Kari:

Knowing how strongly you feel about this issue, I spoke with "Tim", our longtime SW homeless man that is frequently seen towing his bike trailer up and down SW Barbur Blvd (lot's of olive/khaki)

In all these years, he said nobody has ever offered to take him in, even during the worst snowstorms. He would very much appreciate even a few dry days of respite in relative luxury of your garage.

I told him I was sure you and the missus wouldn't put him in your garage. In fact, I told him the two of you would probably insist on putting him up in the Master Bedroom. I suggested he leave his bowie knife in the garage, just so as not to offend the lady of the house, and he agreed. He asked what sort of housewarming gift he could bring with him (not wanting to show up empty handed), and I suggested you might enjoy some popcorn (sans butter). He is on his way to buy some as we speak.

He's polite and friendly and he recently quit smoking. He has no PTSD (he dresses like a veteran, but he never served) and uses no drugs or alcohol. He keeps to himself, and said he hope you won't mind if he doesn't hang around during the day: he has a routine that he likes to keep up. He's quite well groomed (except for his teeth), and is looking forward to a hot shower every night (which he will gladly pay for). I told him that I was sure you wouldn't take his money, that you were motivated by altruism. I told him about how concerned you were for the living conditions at the Saxton Farm, and how you wrote the above story to express your shock and dismay that people are living like Tim in the richest country on God's green Earth. He said that he would love a place to stay until New Years, but he's going down to Santa Barbara for a few months (assuming you won't be offended if he leaves).

What time can he come over? Does he need a bike lock (his was stolen recently)?

I suppose this first post was supposed to say that it's okay for Saxton to provide housing to workers that is not the best because those who would criticize such housing are willing to take in homeless people. I don't know...

At any rate, this is a legitimate issue.

It reminds me of the criticism Gore received because he had a tenant back on the farm in TN. The tenants and neighbors stated that he refused to fix their toilet because he wanted them to move out. Remember?

However, the Saxton issue is not that certain and needs more work because all I have seen thus far is this...

1. Saxton MAY have had illegal aliens working on his farm (although I am not sure he is even responsible for hiring the workers).

2. People that have worked on his farm MAY have lived in houseing that APPEARS (better pictures are needed) to have been substandard.

However, if you are implying that there is some media cover-up I think you are mistaken.

I wonder how Ron is going to manage to avoid talking about this? He doesn't like to talk about most issues so I'm sure that he will do his very best to avoid saying how this isn't an issue that relates to his campaign for govorner.

"Substandard" compared to what? To nothing? What is so bad about a corrugated metal sided barracks?

Would it have been better had Saxton Farms not offered housing at all?

I just love you liberals, sitting in your office chairs all workaday, no idea at all how products get to market, turning your nose up at the messiness of agriculture and manufacturing.

All too happy to consume what they produce, however, apparently in excess.

As this farm is not far from me, I have spoken with several of the neighbors. The two who have a clear view of the housing confirmed its use. They said that when the farm was a commercial cherry orchard that was the building used for migrant housing. They bring in day laborers for the vineyard. The neighbors also said it became a vineyard very soon after the 1984 purchase.

According to Saxton he was a "commercial cherry farmer." On Lars he mentioned using migrant housing. Those familiar with migrant housing would also recognize this building for what it is. There is no other real farm purpose for a long building with eight small doors and windows.

Was this building this appalling when workers used it, back in the 80s? We don't know. Neighbors compared it unfavorably to other migrant housing in the area.

What's sad is that lots of migrant housing used in the valley is nearly this bad. That's the reality of how farm laborers are often treated. Groups that work to improve conditions for farmworkers have in the past taken people to see these sorts of conditions and visit with workers. One operating migrant camp that I visited looked a lot like this and housed 5-10 workers per section. It was truly appalling.

The way I see it there are a few questions here. 1. If Saxton and friends purchased this property with the intention of planting a vineyard, and quickly did so, why does Saxton go on about his cherry farmer experience and never mention the vineyard? Why hide a vineyard? 2. Whether Saxton was an absentee owner only involved in paperwork, as he's told some media outlets, or a weekend farmer, as he's told others, he still has to answer the questions about both his hiring and housing practices. He was the owner, the buck stops with him. 3. Also, many farms that house workers charge them for it, sometimes amounts that are completely absurd. Migrant workers without transportation often have little choice in the matter. Did Saxton charge them for this lovely lodging? If so, how much?

The man wants to run the state. I think we're entitled to know the details of how he's run his businesses be they cherry farms, vineyards or law firms.

Sasha let me explain to you why it is wrong to have migrants live in "substandard" conditions. BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THAT. My parents taught me you don't treat other human beings that have less than you as anything but an equal. Yes I am a consumer and as that I make responsible decisions about what companies I purchase things from. You bet us "progressives" care about those things. This is America and we don't do that. Now I'm sure you're going to complain about me not knowing where everything I consume comes from and that I support exactly what I am arguing against by being a consumer and I don't even know it. I do work to know those things. That's the big difference between progressives and someone like you. We may support these types of operations by being consumers but we try to change them once we know about them. We try to find the problems and fix them. You just sit around on your lazy butt and say that there is nothing you can do about it and you're not even going to try because you just don't care. As I'm sitting in my office chair tomorrow I will be sure to think about you sitting in the suburbs on your couch made in China by workers paid 7 cents an hour and drinking your sparkling wine from Ron Saxton's vineyard. When I get home I'll call my parents and grandma who live on the family farm and have been successful enough never using illegal workers and never having a need for it because they thought all employees deserved a fair wage and a decent place to stay when they worked on their farm. They also took the time to verify whether or not their workers were here legally.

why does Saxton go on about his cherry farmer experience and never mention the vineyard? Why hide a vineyard?

Ronnie likes to characterize himself as owning a "cherry farm" because that's all down-homey sounding and has echoes of George Washington. Whereas, owning a vineyard is all hoity-toity sounding and doesn't appeal to the common man.

Saxton is apparently ashamed of his elitist character, and he believes lying about it will help him get elected.

In short, he is a Republican.

Garrett:

Kari never responded to my request. But since you seem to feel very strongly about people living in sub-standard housing, would you be willing to give Tim a place to stay between now and the end of December?

He doesn't have any housing, and I'm sure you won't let this injustice stand. Cause your a progressive, and you care about the issue a lot more than the rest of us. Because when you see a problem you try and fix it. Right?

Modest Invitation,

Send Tim my way.

I've got a big yard for him to work in. I'll pay him a family wage of $4.50 an hour for the work, and only charge him approximately $2.75 an hour for every hour worked for his housing. I've converted an old dog kennel into a really comfortable space that I am sure Tim will find suitable. Tim will also need to buy gloves from me at a 15% markup. I will also require Tim to rent tools from me so that he can complete the job. At the end of the week Tim may have enough money to feed himself, and perhaps pay for his pack of gum since he no longer smokes.

Sasha,

You can come to. We will need a Field Boss. We won't even require you to perform the typical Republican brush clearing photo op. You can sit in your lawn chair all day and just tell Tim what he is doing wrong.

No need to thank me. That is just the type of Republican Ron,....Ooops, I am.

Couple of things:

(1) Can some posters quit intentionally confusing the idea of charity with the idea of wages? Offering the unfortunate homeless fellow a place to stay would be an act of charity. Offering the farmworker a tin-roofed shed as part of his "compensation package" is another matter entirely.

(2) It never hurts to treat people with compassion, homeless vet or not, farmworker or not.

You are simply exploiting "substandard housing" to score cheap political points.

You don't give a shit about illegal immigrants or the homeless. If you did, you wouldn't try to exploit the hardships they face for partisan gain.

I don't use my name because I do business with some of your largest contributors, and I enjoy my meager access to their daddy's trust fund as much as you do. They're limousine liberals, and they believe in freedom of speech for anybody who agrees with them. But if you're a Republican in Multnomah County, you have to burn a flag every so often (or drive a Volvo with a faded Gore sticker) if you want to blend with that crowd. I blend.

Garrett, one of the worlds leading architects, Frank Gehry, lives in a corrugated metal clad house in LA that looks like a series of convoluted sheds. A few recent design award residences in the northwest have corrugated metal siding. Do you have knowledge of the inside conditions of the housing units from the photo above? I personally have lived in housing from outside appearances that looked worse than the photo; and I have a good life now, and then.

There is more to life than one's house, if that is your criteria.

This substandard housing is typical of the Hood River Valley orchards. Not only are these dwellings often over crowded and unsanitary, but they are often in close proximity to the orchards where a multitude of pesticides are sprayed. This leads to high exposure levels to the young and the elderly, the most susceptible to toxin overloads. I'm not giving Saxton a break here, but he is not the only farmer that provides substandard housing for free or a minimal fee.

I agree with Kari and Rights. Whether Saxton hired illegals is a legitimate issue because he himself has (1) made an issue out of immigration and (2) promised to "solve" the issue by getting tough with workers while letting those who exploit them.

I'd like to know who lived in that building, regardless of their legal status. Frankly, the American citizens who work in canneries in Alaska live in far worse, sometimes even in the open.

But migrants often travel with their families: Was Saxton housing children in his barn? Look for the answers in The Oregonian...apparently on November 8.

It would be interesting to see similar numbers on Teddy. I'm guessing he is working just as hard for the OEA, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, and the building trades. I don't imagine he's accepted any donations from illegal immigrants: nah gunnah doit. Wooden be prudent.

The point of my above post is not that Kari is a bigot or a wealthy do nothing (though he may be, I have no reason to believe he is). My point is that some housing (even substandard housing) is better than no housing, as Tim the Homeless Man will gladly attest. It's very easy to criticize a farmer or other business owner for not providing more generous wages and benefit, but what makes you believe it is the employer's responsibility to provide housing in the first place. It's another matter entirely to take responsibility for employing, housing, and feeding your employees or the indigent. Blogging about it ain't going to get you into the Mother Theresa Club.

Unless you've seen their pay stubs, you have no basis to assert their wages were below minimum, or that they had to pay "company store" prices for their rent, heating, or gloves.

The photographs look like much better accomodations than Mutt's self-described "dog kennel".

Nevertheless, if I was sleeping outdoors in the rain, I'm guessing your dog kennel would be a big step up.

Modest, Comparing the inherent social responsibilities we all have to the less fortunate with the legal responsibilities of an employer to an employee explicitly recruited to perform work for the employer's benefit is too much of a stretch.

As The Oregonian noted in their luke-warm endorsement of him, Saxton doesn't have much of a public record. Let him show us what he's made of! If you support the guy, don't be an apologist for him--tell him to clear up the issue by disclosing who he had living in his barn and under what conditions.

Or do you assume he has something to hide--like a couple dozen of the illegal aliens whose backs he's trying to ride to victory? If they had only known he was going to exploit them twice!

It's sad really to see a man's promise fall so short so soon.

No employer has a legal obligation to provide housing, with the possible exception of ship owners and those who have resident employees stationed at remote locations (offshore oil rigs, armed forces, factory fish processing ships).

It's very MNL (mind numbingly liberal) and PC to talk about the inherent social responsibilities we all have to the less fortunate...{Am I the only one that think it sounds condescending?}

It is very different beast altogether to actually do something about it. Mailing your $2.40 check to the Union Gospel Mission might make YOU feel better about feeding the homeless on Thanksgiving, but it's only going to provide one meal to a hungry person.

Whatever jobs/housing/benefits that were provided by Saxton to his employees was (ostensibly) better than a welfare check. Because they could have signed up to become recipients of the PWS (Progressive Welfare State), BUT THEY CHOSE TO WORK INSTEAD.

They shouldn't be punished for their ambition (whether they were here legally or illegaly) any more than Saxton should be for hiring them. The fact that both sides are politicizing the issue of people who simply trying to survive is shameless. And the Democratic posturing is no less demagogic than the Republican posturing.

We can't afford to make every farmworker a PERS recipient: they system would collapse under it's own weight.

Modest,

Saxton was under no obligation to provide housing. On that point you are correct. But if he DID provide housing, then it is appropriate to examine it to see if it is substandard, particularly for one who chooses to run for public office.

Modest, no I can't have a homeless man staying at my house. I'm sure he is a decent individual and I would love to help him out. Unfortunately I am a 27 year old that really doesn't make much on my own and has to live with roomates to make ends meet. I'd love to buy Tim some food and bring him some decent clothing. Please give me an address where I can find him.

Iw are you that naive to think that corrugated structure has a lovely interior designed by Martha Stewart? It's probably a step below a dump. I've lived in dumps before and yeah it stinks. However as I stated I am rather young and don't have a large trust fund like most of Ron Saxton's campaign donors. When you're young and out of college a dump isn't so bad when you don't make much. The problem is that it doesn't make Ron Saxton anything more than a slumlord. Sure there is a "chance" it looks nicer on the inside but in reality its probably made with plywood floors and infested with mice. I wonder why you would defend someone that is ok with this?

I think the overwhelming issue of this whole thing is who is Ron Saxton? Personally I think he's just a jerk. I've met him once and he oozes sleaze. He's greasy and he's kind of a jerk. I'm sure he has no idea what conditions his migrant (illegal or not) workers lived under. He probably doesn't care. That is the crux of the dilemma. He just doesn't care all that much. I met Kevin Mannix once as well. Same thing. He was real smooth delivering his speech at my college and real quick in deflecting once a tough question was directed at him by a college student. Saxton and Mannix are alike in the fact that neither of them wants to answer tough questions. You shouldn't defend them for it.

"Because they could have signed up to become recipients of the PWS (Progressive Welfare State), BUT THEY CHOSE TO WORK INSTEAD."

What part of the alleged "PWS" can illegals sign up for? Especially instead of working? Is this what all the driver's license hysteria is about?

WIC, Oregon Health Plan (and/or walk into any emergency room without money, ignore the bill), Section 8 housing, etc.

None of which are inherently bad, but they don't offer the same sense of personal empowerment that most people get from earning a paycheck, and the follow on self-esteem (rather than dependency on government largesse).

Some shelter is better than no shelter. Which is not to say that we shouldn't enforce building/occupancy codes. But then nobody ever complained about the alleged Saxton "migrant labor camp" failing to comply with the law.

It's the ultimate liberal paradox: they would rather see a migrant family tossed out to live on the streets rather than accept "sub-standard" housing provided by the employer.

Again, there is rich irony in the Kari/Garretts of the world slinging mud at Saxton (for providing housing) when neither of them have ever provided housing to anybody.

This is pure politics: Kari is trying to manufacture an October Surprise, but the hatchet job qualities of his criticism are completely transparent.

And the Democratic posturing is no less demagogic than the Republican posturing.

Ron Saxton is running a heavy commercial rotation that is intended to exploit fear and division about illegal immigration while he is simultaneously profiting from cheap immigrant labor. He has never denied hiring undocumented workers. All he has done is disavow any personal responsibility for the hiring practises of his farming operations the precise nature of which, cherries versus a vineyard, he has repeatedly lied about.

The buck stops with, ummm, the company he hired to shield himself from liability on this issue.

As to the rest ... The fact that you believe that human compassion == condescenscion is not an indictment of compassion.

It's a sign that your moral compass is horribly broken.

It's true that Ron Saxton doesn't have to give a rip about the living conditions of the migrant laborers who work for him.

But if he doesn't, it's a sign that his moral compass is horribly broken.

It may be naive on my part, but I expect more than that from a Gubernatorial candidate. I suspect that most Oregonians feel the same way.

Rod:

Would you prefer that Saxton provided those workers with no housing? It seems that is the only sure way to avoid the eventual sleaze attack that accompanies each good deed made by an aspiring politician.

Y'all have about 10% of the information needed to make an informed declaration, and even those facts remain in dispute.

Things you don't know include:

Did Saxton, or his partner, hire illegals?

Did they pay them a legal wage, including SSI withholding?

Did they provide housing? Was it free of charge?

Was the housing provided the same as that contained in the photograph?

Did that housing complex meet legal standards in place at that time?

Were heat, water, toilets available in that complex?

Were those occupants of that complex better off than their peers?

Would those specific occupants have found better living conditions on their own (at more/less expense)?

Do liberals ACTUALLY care about immigrant's rights? I know what the answer is from the Pinnacles of Organized Labor...

Does Kari actually care about those downtrodden farm workers that surely suffered from the Republican neglect and law breaking? Or his he just trying to stir up the pot in a close election?

Finally, I think it's time we asked the Governor if he has ever employed any illegal immigrants, whether or not he paid the required SSI taxes, minimum wages, and provided any housing to them.

Hey "a modest invitation" -

What happened in your upbringing that you became one of those people who derives your sense of self from the lesser circumstances of others? And why does it so obviously outrage you so that others who may have come up through the same, or even lesser, circumstances as you are willing to stand up for core American values of human rights, social justice, and economic opportunity against exploitation?

And just to be clear: You've made sweeping accusations here about It's the ultimate liberal paradox: so this has nothing to do with the specifics of Saxton.

I'll answer you specifically what true liberals, rather than the evil in the dark corners of your damaged soul that you have been told to label "liberal" because you long ago failed to learn how to think on your own and instead been taken in by the propaganda that fearful people like you are so easily swayed by, have done:

In our lives we have worked, and more than once sacrificed personal gain, to support the kind of government policies, including social services which realize core American values of human rights, social justice, and economic opportunity, and for progressive taxation and economic development polices. We have been willing to pay our fair share and participate fairly in the business community. And we support laws commensurate with those values so that pitiful rationalizations like But then nobody ever complained about the alleged Saxton "migrant labor camp" failing to comply with the law, are seen as the attacks on core American values, not to mention simple decency, that they really are.

So please tell us just what happened in your lives that make people like you so angry at those who actually works towards a better America and defend the best values of our society?

Would you prefer that Saxton provided those workers with no housing?

If Saxton didn't provide some housing, even the corrugated tin shack we can all see in Kari's photo, he wouldn't get crews to come pick his grapes. It's not altruism that motivates him. If it were, he'd spring for decent hosuing. It's just a business sense. Provide housing but don't spend too much on it -- that might cut in to the bottom line.

By the way, there is nothing sleazy about pointing out that a man who is demagoguing on this issue to attain public office is knowingly profiting on it in his private life.

Saxton opened that door when he started running his ads.

I'm amazed to see all of the Liberal hyper-blustering.

Wasn't it just a month ago that Blue Oregon was showing the commanding lead the Gov. held in the polls? (YES).

Didn't we conservatives receive a tongue lashing that this is a BLUE state and the Gov. is always a Dem? (YES).

And let's face it, considering the Dem lead in voter registration, and Kari's involvement in the Govs. website and other marketing, how could a Repub. ever win?

Relax Dems, your coasting to victory. Remember, there is a big anti-bush, anti-republican wave sweeping this country.

One word of caution. By working so hard to dig up a dubious claim against Saxton, you may have fired up enough dormant republicans to dig out the dirt on Ted that would have quietly slept under the rug.

He has some. Everyone does.

It's very MNL (mind numbingly liberal) and PC to talk about the inherent social responsibilities we all have to the less fortunate...{Am I the only one that think it sounds condescending?}

That sounds like something Christ would have said.

Oh wait, he did say that. (I'm paraphrasing)

I do have to part with my fellow conservatives on this one.

...And the pen name is "righty" not "rights", but if it were to be the latter I would also include "duty" because the recognition of duty is what often separates me from those on the left.

It is an issue if Saxton broke the law or treated people inhumanely. The piture doesn't show it and the more I get to know the facts that less punch this story has.

Mitigating facts...

1. Saxton sold the farm in 1999
2. Saxton was one of five owners and his share of the labor was primarily the legal side of things
3. We still only have one single picture that was taken over twenty years since the building was occupied by workers
4. Apparently Saxton and the other four owners did take steps to ensure that the workers were legal
5. Saxton was never involved in the hiring of the workers

Food for thought...

Now, back to some discussion of policy issues

<h2>They already did a couple of your stories for you---give them a break, they're transcribing as fast as they can. But, to your question: Why don't they write about it this wrinkle? Well, maybe because that last story you guys fed them was an uproariously lame one. Maybe they don't write about "Saxtonville" because he doesn't have part ownership anymore? Just a wild guess.</h2>