Sorry, I was one of the ones who testified and I also listened carefully to each of the other "Fairness" hearings, either in person, in the overflow room on a large TV screen, or at home over the web.

First, the Democrats "suckered in" four Republicans to serve on the "Fairness Committe." Then they suckered in two of the four Republicans into joining a smaller "work group" which met in sessions closed to the public.

When those sessions deadlocked--and with mutual, symmetrical accusations of bad faith--the five Democrats on the larger committee totally blew off any and all contributions from the four Republicans for the entire rest of the process. The Republicans made their feelings about this abundantly clear during the sessions. (Just take the trouble to read the record, if you don't believe me).

The proposals which morphed finally into Measure 49 were never shown to the four Republicans during the entire process, start to finish--nor were they ever submitted for public comment at any time during this exclusively Democrat process. The Republicans were permitted to see everything in print at the same exact time as the general public.

All public comments submitted, like mine, were merely about Measure 37 issues, and about fairness in land use planning in general--nothing more specific. For example: the amazing proposal in Measure 49 that in the future, all losses in property value amounting to less than 25% of total property value, caused by future "downzoning" or by other new restictions, not yet dreamed up, would not merit any compensation by the State, PERIOD, was never discussed. Nor was the principle discussed that the damaged property owner, in the future, had the entire burden of proof, appraisals, fees, etc. and the entire responsibility for all legal fees in an argued "taking" case, rather than vice-versa (as it is clearly spelled out in Measure 37). These "minor details" NEVER CAME UP during the public "Fairness" hearings.

In the last open session, which I attended, Larry George hit the nail on the head by saying that the really sad thing about the whole process was the missed opportunity for a meaningful and lasting compromise. All the parties were there, much meeting time, a forest of trees made into paper, etc. was consumed--for NOTHING!

If Measure 49 passes, Oregonians can expect years of litigation, acrimony, and public bickering, practically ad infinitum. I don't see how any sensible onlooker could believe that this little election will be the end of it. Even Mrs. English (one of the little old ladies who supposedly deceived everyone) will fail to get what she was after under Measure 49: nothing but the three lot option will be open to her, contra the claims of Measure 49 proponents, because she is on "high value timber land," which is closed to anything but the three lot option. 700 yards from Portland's Urban Growth Boundary!! Is there anyone left in Oregon who truly thinks it is fair to downzone private property in a location like that, with no public compensation, to ONE lot on 23 acres? Or even three 8 acre lots on 23 acres?

Mrs. English wished to create 8 residential lots, for her children and for retirement income, of approximately two to three acres each. Is that too much to ask for a location 700 yards from the Urban Growth Boundary? After fifty or sixty years of ownership?

The Oregon Legislature, to my knowledge, has not put transcripts of their committee hearing on the web. But these hearings definitely were transcribed--I could see this taking place during the meetings.

I cannot imagine that it would not be possible for a citizen to go to the Statehouse, make the proper inquiries, and thus be able to view the relevant documents, one way or another.

But perhaps even more importantly, most of the Republicans involved in the hearings have made public statements complaining about unfairness of the process and describing it in the exactly the same terms as the ones I have used. ( Parenthetically, I have always considered myself a "Democrat" and have voted for all Democrats in the Presidential elections, starting with MCGovern. I certainly did not vote for either Bush, or for Gordon Smith) Many of these statements have been reported accurately in the press--even by the Oregonian, amazingly. To my knowledge no Democratic denials of these precise details of how Measure 49 was written, refined, passed and sent to the voters, have appeared. I would be grateful if you, Ms. Chisolm, could point me to any statement, by Rep. McPhearson or his bearded Senatorial colleague (Whose name escapes me), for example, denying that the Democrats ran the entire process, soup to nuts, exactly as I have stated. No Republican was involved in any part of the process, except through the foolish act of allowing themselves to be suckered in at the very beginning, thus possibly lending some false and misleading authority, unfortunately, to what turned out to be anything but a "Fairness" process, or a process which was bipartisan in any way.

Why should Republicans be involved? They're in the minority.

I was at one of those interminable hearings too, waiting hours to give my two minutes (even though I was among the first on the list) and staying to listen for long after. The hearings weren't about Measure 37 per se, since that was existing law, the point of the hearings was to understand the impacts and possible solutions for the problems of Measure 37. The whole point was about the future and what legislation/Measure to write.

The legislature gathered enormous input on the problems of Measure 37 and received an enormous number of recommendations for the future. The bipartisan group haggled a lot and talked over a lot of issues and presented a lot of positions and ideas. That figured into the resulting measure.

Complaining about compromise and fairness is just being a sore loser. If you are in the minority, you compromise or you get what the majority wants. Compromise is how you get anything. The majority had no reason to prevent participation and a great deal to gain from it.

But for some reason, the Republican leadership decided to make this a partisan issue and not compromise, although a great many Republican as well Democrats in their constituencies, in aggregate making up a substantial majority believed that Measure 37 need to be fixed or scraped. Polls have shown that fixing Measure 37 is non-partisan in the electorate; it is only partisan among the elected Republicans. The last poll I saw on it, only about 12% of Oregonians thought Measure 37 should stay as is. (So, unless the Republican Party is shrinking faster than I'd realized, this is a bipartisan position amongst the voters:-)

Geoff, you many not like the results. The elected Republicans may not like the results. But you know, in the end, the legislature didn't pass a law changing Measure 37 at all. As Brian Clem (D-Salem) said, "We've got the ultimate public hearing. 'It's called an election.'"

Clem's comment is much more insightful than Larry George's (R-Sherwood) disingenuous comment. George is a creator of and defender of and funder of and recipient of funds from Oregonians in Action who invented Measure 37. In fact, the Oregonians in Action PAC is a candidate controlled PAC, and Larry George is the candidate who controls it (as well as several other PACs and his campaign fund that slosh funds back and forth). He never had any interest in "compromise"; Measure 37 was his baby.

The voters will decide if they think what the legislature developed in Measure 49 is better than Measure 37 left as is.

(FYI, Geoff see Kari's photo, as Kari is too polite to say anything.)

Mr. Bray, I didn't say they "should" be involved. Some people, however, in fact many people, mistakenly believe that they WERE involved (in formulating M 49), and some of them even believe that the public was involved. Neither is true. The Dems did it all alone. And in private. Not in public. And that's all the "misleading" TV ad against 49 said.

We heard a No on 49 radio ad multiple times on KUGN driving down I-5 and back today. It asserts "7000 Oregonians will lose their property if this passes". Does anyone know what this could possibly reference? It doesn't say "will lose their property rights", it says "will lose their property".

Of course the public was involved. Measure 49 was crafted by our political representatives. We elect them to draft and pass laws. Rather than pass this law directly, they referred it to us. Where's the grief? If you don't like the proposed law, either vote against it, or vote against the legislators? Otherwise, shut up. As I said, you, and your Republican allies, are in the minority, and your voice simply isn't relevant, despite how loud you bray.

And not all Republicans oppose 49, esp. not the ones active in Farm Bureau. Don't forget, the Governor and St. Senator responsible for SB 100 and LCDC were Republicans.

Also, I got an email from a friend saying lots of the stuff blamed on the state, LCDC, SB 100 was actually done by counties.

The correlation between party affiliation and Measure 49 vote is almost certainly strong. You can get a sense for this by visiting measure37.com and noting the pejoratives used against Democrats ("Democrat party").

Is it, or is it not, true that the legislature did something to prevent the normal course of having the atty general write the ballot title and then have it subject to Oregon court review?

Is it, or is it not, true that M49 allows the taking of 95% of value before compensation is required?

Is it, or is it not, true that M49 forbids any challenges where the property is within an urban growth boundary.

Thanks JK

Mr. Bray, What about Mrs. English? Do all good Democrats believe that it is OK to downzone private property 700 yards from an Urban Growth Boundary so that only one residence can be built, without public compensation, by calling it "High Value Forest Land?" Should all those who think this is unfair "shut up" simply because they are in the minority? Are you running for office?

I believe that English has received more than enough personal attention from the legislature. The fact that she is still moaning bears evidence to her, or her benefactors, true motivations.

Is it, or is it not, true that the legislature did something to prevent the normal course of having the atty general write the ballot title and then have it subject to Oregon court review?

They are within their rights to do so. Or would you have preferred they pass the law themselves directly? I imagine you would complain about that too.

Is it, or is it not, true that M49 allows the taking of 95% of value before compensation is required?

No, it is not true. Stop parroting OIA talking points.

Geoff, have you actually read Measure 49? Sure doesn't sound like it. I couldn't find anything in the Measure (which is HB 3540) that speaks about a 25% reduction in value not being eligible for compensation or a waiver.

This was in earlier versions of HB 3540, but not the final version. I'm virtually certain. Just did a search of HB 354o for "25,", "twenty-five," and "reduction." Try it yourself: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov62007/military_vp/m49_text.pdf

Found a lot of references to how a claimed reduction of value is calculated (if a claimant wants 4-10 home sites), but nothing about what you said is in Measure 49.

So please, get your facts straight. You're just echoing the lying OIA No on 49 TV commercial. Think for yourself. Don't trust Oregonians in Action. Hunnicutt and company love to spread untruths, just like they love to spread asphalt over irreplaceable farmland.

Mr. Neuhauser, Thank you for your comments and your helpful correction of my unintended mistake re. Mr. Chisolm. (Sorry)

I have several comments on what you wrote. First, I agree that our political culture is degraded and I don't know what can be done about it.

Second, on your contention that the nine preliminary public hearings "figured into the resulting measure," I disagree. I heard all nine, and find the contents of Measure 49, by and large, were not discussed at all. I gave two concrete examples--the 25% rule and the reversal of the responsibility for costs and fees. I challenge you to find any mention of these issues in the transcripts of the public hearings.

Third, I am one of the alleged 88% who think Measure 37 needs some changes and refinement. For example, I think that the transferability issue should have been resolved in the legislature promptly and in isolation, rather than used as a perverse legalism to preserve the logjam. The public intent was clear. I'll bet that 88% of the people agree with me on this. Someone should take a poll that might actually be useful.

Fourth, I don't like how the Democrats proposed to change Measure 37. I think their proposed "fix" is devisive and unwise. It is sheer folly to have a land use program as ambitious as Oregon's without firmly putting in place a fair process for appeal and compensation. This failure belongs to the legislature circa 1973-4, up to the present, and not to property rights advocates, who are simply asking the legislature to do its job--a problem which has been festering for over three decades and which cannot be solved by amateurs. Measure 49 will put nothing to rest and will simply prolong the acrimony.

I disagree about the insightfulness of Clem's comment--to me this is purely naked power politics at is absolute worst. Presenting a "choice" between two evils is not statesmanship, and ultimately will not be good for Oregon, for it merely preserves the highly unsatisfactory status quo. I won't attempt to read George's mind, as you claim to be able to do, but I do not believe either he or OIA knew in advance all of the possible effects of Measure 37. Rather, having been delayed for four more agonizing years while their constituency continued to die off, their heirs effectively disinherited, they crafted a very simple measure, not perfect, but one which might break the logjam and survive even more reactionary legal challenges. Unfortunately, Measure 49 puts the logjam right back in place. From Democratic leaders, Oregonians deserve better than this. Democrats like myself seem to have no place to go.

" For example, I think that the transferability issue should have been resolved in the legislature promptly and in isolation, "

First of all, if OIA had wanted transferability in the language of Measure 37, why didn't OIA put transferability in the language of Measure 37? I am SO TIRED of measure authors complaining because their beloved measure language didn't end up to mean what they thought it meant. I say this as a supporter of a measure where the authors consulted every legal authority they could find, added parts to their measure which had been upheld by courts in other states. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the measure after a few years. I didn't regard that as any sort of plot, but as the Supreme Court doing what they thought was their job. (Although I wouldn't mind the current court which I think has several diff. members rehearing it, but that isn't likely.)

Please remember that the 2005 legislature struggled to handle issues like transferability. But by the time it had reached the ---D amendments, it was the end of the session, very few people understood what it said, and of the 2 old friends of mine in the capitol who did understand it, one thought it was great and the other thought the bill had changed so much he said "Sorry, I can't vote for the current version although I liked the original bill".

A bill which said nothing more than "transferability should be added to the Measure 37 language" (would that meet the standard of "the transferability issue should have been resolved in the legislature promptly and in isolation"? ) would have needed a sponsor, the legislative process all other bills go through (committee hearings, voted out with a due pass recommendation, 16 votes in the Senate, 31 votes in the House). If that support does not exist among current legislators, then the bill would not pass no matter who wants it--that's the way our system of government works!

Geoff, do you farm? Do you know any farm families? Or don't they matter because OIA rules Oregon and the legislature should just take orders from OIA?

And as for the crack about Rep. Clem---are you saying a duly elected St. Rep. has no right to make a comment you disagree with? Have you ever met Rep. Clem? Do you know his connection to farming? Do you even know his victory margin or his views on any other issues? Or is it that you believe legislators are supposed to take orders from you or OIA?

Peter Bray Is it, or is it not, true that the legislature did something to prevent the normal course of having the atty general write the ballot title and then have it subject to Oregon court review?

They are within their rights to do so. Or would you have preferred they pass the law themselves directly? I imagine you would complain about that too. JK: Thanks for verifying this OIA claim.

Peter Bray (quoting JK’s quesrion) Is it, or is it not, true that M49 allows the taking of 95% of value before compensation is required?

No, it is not true. JK: Thanks

Peter Bray Stop parroting OIA talking points. JK: Just looking for the truth. When both sides agree on a point, there is a fairly high probability that it is true.

Care to answer the last of those OIA taking points that I asked about: Is it, or is it not, true that M49 forbids any challenges where the property is within an urban growth boundary.

Thanks JK

I have 12 children and was intending to subdivide our 50 acre farm into 13 lots so our children could all live near us. If 49 passes can I sue the government alleging discrimination since they would only let us divide 10 ways?

Thanks for the clarification.

Yamhill County Resident

LT, F.Y.I. I made a rather lengthy response to your comments but the Blue Oregon censor deleted it.

<h2>Sounds to me like if the farmers can't get their way to use the property how they see fit they should all band together and raise the prices through the roof at Farmers' markets!</h2>