Money can't buy you love, but can it buy you building rights at the Metolius?
Carla Axtman
Since developers at Dutch Pacific Resources and Ponderosa Land & Cattle don't have rights under the law to build destination resorts at the Metolius, what's the reason for all the media interest in the last couple of weeks? One likely scenario is the fact that the Oregon Legislature could ban destination resort building in the region.
In 2007, Senate Bill 30 would have done just that. And it had a good slate of support. But at least one of the hearings for the bill was reported as heavily weighted to give testimony to those opposed to the bill, while supporters were stiffed. A heavily weakened and hardly recognizable version eventually died in a House committee. Sources have told me that the bill was allowed to languish and die at least in part due to fears that the lobbyists and media would beat down other legislators in the way that it was unjustly done to Senator Betsy Johnson.
In 2009, at least part of that pattern began anew with the Oregonian's late January (and early February) swipe at Governor Kulongoski, Senate Senator Ginny Burdick and Johnson.
The Bend Bulletin (subscription only) has consistently shilled for the developers and supporters of the resorts as well, virtually ignoring the uptick in support by locals for banning resorts at the Metolius. With the exception of a Nick Budnick piece this week on the Oregon Water Resources Department's second thoughts on giving water rights to the Ponderosa developers, the Bulletin appears to be the lapdog for those who flog these resorts. And from what I've seen, the PR departments of these interests have taken full advantage.
The Dutch Pacific and Ponderosa groups also appear to have a solid cache of financial resources and they're not afraid to go to the well. They've got at least 3 lobbyists between them, as I understand it. Hasina Squires lobbies for Dutch Pacific. Rick Allen appears to be the lead media spokesperson for the Ponderosa folks, and is lobbying for them. I'm told that Dave Barrows also lobbies for Ponderosa. Thomas Barrows is listed as a lobbyist for Ponderosa in the 2007 session but I haven't heard anything about his participation this time around.
James Kean is the Portland entrepreneur behind the Dutch Pacific proposal. He complained to the Oregonian that he's spent $3.8 million on his plan so far. Kean and business partner Shane Lundgren dropped $1.1 million to acquire their 627 acres of property around the Metolius. I have yet to determine the exact cost of maintaining the services for lobbyist Hasina Squires for two legislative sessions, but I'm told that fees for Oregon legislative lobbyists generally range from $5k to $40k per month. So averaging it out on the low end of $20K a month for the six months of the 07 session and the two months (so far) of 09, that's $160k for lobbyist fees.
That leads to a look at campaign contributions. Since the end of the 2007 session, Dutch Pacific has dropped about $20k in campaign donations to Oregon legislators and candidates. If you click on the link, you'll see that both Democratic and Republican campaigns/PACs were the benefactors of Dutch Pacific's largesse.
Ponderosa Land & Cattle is led by the Colson family. William Colson heaped a generous $15k to the campaign of State Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) in 2006. Ferrioli wasn't up for reelection until 2008, where he essentially ran unopposed. Color me cynical, but I'm going to guess that Ferrioli redistributed generous portions of that contribution among his GOP member candidates. There's no way to definitively track that money trail, but that's my educated guess.
Ponderosa Land & Cattle LLC has spread campaign cash around since the end of the 2007 session as well. They've dropped over $32k to legislative candidates and PACs, the majority of which went to Republican interests. Two of the benefactors, Ferrioli and Representative Gene Whisnant (R-Sunriver) have gone out of their way to shill for the development. There is some possible justification for Ferrioli's work on this, as the proposals are within his district. But Whisnant? This is outside his constituency. So the only explanation for his involvement are the cash contributions to his campaign. Unless he's ideologically predisposed to conferring building rights outside of the law, of course.
The 2009 Oregon Legislature will be taking up the matter of banning destination resorts at the Metolius. Governor Kulongoski's legislative effort is currently under heavy fire from Oregonians In Action and Republicans. OIA president Dave Hunnicutt is complaining that such legislation would take away the rights of these interests to build resorts on their land. Hunnicutt has yet to explain how rights that don't exist can be taken away, but I digress. Perhaps a future screed by Hunnicutt will enlighten. I'll keep an eye out for it.
As I understand it, the only item before the Oregon legislature having to do with Ponderosa Land and Cattle and Dutch Pacific Resources is the building of destination resorts at the Metolius.
Alternative legislation banning destination resorts at the Metolius is coming from State Representatives Ben Cannon (D-Portland) and Brian Clem (D-Salem), or so I hear. As that bill emerges and goes through the process, I'll report further.
 |
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
Feb 16, '09
First, I think it's important to note that lawmakers like Whisnant and Ferrioli have been long-supporters of destination resorts, even before any campaign contributions were handed out by the land owners. These two lawmakers would have supported the destination resorts either way.
Secondly, I find it appalling that lawmakers from the West side of the mountains continue to dictate what happens on the east side. This happens all the time. There's a reason Central Oregon feels like the red-headed step-child to Portland and the rest of the Willamette Valley.
Lastly, the rights that Hunnicutt is talking about are most likely related to the process of getting the rights able to develop on the land. Once environmentalists and others found out destinations resorts looked more likely in the Metolius, they've been pulling out all the stops to prevent it from happening.
As I said in another post, I personally don't really care for the idea of destination resorts around the Metolius - I think there are better places for them. What bothers me is the great lengths some environmental groups and lawmakers are willing to go to chastise the land owners, and change the rules mid-stream so the developments can't move forward.
10:23 a.m.
Feb 16, '09
Jason: So Ferrioli and Whisnant are doing this because they're interested in seeing destination resorts built at the Metolius..? Okay. But I don't see how Ferrioli could have been a "long-supporter" of Metolius resorts before campaign contributions filtered to him. The first of the land wasn't purchased until 2003 and the zoning map issue didn't come up until 2006. The first of Ferrioli's contributions from Colson (that I've found so far) showed up in a big chunk during 2006.
I don't find it appalling that lawmakers on the west side are talking about this. They certainly can't dictate (as seen in 2007). But the land in question is a treasure for all of Oregon, not just those who live within a 100 square mile radius of the land. And frankly, there's an outcry from many of the citizens who do, and they're virtually being ignored and shut out. As demonstrated by the committee process in 07, those who came across the Cascades from the region to support Senate Bill 30 were not allowed to give testimony for the most part.
As far as Hunnicutt is concerned, you may be right. But there is pretty clear evidence that at least part of the regular process to confer rights via the county to these developers wasn't followed (hence its tie-up in court). Further many of the citizens who live in the region who don't want these resorts have been shut out. Incidentally, those "environmental groups" that you're harping about include local citizens and native tribes who live there. And Whisnant? It's not his district..yet he's injected himself anyway. So if having outside the area influences bug you, aim some fire his way.
Feb 16, '09
Carla, If no rights exist why is a bill banning it needed?
My earlier contention stands. Today's Oregon eco-Democrats would be opposing Timberline Lodge if it were a proposal today. As they would also oppose Salishan, Black Butte, Sunriver etc. Just as they killed Pelican Butte, Smith Rock and obstruct others.
On the Metolius, the purpose for trying to use water as the basis for passage of the destination resort bills is to avoid the compensation requirements of M49. The argument will be that stopping destination resorts in the Metolius is a health and safety issue exempt from M49 coverage. Otherwise, the cost of paying compensation to the property owners under M49 is so high that the bills would die. Right now, the bills contain a provision prohibiting the property owner from making a claim under M49 (that is the story people should be talking about), but I suspect that the Democrats will remove that section, as it really looks bad for them.
But then M49 express claims aren't being approved either.
Carla, Perhaps you could generate a screed on the detriment of obstructing M49 claims that were promised express approval.
Surely you all of you M49 supporters would like to see the measures promises kept? There's some 8000 homes awaiting fast approval, construction, jobs and economic stimulus.
10:50 a.m.
Feb 16, '09
Richard:
As I've explained (see my previous post on this issue--the very first link in this post), the efforts to confer the rights by Jefferson County (via zoning map) are tied up in court. When the land was purchased by the developers, it was zoned only for timber harvest/management. The land was bought with the hope that the zoning would be changed. That's what land speculators do..they roll the dice.
Today's Oregon eco-Democrats would be opposing Timberline Lodge if it were a proposal today. As they would also oppose Salishan, Black Butte, Sunriver etc. Just as they killed Pelican Butte, Smith Rock and obstruct others.
Yes, and that was repeatedly demonstrated to be a silly argument without merit in the comment thread attached to the previous post.
On the Metolius, the purpose for trying to use water as the basis for passage of the destination resort bills is to avoid the compensation requirements of M49. The argument will be that stopping destination resorts in the Metolius is a health and safety issue exempt from M49 coverage. Otherwise, the cost of paying compensation to the property owners under M49 is so high that the bills would die. Right now, the bills contain a provision prohibiting the property owner from making a claim under M49 (that is the story people should be talking about), but I suspect that the Democrats will remove that section, as it really looks bad for them.
M49 has nothing to do with this until and unless the land is re-zoned to build the resorts. Period. The attempts to ban destination resorts by the legislature will not reduce the value of the land as it stands now.
The jobs argument involved in these projects is frankly, lame. There would be some short term construction, but it likely wouldn't kick in for awhile. The long term would be low-wage service sector jobs. All this in exchange for an irrevocable wrecking of one of Oregon's pristine areas.
Perhaps that's why you see so many local residents coming out against these resorts.
Feb 16, '09
Jason said:
"I find it appalling that lawmakers from the West side of the mountains continue to dictate what happens on the east side."
Perhaps it would help if you were reminded that the original SB 30 (the bill that started all this) was a bipartisan creation of then-Senator Ben Westlund (whose district abutted the Metolius) and then-Representative John Dallum (in whose district the Metolius Basin was in).
11:10 a.m.
Feb 16, '09
My earlier contention stands. Today's Oregon eco-Democrats would be opposing Timberline Lodge if it were a proposal today. As they would also oppose Salishan, Black Butte, Sunriver etc.
Likewise, today's Oregon Corporo-Republicans would be in favor of paving over Mt. Hood if it were a proposal today. As they would also favor paving over Salishan, Black Butte, Sunriver etc.
Oh, and the Moon is in fact made of green cheese and the world is in fact flat. Plug in any other wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth assertions that float yer boat.
At the end of the day we have several indisputable facts.
The Metolius properties in question were zoned for timber management/harvest when purchased and remain zoned thusly today.
James Kean, a resident of Portland (i.e., WEST of the Cascades) has spent $3.8 million to further his plan to get the zoning changed so he can build a huge resort there.
Local residents (i.e., EAST of the Cascades) are increasingly opposed to the proposed resorts being built in the Metolius.
Feb 16, '09
I have followed this issue since the 2007 session. I really appreciate your spotlighting this vital issue. Providing accurate information on the is a real service to all Oregonians.
I'm looking forward to see what Represenatives Clem and Cannon can come up with. Carla I hope you will continue your efforts on the Metolius/ development issue.
Feb 16, '09
"All this in exchange for an irrevocable wrecking of one of Oregon's pristine areas."
What a perfect fabrication. "irrevocable wrecking"?
That's exactly what you would call any proposal, including Timberline Lodge. It would be the "irrevocable wrecking Mt Hood".
As for the idea that this comparison "was repeatedly demonstrated to be a silly argument"?
Yeah right. The only thing demonstrated was the Blue ability to straw man. As was the case when I was criticized for not knowing the difference between a lodge and a resort. A comparison and point I never contended.
The point was that no matter the scale, the Metolius resorts or a Timberline lodge the opposition would be the same. And you know SunRiver would be opposed today by all of you for the identical reasons.
But instead of admitting the obstructionist agenda we get the pave over everything straw man fabrications.
"Corporo-Republicans would be in favor of paving over"?
Talk about silly. And completely contrived.
The jobs argument involved in these projects is frankly, the identical case made by government stimulus spending proponents for government projects.
If these resorts were a government effort your tune would no doubt switch 180.
There is a lot of pre construction work that pays very well including arch/engineering and at the various planning and permit agencies. That means revenue for Oregon.
Your bias and lack of familiarity with projects has you making unfounded and inaccurate presumptions.
And what exactly is wrong with short term construction? Every single construction project is short term.
As for the long term would be low-wage service sector jobs? I don't that same concern when our central planning regime fails to create anything but that?
Oh the hypocrisy.
And why no comment on the M49 express claims?
Not interested?
In reality the Metoliius resorts could be built while fully preserving the pristine Metolius just as was the Deschutes at Sunriver.
You could have an Democrat gathering there.
11:55 a.m.
Feb 16, '09
Carla, as usual you may be the only blogger consistently willing to do the spade work and research to dig out facts and information not already well-known and part of the general discussion of an issue. For that you deserve major kudos.
However, I also think you too often attribute nefarious motives to people who disagree with you. For example, you blithely accept the fact that people on the West side have an altruistic interest in preserving "a treasure for all of Oregon" but Gene Whisnant can't have a principled reason to support the development of anything outside the boundaries of his district so therefore "the only explanation for his involvement are the cash contributions to his campaign."
As pointed out above, this is nonsense. Carla, I honestly think if you matched your industriousness with a little perspective, you would be one of the best political bloggers around.
12:04 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
Jack--I'm connecting obvious dots. If you believe they're not justified, by all means, please elaborate further as to why. Given the increasing number of local residents who are coming out against these resorts, its difficult to understand what other reasons Whisnant (and Ferrioli too) have for their ardent support of them. To which "principled reasons" do you refer, exactly?
I appreciate your kind words on my efforts. But you do understand that I have a point of view, as do you. I come at this not just with a journalist's eye, but with a progressive one as well.
As for Richard, you've prompted me to define "irrevocable wrecking". I've already begun the information gathering process. While I doubt it will penetrate your own well-formed (if not well-INformed) opinion, it will certainly put more crucial information out there.
Feb 16, '09
Richard continues to belabor:
"As was the case when I was criticized for not knowing the difference between a lodge and a resort. A comparison and point I never contended."
Richard, you can't make a comparison, acknowledge the incomparability of the items compared, and then continue your ill-advised screed as if it's still relevant. It flies in the very face of logic -- IT'S VERY FACE! WHY DO YOU HATE LOGIC'S FACE SO MUCH? ARGH!
Richard: Why do you think a lodge on Mt. Hood is okay but a resort in the Metolius is not? Logic: Because a lodge is different. A lodge is thousands of times smaller and has a miniscule proportion of the impact that a resort would have. Richard: I don't contend that point. But answer my question! Logic: WTF?
12:24 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
"Corporo-Republicans would be in favor of paving over"?
Talk about silly. And completely contrived.
But the notions that the moon is made of green cheese and the world is flat apparently strike you as perfectly reasonable propositions...
Engaging you on this subject is self-evidently a waste of time.
12:39 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
"The jobs argument involved in these projects is frankly, the identical case made by government stimulus spending proponents for government projects. "
If it's not even zoned properly, the phrase "shovel-ready" seems hardly applicable--and thus, not identical.
Feb 16, '09
Carla, nice analysis.
Yes, there hasn't been a final approval of the Jefferson County rezoning, since the case is being heard by the Oregon Supreme Court. So there is good reason to argue that Measure 49 compensation for a loss in value due to a change in land use laws doesn't apply here, since the would-be developers aren't yet able to move ahead with the destination resorts.
Also, let's remember that they bought their property under zoning that didn't allow the resorts. By lobbying a couple of county commissioners, they were able to get Jefferson County to move ahead with the attempted rezoning, even though most local residents in the Camp Sherman area were (and are) opposed to the resorts.
So this isn't a case of a land owner being prevented from doing what he could do when he bought the property. The would-be developers weren't able to build a destination resort when they bought the land; they still don't have approval to do this; and efforts are underway to make sure they never will be able to harm the Metolius Basin.
There isn't any unfairness in all this. Just an attempt to protect an Oregon treasure.
Feb 16, '09
DSS
You just fabricated my side of the point.
I never asked, "Why do you think a lodge on Mt. Hood is okay but a resort in the Metolius is not?"
Perhpas you need to read slower.
"The point was that no matter the scale, the Metolius resorts or a Timberline lodge the opposition would be the same. And you know SunRiver would be opposed today by all of you for the identical reasons."
I obviously know a lodge is different than a large resort.
So try and grasp my point. Use Sunriver instead of Timberline.
Contrary to your characterizing Timberline as "miniscule" the oppostion to it today would cast it an anything but miniscule. My point again.
No the drum beat to protect an Oregon treasure would be loud and aggressive in opposing a Timberline or SunRiver.
We'd be having the identical debate.
I can't wait for Carla's defintion of "irrevocable wrecking".
On another point, the 1000s of residents that would ultimately be impacting the Metolius area would not come all at once. Any unforseen impacts would be indicated long before any "irrevocable wrecking.
Regarding the headwaters/groundwaters concern the region is a massive system with mutiple origins high in the Cascades. I don't but the convenient theory that these resorts have the ability to noticeably wreck the system.
But again that claim of wrecking comes with every oppostion to every recent and current proposal. That's the agenda. Stop everything.
Feb 16, '09
Looking for clarification on the Ponderosa project's location. Is that the one over the east ridge from the Met and is actually in the Deschutes watershed?
Also, anyone know who lobbies for Black Butte? I'm sure they're not pleased with the potential for competition.
Feb 16, '09
Jack Roberts: You know, if you were talking about legislators who'd recieved a bunch of little contributions you might have a really valid point. I have no disagreement with the idea that legislators can act from a standpoint of principles. I also don't have a lot of trouble seeing tens of thousands of dollars contributed by one interest with a specific interest in a specific issue as little more than an attempt at legalized bribery. You certainly are not blind to the fact that there is a differnce between those with something to gain or gained and those without either. You don't like the dots Carla connected? Maybe the solution was at those campaigns, because something that looks like a turd, and smells like a turd, probably doesn't belong on your shoe, so you keep your foot out of it. I've noticed your world seems to contain a lot of one way convenience...
You won't get a bit of arguement from me that one size fits all land use regulations are stupid and have bad consequences for those they're not designed around. I also live and work E of the Cascades and I do know something about water, short-term developement, and rotten service industry wages. I'm also real familiar with urbanites deciding what is in the interest of the rest of the state, regardless of consequences.
Maybe it's real naive of me to think that the purpose of government isn't to provide a platform for wealth to get what it wants in the face of the general interest, but then I'm not a Republican... You, on the other hand very definitely are.
2:07 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
JP: I don't have a map showing the exact location of the Ponderosa property other than the deed maps, which you can find at my previous post here.
I don't see a lobbyist specifically hired to lobby for Black Butte, at least not on the latest list. But it hasn't been updated for this session.
2:07 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
Carla and Chuck, it isn't like Gene Whisnant and Ted Ferioli are normally anti-business, anti-development zealots who suddenly, because of some campaign contributions, decided to support a law allowing specific development. These guys are voting in a way that is consistent with their ideology. People who agree with them--even people who will profit from the success of their ideology--support them with campaign contributions. Is that hard to understand?
It would be like accusing Diane Rosenbaum of supporting pro-labor contributions because of the campaign contributions she receives from labor unions. I happen to believe she gets those contributions because she already supports those positions, and so do the labor usions.
2:17 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
Jack: Not to pick nits, but they haven't actually voted yet on this issue. Senate Bill 30 wasn't voted on either.
This is about giving quotes to the media and shilling for the projects, at least to this point. And yes, it makes sense that people who agree with their ideology would give them money. But it's awfully convenient that some who give money stand to make a whole bunch more of it because of the cause they're pushing..against the wishes of what appears to be a growing number of constituents.
To take your Rosenbaum scenario the rest of the way, it would be like Rosenbaum supporting a pro-union bill that would yield a pile of cash (or an equivalency) for a union even against the wishes of her constituents. In addition, her constituents would be essentially blocked from being heard even as their opposition grew. I have a tough time believing that would get such a pass in the Oregon media as these resorts have.
Feb 16, '09
Richard:
"So try and grasp my point. Use Sunriver instead of Timberline."
Richard, I get what you're saying, but your assertions don't hold water with any example! Your Sunriver example was effectively dismantled in the previous post (here's a link) which explained why there's a practical difference between taking water from the middle of a river and taking water from the headwaters of a river.
If you refuse to acknowledge when your questions are being answered, then I really don't know how to converse with you.
Feb 16, '09
By the way...
"I don't buy the convenient theory that these resorts have the ability to noticeably wreck the system."
When someone presents evidence and testimony and documentation showing something, it's not really a persuasive point to say that you simply "don't buy" it.
4:22 p.m.
Feb 16, '09
To take your Rosenbaum scenario the rest of the way, it would be like Rosenbaum supporting a pro-union bill that would yield a pile of cash (or an equivalency) for a union even against the wishes of her constituents. In addition, her constituents would be essentially blocked from being heard even as their opposition grew.
Carla, you're taking some liberties here in deciding what a legislator's "constiuents" want. I'm sure Diane (and I don't know if it is fair to keep using her as the analogy here, although I started it) has and will vote against the wishes of her anti-union constituents. Although I think they are normally in the minority, even if they were in the majority on an issue--say, card check--I don't think she would change her personal views and in some cases she might engage in some pretty hard-ball tacitcs, not because she's been bought but because she is acting according to her principles.
Look, I understand this is an opinion blog. I don't mind you or anyone else saying, "I believe A and you believe B. This is why I'm right and you're wrong." I just don't think its particularly fair, appropriate or persuasive to say, "I believe A and you say you believe B. But you're a crook because you're taking money from people to believe B so I don't need to address the merits of this issue."
Incidentally, I don't have a strong personal opinion on this particular issue because, while I've never been to the Metolius, I have friends who say it really is "a treasure for all Oregon" and should be protected.
Feb 16, '09
That Metro Oregon treats the eastside as if it were a red-headed step-child is one of the earliest laments I can recall my grand-father... ahhhh... lamenting. Rarely, if ever, has Salem represented the interests of Central and Eastern Oregon, but things are getting better.
The flip 'o that, though:
Thank you again Carla,you are providing the most comprehensive reporting on the matter I've seen anywhere go date - westside, eastside, don't matter, nobody is looking into this at this depth. That you're doin' it from Metro... Thank you again and, as with the previous, I again take liberty to "Guest Post" this installment over at my place.
Richard - you don't know what you're talking about. STFU
Feb 16, '09
DSS,
Stop dancing. My point was not an attempt to draw exact comparisons,,obviously geeze. You haven't dismantled anything. This opposition and obstruction WOULD exist if Sunriver or any number of resorts or projects were proposed today. You seem to be trying to deny this reality by pointing out differences in the projects.
It doesn't matter. They would all be opposed today. A proposed road up the side of Mt Hood to a proposed Timberline Lodge and ski resort would be cast by folks like you as "paving over Mt. Hood. You would even decry the project as an irrevocable wrecking of the Bull Run water shed.
I don't know what you think you are accomplishing by diverting into the "difference between taking water from the middle of a river and taking water from the headwaters of a river"? If Sunriver were proposed today "taking water from the middle of the river" would be cast as an irrevocable wrecking of the Deschutes.
You are not conversing by ignoring my central point.
My other point was "I don't buy the convenient theory that these resorts have the ability to noticeably wreck the system."
I dispute the speculative and theoretical testimony and claims about the headwaters at risk.
Just because you are easily and willingly persuaded doesn't mean it's proof of anything.
The Metolius is a "treasure for all Oregon" and would be with the resorts just as the Deschutes is with Sunriver.
Here's a simple map showing both resorts. They are 2 and 4 miles away from the Metolius River.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/news_impact/2009/01/GS.11METO101.jpg
Ten Bears, Didn't your parents teach you that you don't get to shut people up?
Feb 16, '09
Richard:
"I dispute the speculative and theoretical testimony and claims about the headwaters at risk."
Umm... ok.
How, exactly, do you dispute it? Just by saying "I hereby dispute"? Calling something speculative doesn't make it so.
Your map is a good start at providing evidence, but the aquifer easily extends past both of those resorts (yes, it is very big). Do you refute the testimony of the Department of the Interior and Oregon Water Resources? If so, you should provide further evidence as to why.
Feb 16, '09
Fact Bot 4000,
You can't prove the resorts will damage the headwaters as claimed with testimony of the Department of the Interior and Oregon Water Resources. If so, you should provide further evidence to prove it.
Right now I see no more than a convenient and glorified, yet obvious, presumption that the development would divert and use SOME of the large regional system feeding the Metolius headwaters.
I've had some experience with Oregon Water Resources and they are a reasonable agency but their aquifir science is hardly specific or conclusive. Far from it. They do indeed speculate and quite often are unsure about how aquifirs are effected. Even with localized wells and much smaller aquifirs.
So their testimony should be taken in context of what their abilities are.
They don't, and you don't know as much about the aquifirs as you are relying upon.
"The Metolius has recharge areas far from the springs. The Metolius River, which is located at an elevation of 920 m, is recharged at a mean elevation of 2,200 m. The δ18O value of this spring suggests it is derived from recharge areas near the crest of the High Cascades, over 30 km from the spring. Lower Opal spring, which emerges at 520 m, also appears to have a component of recharge derived from the High Cascades (elevation approximately 2,500 m), which is over 50 km from the spring. For the latter two examples, the large elevation difference between the recharge area and the discharge point implies a deeper, more regional groundwater flow path. The regional nature of the system represents a great network feeding the Metolius headwaters."
And like I said earlier the two enitre resorts would not be coming on line all at once.
I've been to resorts all over Oregon and the west and love them. I see the Metolius resorts as fine additions to Oregon without the environmental wrecking of what I too see as pristine and worthy of protecting.
If the private landowners are ready to put millions of their own money into the development and preservation compliances then it should be approved to help our State.
8:31 a.m.
Feb 17, '09
You can't prove the resorts will damage the headwaters as claimed with testimony of the Department of the Interior and Oregon Water Resources.
Actually, I believe that can be done. Stay tuned.
Feb 17, '09
Dear Troll Richard, when I see a post by you, I've already heard your argument before and seen them debunked before, so I simply skip on by to the next one. You are wasting your time.
Feb 17, '09
Carla, I simply have two words...EAT SHIT!
8:49 a.m.
Feb 17, '09
Jack:
Carla, you're taking some liberties here in deciding what a legislator's "constiuents" want.
Am I? A meeting in Sisters last week on this issue drew between 250-400 local residents. The vast majority were strongly outspoken against these resorts, according to reports in the Bend Bulletin. In Crook County, a new destination resort was overwhelmingly rejected in November via initiative by the locals. The local tribes have consistently come out against this. The evidence is mounting.
I just don't think its particularly fair, appropriate or persuasive to say, "I believe A and you say you believe B. But you're a crook because you're taking money from people to believe B so I don't need to address the merits of this issue."
Had I not addressed the merits of this issue, that point might fly. But I've done so and will continue to do so. Frankly, taking money to shill on this issue is a much better proposition than doing it "on principle", in my view. As I attempted to make clear in the post, there are roughly three reasons for Whisnant/Ferrioli to support this:
A. The money B. Its what their constituents want C. They believe that its appropriate to confer building rights on entities that have helped subvert the regular local process, especially on environmental impacts and other quality of life impacts for local residents. Not to mention spoiling one of the state's great natural treasures.
Given that "B" is looking less and less likely all the time, that leaves the other two. If "C" is the "principle" that these guys are going with, then the GOP has truly turned itself into little more than corporate shills. I really want to believe that this is not the case.
8:51 a.m.
Feb 17, '09
Sierra....let's hire you to be the spokesperson for the destination resorts. Eloquence rulez!
Feb 17, '09
This and the beer tax issue show that the choice of Dem v Rep is about how you want to be screwed by corporate interests, not if you will be.
Feb 17, '09
Carla Axtman,
Can you define "local residents" in this discussion please?
I have friends and family in Coos Bay who attended a couple ofthe LNG meetings and they noticed what they described to me as "Retired East Coast transplants and Portland enviros wearing NO LNG t-shirts whom they have never seen and known prior to the issue."
Please clarify what a "local resident" is.
10:40 a.m.
Feb 17, '09
YOM:
A "local resident" is a person who lives and/or works in the area.
Feb 17, '09
Carla,
Thank you for the clarification :) I will stop posting now as all this science is going over my head and it is not an issue that piques my interest.
Keep up the good e-journalism.
Feb 17, '09
Unrepentant Liberal,
You're neglecting, ignoring, straw manning and diverting while pretending that's the same as debunking.
You are skipping the debunking part.
I notice no one really disputed the premise that most of you would oppose many of the projects on Oregon if they were proposed today. And no comments on the M49 claims many of you claimed would be given express approval?
There's 8000 dwellings your fellow Oregonaans would like to build with their M49 approval, on their own property, with their own money. Still that's not enough for you folks to chime in and help them get what was promised with M49 voter approval?
Why not?
12:56 p.m.
Feb 17, '09
I notice no one really disputed the premise that most of you would oppose many of the projects on Oregon if they were proposed today. And no comments on the M49 claims many of you claimed would be given express approval?
Richard..seriously man...what the hell are you talking about?
You've tacked up false premises one after the other..and you're noticing that nobody gives a crap about them? That's why you're not getting a response.
If you want to continue to look foolish with this stuff, it's your call. But you're not helping your cause.
If you've got something substantive to add to the Metolius discussion, that would be great. But so far, reading your comments here is mostly just a waste of time, unfortunately.
Feb 17, '09
Oh my goodness Richard...
The land has never been zoned for residential subdivision. What, exactly, would your Measure 49 claim be for?
Feb 17, '09
Jack, Unions was a bad choice, since their plug is a result of lots of small monies and there are other PACs out there that qualify as the same thing. This is one narrow interest on one narrow issue - give me a break with this principle is comparable stuff.
I don't back the contributions are evil crowd, I think the Constitutional issues will sink that anyhow and the real cure is with the voters. If they won't toss 'em for being bribed then you get what you deserve, and maybe a lesson - before the whole thing implodes. Your brand of obfuscation is directly counter to that process, which doesn't surprise me.
I don't support the legalized bribery whether it's a Democrat or Republican or... I don't like the old way of business and I don't like your concept that government is the tool of wealth.
6:42 a.m.
Feb 18, '09
As I attempted to make clear in the post, there are roughly three reasons for Whisnant/Ferrioli to support this:
A. The money B. Its what their constituents want C. They believe that its appropriate to confer building rights on entities that have helped subvert the regular local process, especially on environmental impacts and other quality of life impacts for local residents. Not to mention spoiling one of the state's great natural treasures.
Gosh, Carla, it's hard to argue with an objective statement of the facts like that. :-)
And if you really believe a turn out of 250 to 400 people, most of whom are against something, is representative of what constituents want then I think you need a reality check These meetings always attract more people who are mad about something or against something than people who have no objection or trust the system to work.
I'm sorry you've recently posted that you have no intentions of running or office. I think you could learn a lot about what constituents really think and how they express their views if you did.
8:23 a.m.
Feb 18, '09
And if you really believe a turn out of 250 to 400 people, most of whom are against something, is representative of what constituents want then I think you need a reality check These meetings always attract more people who are mad about something or against something than people who have no objection or trust the system to work.
Are you ignoring the other stuff on purpose, Jack? I've certainly cited more than just one meeting on the constituency issue, both from 2007 and currently.
I'm sorry you've recently posted that you have no intentions of running or office. I think you could learn a lot about what constituents really think and how they express their views if you did.
Perhaps I could. But I think that hundreds of people in a relatively sparsely populated area showing up to committee hearings, writing letters, making phone calls, attending public forums and doing grassroots work to pass local ballot initiatives seems like a reasonable set of indicators. But them I'm just a lowly blogger. What do I know?
Feb 18, '09
You little people are silly.
You don't need building rights on the Metolius if you have an inherited timber fortune, a nice twin engined airplane to fly the governor around and your own barb-wired in cabin there. Just ask my buddy Ginny.
Feb 18, '09
Methinks the comment above by B J is someone satirizing certain legislators.
10:14 a.m.
Feb 19, '09
Jack Roberts,
It might be useful to take an honest look at the geography here when discussing the 300 to 400 malcontents opposing this resort effort.
Jefferson County is run from the High Desert evirons of Madras, even though much of the county is comprised of the Jeffrson Wilderness Area and the Warm Springs reservation. These guys don't have much land that makes developers salivate except for the tiny area in the southeast corner of their county. The Metolius residents are disconnected culturally and geographically from the rest of the county, and when you get 300-400 people in the room opposing the very probable degradation of the aquifer with fertilizer, pesticides, treated sewerage, and overpumping, it's at least possible that they (the local residents) are trying to protect a beloved natural phenomenon which should, in my opinion, be on a par with Crater Lake in Oregon's scenic wonders.
Full disclosure: I lived on the Metolius for a summer, about a mile downstream from the headwaters, and was also an employee of Black Butte Ranch, back in The Day.