government seizures and forced negations of individual rights reasonable people ought to regard as "reasonable" - that is, which "takings" further the interest of promoting the "public good." PSU urban studies profs helped write the poll, don't forget, so if you have a complaint about the ambiguous or leading nature of the questions, take it up with them. Hell, I may even agree with you to some extent: I've always thought the notion of the "public good" was quasi-fascist/collectivist nonsense anyway, just an excuse for abusive majorities to tyrannize minorities and give some illusory sheen of legitimacy to their otherwise criminal (and at times even murderous) acts. Government officials engage in all kinds of suspect behavior that, were private citizens to give it a whirl on their own, they'd rightfully get tossed in prison or worse.

At any rate, word games and parlor chat won't change this reality: We had an election, the results are in, and they were decisive. The well-financed opponents of M37 (and their stale rhetoric) got rejected in stunningly resolute fashion.

That's that.

So either you learn to live with the Will of the People like we do in this here so-called democratic society of ours, or you lobby the Legislature or the electorate to change things back to the way they were before. (But don't get your hopes up too much in that regard, cause it ain't gonna happen any time soon.)

Or, hey, you might get Measure 37 tossed by the courts.

And I'm not denying the results of the election -- I'm just saying they don't mean that most Oregonians think our land use laws should be weakened.

I agree with BillO: there is little value in applying polling on abstract values to specific issues. Ask folks if they think their neighbor should have the right convert his garage into a topless bar and you will find that private property rights are not so sacrosanct as that poll suggests.

Tom,

<h2>Point taken. Probably best then to stick to black and white tangibles and respect actual election results. Voters endorsed specific language in Measure 37 and it shouldn't be changed or "adjusted" simply because a few whining land-use authoritarians can't abide (or even fathom) the breadth and scope of their defeat, and as a result want to deconstruct and undermine the democratic will of the people. Everybody ought to quit trying to monkey around with Measure 37 and let it stand as written and as passed. Fair enough?</h2>