Three Steps Back to Sanity
Jeff Alworth
Elections do matter, don't they? If Democrats hadn't taken back the House, we wouldn't have seen the historic changes they managed to muscle along the way to becoming law. Instead, Republicans would have managed to block the three remarkable bills Dems passed in the House or Senate this week:
- HB 2007, which had already passed the House, was approved by the Senate; it gives rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples to gay and lesbian couples;
- HB 3540, which will refer Measure 37 fixes to a fall ballot;
- HB 2871, which will reduce the usurious practice of charging 528% annual interest on payday loans over 60 days to a more reasonable 36%.
These are three excellent examples of the kind of dangerously ideological laws we've been living under, thanks to a united Republican Party. They talked a populist game, but look more closely at who they were protecting and you see a list of rogues who in each case were taking rights away from or exploiting Oregonians.
Measure 37, which was sold as a "landowner rights" bill, didn't get much support from Republicans on that score. Democrats wanted to limit the scope so that individual owners could build on their own land (three homes easily, up to ten in some areas). It was more than a compromise--land use activists thought Dems were giving away far too much. But Republicans didn't accept the deal because it didn't protect their actual constituency, the real power behind the measure--large developers. So when it came time to hammer out a compromise, Republicans bailed on the deal, letting Dems send their version along.
Republicans wanted to block HB 2007 because the rights of some
citizens not to
have their religious beliefs offended were more important than the
rights of other Oregonians to, among other things, visit their partners
in the hospital and inherit their property. Explicitly, it gives the
same rights to gay couples that heterosexual couples already have.
And how about predatory lenders? These are the fine businesses that prey on the poorest Oregonians, charging hundreds of percent in annual interest to cash their paychecks. The more desperate the "client," the deeper these loathesome loan companies would gouge. This law finishes off work done last year by limiting rates on loans of longer than 60 days. Still, 21 House Republicans valued the rights of the predatory lenders to turn a quick buck over the rights of the poor to try to make ends meet.
Here's a telling fact: although Republicans did not support the
domestic partnership legislation that passed the Senate this week, only one member had the courage to actually speak out against it.
Or how about Dennis Richardson's argument for defending the payday
exploiters? He argued against reform on the imaginative grounds that it was hypocritical, since "we as a government take advantage of the poor and
needy by raising money through the lottery."
The Republicans held indefensible positions on these issues. They
wouldnt' defend them publically, but they still voted with the bigots,
the gougers, and the developers. And they certainly would have blocked
these reforms if they still controlled the House.
This was a good week. Thanks to last year's elections, Democrats were able to finally make changes that will profoundly affect many Oregonians.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 5, '07
Wow! Oregonians vote against Gay Marriage and not once but TWICE for Meas. 37, the Dems finally get Power and vote against their own people and you nut jobs think this is good?
Hope the dems enjoyed playing God, next year those "rights" will be gone too.
11:29 a.m.
May 5, '07
And another Republican weighs in anonymously--too embarrassed to sign his (her?) name to a comment. Such bravery!
11:43 a.m.
May 5, '07
"Hope the dems enjoyed playing God, next year those "rights" will be gone too."
In which country do you expect this fantasy of yours to unfold, exactly?
May 5, '07
Good job Jeff, just a couple weeks ago I got to defend the Dem Leg in front of Meredith Wood-Smith to a fellow Democrat disatisfied with the lack of progress. It sure is easy to stand at a complete distance from the process and carp.
1:29 p.m.
May 5, '07
some people are calling Merkely and others in the Leg cowardly for not shoving a "pure" Dem program down the throats of the losers of the last election. every legislative session has its disappointments; i'll be disappointed until state-sponsored marriage is replaced entirely with civil unions for all. too bad for me. it seems (from my distance here in Seattle) that the Dems are doing good work, the best they can. we'll be able to find all kinds of fault with the approaches taken in 2007, but sweet jesus, after the past 15 years, to see this kind of accomplishment is such a breath of fresh air. it bodes well for an even better session in 2009 -- following stronger Dem wins in 2008.
May 5, '07
How is a 36% interest rate reasonable? I understand that it compares favorably to 528%, but come on - it's not like 36% is anything but kicking people when they're down either. Why act so happy over such a minor victory?
...on the other hand, I'm happily impressed with the first two items on the list.
May 5, '07
These house bills were approved without the vote of the people, two of them were voted for and majority approved yet the Democratic legislature overturned the will of the voter. It must feel good to slap voters in the face, it must feel good to take away voters rights, be happy if you will but expect change to come in two years. What’s funny is that you couldn’t pass them with the vote of the people so you had to do and end around to get what you wanted. Lets see, house bill 2007, they spent two and a half months on it and it only affects, what 7% of the Oregon population. Then to take away peoples land rights, ya, that’s going to go over like a terd in a punch bowl. People have invested millions of dollars into there land and with the swipe of a pen they just lost all that money. It’s going to make a few people mad, and that includes democrats that have filed M37 claims. Money is going to pour into the M37 camp to again, tell the state and the legislature to leave property rights alone and let the people not the government do with there land as they wish. These actions that took place this week are going to come back to haunt the Democrats in two years, my parents die hard Dem’s, are very upset with what just took place this week. My dad who has always voted for Dem’s told me the other day that he was going to vote republican in the next election; I just about fainted when he said it. That’s how mad he was at this current legislature.
May 5, '07
Overstatement: "...it gives the same rights to gay couples that heterosexual couples already have."
More accurate: "...it gives SOME OF the same rights to gay couples that heterosexual couples already have."
3:58 p.m.
May 5, '07
What’s funny is that you couldn’t pass them with the vote of the people so you had to do and end around to get what you wanted.
How is actively lobbying the legislature in the full light of day "an end around"?
The Democratic caucus campaigned on the issues that are currently moving forward in the legislature. It would be dishonest in the extreme to have campaigned on these issues and then done nothing about them when given the opportunity.
As for the Measure 37 fix ... so far as I can tell, the legislators involved did their level best to correct some of the worst elements of Measure 37 -- things such as large rural subdivisions -- while preserving the rights of landowners to partition their property.
Now they are referring the issue to Oregon voters to let the People decide whether we want to preserve our thriving agricultural economy into the 21st century, or whether we want to pave over some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world to further enrich the wealthy few.
4:08 p.m.
May 5, '07
Careful when you're speaking for the voters, Mitch. Although voters approved M36, they also have told pollsters they approve of domestic partnership (or civil unions). Which is why you won't see anyone mount an effort to repeal HB 2007 via initiative. As for M37, those voters you say are so deeply offended, told pollsters they want the damn thing changed:
And in any case, the legislature didn't change the law, it referred it back to the people. Personally, I wish they had changed it. We shouldn't always submit to mob politics when we're dealing with nuanced, complex public policy. But at the very least, arguing that they somehow acted in bad faith isn't supportable by the facts.
5:37 p.m.
May 5, '07
I speak out on individual disappointments (like the M37 fix being shunted back to the people), but it's undeniable that this has been a very positive session for the state and Democrats. It's only been very rarely when all 31 Dems haven't been on the same page when it counted, and that has been valuable for change. So much of what has been done could not have been accomplished without a Democrat in the Speaker's chair, so the voters should get much of the credit--and that's why their will IS being done this session.
It's telling when the worst things about a session are what didn't get passed, rather than what nightmares DID. For that reason alone, progressives should celebrate!
8:41 p.m.
May 5, '07
I speak out on individual disappointments (like the M37 fix being shunted back to the people)
The legislature gave their best attempt at a fix for a bad ballot measure, but Oregon voters passed measure 37. Oregon voters should be the ones to decide whether or not it needs correcting.
10:38 p.m.
May 5, '07
The legislature passing legislation is now considered an "end around"? That's pretty funny.
May 6, '07
Dear Anon 10:38,
I wrote this just for you: link.
8:04 a.m.
May 6, '07
Funny. You'd think that Republicans would ber for a republican style of governance.........Or maybe some are unclear on the concept.
<hr/>May 6, '07
Let me ask you a couple of question; if I own a parcel of land is that not my land? In America people are fee and that means they are free to do with there land as they wish, except in this state. Tell me, why do you think government should have any say in someone’s land, and don’t you think that when government does have say to someone’s land and they zone it in a way that land owners can’t do anything with it that government should compensate that person for there loss? As far as polls go, I could do a poll and get the results that I want based on the question I ask so I don’t believe the poll, it was loaded and you know it and I know it. You say they wanted to give government more time to handle claims, I can understand that, that didn’t mean to take away M37 or gut M37. The legislature should have fixed M37 and not sent it back out to the voters, you are pitting many democrats that have filled M37 claims against there own. I know more Democrats that have filled M37 claims then republicans. How do you think it passed by 61% when it did, there are more registered Dems in this state then Rep. What the Dems referred back to the people is a gutted out M37 limiting property owners of there rights, that’s what’s going to go out to the voters, what the Dems are putting out is not fair, what do you tell all the people that have spent thousands of dollars on there current M37 claims, some people have spent there life savings based on this measure, what do you tell them, Oh by the way you can only create 3 lots on your property, ya right. Rome fell because of power abuse; I see the same thing happening here with this governor and this legislature. Your poll doesn’t show how many people are peeed off because of this, there is a lot of money that has been spent and if you think people aren’t going to protect that money and vote down this new legislative act you have got to be kidding yourself. What the legislature just did was walk between a mother and her cubs, not a good idea, when you mess with people’s money or land it doesn’t matter what party they belong to, it becomes and issue and they will protect it. The thing is Jeff, you and Sal don’t care about these people you only care about you and what makes you happy. You run with a click and they are in the majority right now and I’m loving it, too much power is not a good thing and the Dems are over using the power, trust me I see how mad my dad is and I hear about it when I go over to his house. What the legislature is putting out for vote is not fair to the people of Oregon and it’s definitely not fair to the people who have already spent thousands of dollars on there claims. They should have changed it at the legislative level, now this thing is going to become more of a mess and if the people vote this down there will be a lot of turn over in Salem in two years and if Sal try’s to run again he will not have a chance in this county.
11:45 p.m.
May 6, '07
Mitch, I'm touched by your concerns about how this will affect my electoral chances in Yamhill County. Thanks for that. But the position that I've taken here is the same case that I made in 2006, and it's unlikely to change in the near future.
I oppose rural subdivisions, especially large rural subdivisions, and I think it's eminently reasonable to curb some of its excesses of Measure 37.
Tell me, why do you think government should have any say in someone’s land
Would you be okay with a neighbor building a rendering plant next door to your house?
Should a chemical company be able to dump toxins on their land even if it seeps into a local water table that is used for drinking water?
Do I have an inviolable right to do something on my property -- burning tires, for example -- that lowers the value of your property or which diminishes your quiet enjoyment of your property?
If not, why not? It's my property.
May 8, '07
What are you talking about?
"can't do anything with it" is a bit extreme.
I am all for property rights, but I am also all for fairness and your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Just because you "own" something does not give you free rights to impact other people adversely.
You own your land - should you be allowed to grow or process illegal drugs on your land? You own it...
You own your land - should you be allowed to make a landfill? It is your land after all?
But here is the problems - what you do on your land doesn't always STAY ON YOUR LAND. Things adversely impact your neighbors, the community, and Oregon at large.
The government is trying to strike a BALANCE between what is FAIR to allow a land owner to do, and what is FAIR to require that all other people have to tolerate.
But it is not as simple as you would have people believe. First of all, you have to have owned your land BEFORE the law was enacted. And second you have to show that the law that was enacted adversely impacted your ability to use your land in the way that was intended for the land when it was purchased.
That means that some elements of M37 are good. Sure people should be able to carve off parts of their land to give to their family or to pay off debt, or what have you. But you should NOT be allowed to take farming or forest land and put 30 or 40 houses on it simply because you have owned it for a long time. That is not what the purpose for the land has EVER been.
Measure 37 was sold as a fairness issue - but it neglected to be fair to other property owners, public, private - neighbors or simply people who pay taxes. Fairness goes BOTH ways.
Suburbs are forever...
<hr/>