Overall it has been a pretty good session. I have a few disappointments. The first being healthcare not being really addressed by the legislature. There are many threads on that so I will save the discussion for there.

The second is HB 2363 - adoption tax credit. Full disclosure - I am a foster parent in the final stages of adopting a child in my care. So I would personally benefit from this credit. The truth is we are doing the adoption with or without it. For some people $1500 means they can move forward with adding a child to their family - it is the little nudge to make it possible.

We had the credit in Oregon but it expired. The feds had one that Clinton introduced, the R's would only make it temporary at the time. Of course it did not cost anything because of the foster care savings so Bush and the R's made it permanent and now claim that they really care about kids more than the D's.

We have had a decent amount of family friendly legislation. I don't understand why this one has been stuck in the House. I hear a vote is coming soon and hopefully the Senate will act on it even though it is late.

Sarah, with Healthy Kids referred and the Bates/Westlund reform plan passing, it's hard to argue this legislature didn't address health care. Those are pretty major reforms.

As for the paid family leave bill, I hope they did their legal homework when they decided not to call it a tax to avoid the supermajority rule. It seems that interpretation could be open to a legal challenge that would overturn it. And while I believe paid leave is a good thing, there are possible unintended consequences from this type of thing (e.g., employers reducing their sick leave benefit because the state has a program to help people). I hope they address those in the bill.

This session we saw insurance reform and there is a clear difference.

I really hope that Healthy Kids works out in the end. I am going to take a guess that Tobacco interests are loading their guns as we speak to take this on with dollars and legal teams.

I am excited however when ballot season comes around so I can do the work they didn't or couldn't do.

Miles:

I can't call Healthy Kids a victory. I am really torn - I don't think is has a proper place in the constitution. I want health care for all kids (all people for that matter). I would like to see it pass so that the R's can see that they are not truly representing the people on this one. I would call the situation a no win situation except for the fact that if kids get health care then that is a good thing. I know this is rambling but it reflects my personal conflict with this situation.

In the end we need more D's elected so we can pass this type of thing without a problem. That would be a real victory and something I am working for.

Sarah

I can't call Healthy Kids a victory. I am really torn - I don't think is has a proper place in the constitution.

My hunch is it needed to be a constitutional change to be guaranteed legal / survive court challenges. 'tis true, though. The Oregon constitution is an ugly beast. What would it take to call for a constitutional convention and strip it down to a basic bill of rights as opposed to a cacophonous collection obscure statutes?

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by Wayne Scott's move to kill the document recording fee bill. This was the centerpiece of the legislative agenda of the Oregon Housing Alliance, a broad-based coalition that includes cities, counties, housing authorities, the Oregon Food Bank, community action agencies, Ecumenical Ministries, and many others. Last year, the interim Revenue Committee held a series of hearings that highlighted the housing affordability crisis around the state.

Here in Lincoln County, where I serve as a commissioner, we have the highest rents of any rural market in the state. Between 80 and 90 percent of all new residential building permits are for absentee owners (vacation homes and rentals). Our average wages have grown, but lag behind the state average, and haven't kept up with the increase in home prices (25 percent last year, 15 percent this year). The result? Many businesses are having difficulty attracting and retaining employees, even in professional positions. The hospital in Lincoln City has nurses commuting from McMinville.

We in the Housing Alliance were hopeful when the state Realtors association endorsed the bill, which, by the way, was modeled on a similar law passed in Washington state a couple of years ago that has provided a much-needed revenue stream to address workforce housing, special needs housing, and homelessness. We thought the Republicans finally "got it." We were wrong.

Here's to 36 in 2009.

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote modifies Measure 37; clarifies private landowners rights to build homes; extends rights to surviving spouses; limits large developments; protects farmlands, forestlands, groundwater supplies. Don’t forget, it also means that the state wants to take away any right you have on your property. You only get to build 3 houses and that includes the one you have on the property…Voting yes will take away your property rights, don’t let government control you or your land or your family. RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote leaves Measure 37 unchanged; allows claims to develop large subdivisions, commercial, industrial projects on lands now reserved for residential, farm and forest uses. This gives property owners the right to do with there land as they wish, voting no creates jobs and money into the system. Yes means kids can grow up on small farms and have animals and grow gardens, yes means you can build a barn or have a horse. Yes means the American way and the American way is that people can live the way they want and not the way government wants them too.

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote modifies Measure 37; clarifies private landowners rights to build homes; extends rights to surviving spouses; limits large developments; protects farmlands, forestlands, groundwater supplies.

Don’t forget, it also means that the state wants to take away any right you have on your property. You only get to build 3 houses and that includes the one you have on the property…Voting yes will take away your property rights, don’t let government control you or your land or your family.

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote leaves Measure 37 unchanged; allows claims to develop large subdivisions, commercial, industrial projects on lands now reserved for residential, farm and forest uses.

This gives property owners the right to do with there land as they wish, voting no creates jobs and money into the system. Yes means kids can grow up on small farms and have animals and grow gardens, yes means you can build a barn or have a horse. Yes means the American way and the American way is that people can live the way they want and not the way government wants them too.

Bill Hall, Were all the county clerks on board with a bill to boost a document-recording fee by fifteen bucks? They would have the job of collecting the fee and facing the anger of "why are you charging me that?". Seems to me I heard our county clerk was not thrilled by that idea. How many documents might an ordinary person be filing which would be subject to the fee? Was this an example of "we have a great idea, therefore it will work if no one questions the details"?

LT,

The number of documents depends on the transaction. No, the clerks were not on board; they took the position that recording fees should only be used for purposes directly related to the cost of providing the service. The Association of Counties stayed neutral as a group, but several individual boards, including ours, Tillamook's, Mutnomah's and others endorsed it. As I said, it's working quite well in Washington.

A couple of other thoughts...

Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri and Ohio also use the document recording fee as a dedicated revenue source for affordable housing. Washington's fee, which has been in place since 1987, has generated $420 million, which has paid for 26,000 housing units and leveraged $1.6 billion in additional funding. Although House Republicans gave other reasons for scuttling the bill, the bottom line was they wanted to be able to go into next year's elections proudly claiming they refused to raise one fee or tax. A few more of their constituents might end up sleeping on the streets, but they held the line on taxes!

Very sad that the Gov submarined SB30b. Definitely a bill that needed to become law, and probably would have made it through if he wouldn't have come out against it. To assert that Jefferson County should be able to make land use decisions that could completely change the nature of one of Oregon's treasured landscapes is ludicrous. Should Klamath county get to zone in a ski area on the slopes of Mt. Mazama?

how can we possibly vote for a tax in the constitution? and a tax on a product we need to be eliminating?

Torrid Joe and I have been going back and forth on this on another thread -- mainly whether it's "fair" to tax nicotine addicts (on average lower-income and less-educated than the general public) to pay for health care for all kids. While I dislike it, I plan to vote for it given that the end goal of universal coverage for kids is more important than my philosophical dislike of the tax. I also dislike that it's a constitutional amendment.

When the Dems were debating what to do once it became clear they couldn't pass a statutory change, does anyone know if they considered just focusing their efforts on a statutory initiative? It's more work up front to gather the signatures, but given the subset of people who will vote against the measure because it's constitutional, it might have been worth the effort.