Why do people even read the Oregonian anymore? It's a pathetic paper.

Carla,

Yes, there are aquifers and wells that have seen decreased levels; there are also others that have seen no change, or an actual increase. Hydrologists have NO idea what's going on. The "we're running out of water" position is humerous to me given Oregon's water mitigation rules. For example, no more than 2,000 cfs of water can be pulled out of the Deschutes Basin; and in order to aquire water rights, one must either previously own them or purchase them from elsewhere. And if you buy water rights, that means you're only using an existing water right, not a new one. The point is this: There is no clear evidence that one or two destination resorts would deplete the headwaters of the metolius - it's all speculation at this point.

"It allows renegade County Commissions to make wild changes to zoning laws with absolutely no regard for impact on local residents, wildlife, water, etc."

Really? What's your source? Conjecture isn't good enough here, Carla. Maybe you should provide some solid evidence that proves commissioners were in it just for the tax revenue. Mike Ahern, a DEMOCRAT on the commission, has publically announced his disproval for how the Governor and LCDC is dealing with this issue. I know of many dems in Jefferson County who are furious with the state as well. The commissioners went about the process according to local and STATE laws. To suggest they were "renegade" about it is insidious at best.

"Good for Ted. He saw the error and decided to do the right thing. If he were running for Gov again, I'd send him a check for his campaign."

You mean like government running people's lives and taking LOCAL control away from LOCAL leadership? This is so political on many fronts that it's almost scary (I won't even get started on Senator Betsy Johnson's role in those whole mess).

As I've said before, I personally don't agree with a destination resort being built in the basin. But when I see state government and politicians taking away local control for personal and political reasons, I'm reminded how the power of personal gain trumps common sense and reality.

Honestly, Carla, I appreciate your determination to protect this area. I took my kids there geo-caching last summer, and there really is no place like it on earth. I don't want to see it negatively impacted either. I'm just not convinced how the state has gone about dealing with it is the best and most cooperative or effective option.

"Byzantine manner" in my dictionary means complex or intricate. In fact, what I see is the opposite. This is a simple exercise by the State of simple raw power.

At the exact same time that the Jefferson County Planning Commission was doing its legal job under Oregon's land use laws to consider if the Metolius area was appropriate for destination resorts, and they had a "proposal" on the table to have a 3 or 5 mile set back from the river, the LCDC was holding hearings. Mind you, not in coordination, but aside from or different from the hearings held by the Planning Commission.

The LCDC then has made a proposal, authorized by their legal standing, which has the effect if enacted to cut the Planning Commission off at the knees.

Carla, I am well aware that you are from "over here" on the east side. I do not understand your consistent "okayness" with local control being over-ruled by the more populated west side political machine. Never mind the content of this particular issue - the over-riding concern ought to be local control.

I am not in favor of destinations resorts in that area, although there are already rental lodgings there. In fact, the only reason we know anything about that river beyond that tiny little (State or Federal?) trail to the headwaters, is that Camp Sherman has been previously developed as a tourist destination. What the current issue is, is not whether or not this is a tourist destination (that was decided in the positive long ago) but whether exclusive gated communities should be able to tie up this area for the exclusive use of its owners. I stand against those gated destination resorts and all they represent, which I consider a blight on the landscape.

But my opinion is just mine. I have no standing in Jefferson County, as I live one County south. I would not welcome testimony from Jefferson County residents about the upper Crooked River, so I do not "cross the line" and go testify there (I am a former County Planning Commissioner).

What part of the State coming in and knocking down the authority of the local commission is okay? Do you pre-judge the incomplete process and just assume that the Jefferson County Commission will rule in favor of having these resorts? Do you have more knowledge than the local folks about the topography of the area? Do you have a better understanding than the local people of what the impact of a 3 or 5 mile set back would mean? Do you even know that the Three Rivers PUD is on the Metolius (as it has been for years), a solar/wind powered community, near the end of the Metolius at Lake Billy Chinook?

Sometimes I just have to wonder. Someone blasts the horn, and shouts, "Save the ---" Fill in the blank. Cougars, bears, old growth, and now the Metolius. No thinking then occurs as it has become a "progressive" touch stone.

Because of this "non-thinking" response, I have heard the strangest things over time:

I have heard progressives talk about cougars and bears like they were an endangered species, they are not.

I have heard progressives talk about old-growth forests in terms of their being a counter to global warming. There are lots of good reasons to save old growth forests, but that isn't one of them. (Old growth forests are about halfway to being "dead zones" in terms of what actually happens there in terms of a carbon cycle.)

I have heard progressives pine for the health of cougars and bears, going so far as to talk about cougars as a declining species based upon a study done with questionable methodology in a different State, when in fact all evidence is that they are now a problem due to over popuation.

And now, we act as if the Metolius is a pristine place where no human has ever set foot. The Camp Sherman part of the Metolius River system has several motel type lodgings, there are properties that are privately owned, water-front homes, and as noted there is the Three Rivers subdivision with over 300 full time residents.

So, I completely disagree with two processes at work. I disagree with the State jumping over the local folks when they had the alternative of allowing Jefferson County to do its work, testify in those hearings, appeal the results if the LCDC didn't like them, and ultimately overrule the results if they are not in keeping with Oregon's land use laws. The second process is the one here on Blue Oregon where people who don't know a pine from an aspen somehow think its okay to shove whatever down the throats of the rural people who live here - to the point of living in denial that people live here.

And after all that, I still disagree with destination resorts on the Metolius, and hope that the people of Jefferson County agree with me.

As someone with a family member who was formerly involved in city government, I have to agree with SCB.

This sounds like a casino debate awhile back. A friend of mine who has traveled throughout the state sounded out about a particular proposal. She'd gotten a mailing or an email of the "Save the..." variety. It made the place they were talking about sound like pristine, undeveloped wilderness. But between the railroad tracks and some buildings, she said it was anything but.

TJ, have you been to the area in question? Or are you saying that LCDC should always overrule county jurisdictions and never work with them cooperatively?

I am beginning to understand where Big Look's bias came from.

Where I live, parts of Salem are in Marion County and parts in Polk County. Marion-Polk counties cooperate on some things, but not on others.

My guess is that cooperative efforts (Rep. B. Jensen and J. Smith working this session on water issues, in previous sessions Sens. Gordly and Ferrioli visiting each other's districts and Sens. Brown and Ferrioli working on water navigability issues would be examples) are more effective in the long run than what sounds like "LCDC always knows better than Jefferson County".

Why not let Jefferson County come to a decision first and then appeal to LCDC if one side doesn't like the result?

Will LCDC taking over the process ensure there will be no gated communities?

Or is the point for those on the W. side of the Cascades to rule over the locals on the other side of the mountains?

Torridjoe -

Part of my point was that there are ways, and there are ways, to "overrule" a County.

One way is the raw use of power.

The other way is to go through a process, involving the people that the State has invested the power to (e.g. the local Planning Commission). The LCDC has a seat at the table when the Jefferson Co. Planning Commission meets. Anytime, they are always welcome. Representatives of the Governor's office, the LCDC, 1000 Friends, or anyone can testify at the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Once that Commission makes a decision, anyone who has standing having testified can make an appeal of a decision.

The State Land use system has Statewide planning goals. Included among them is Goal 5, the preservation of Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. Jefferson County's Planning Commission is tasked to meet the State goals, including Goal 5. If the LCDC disagree's with the County, they can send back the Counties periodic plan for improvement by the Commission, and ultimately like they have done with other Counties, they can overrule the local Commission if they are seen in failing to have an adequate plan to meet any goal.

There is then a PROCESS for dealing with issues such as whether the Metolius should be perserved that not only involves the local County, it requires their involvement.

What the LCDC has done is step outside of this process that involves the local community. The leadership of the LCDC makes a political decision here. Jefferson County is just too small and poor. Unlike Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington, Marion, etc. where there are large staff's and legal help available, Jefferson Co. can just be steam rolled.

Each time a small rural County is steam rolled, a price is paid. Urban progressives often laugh and say "so what!" These places are small, their votes don't amount to a hill of beans, it just doesn't matter. Yet, these same "progressives" during election cycles come back and point fingers at these same places that are voting in a conservative knee jerk reaction to the naked use of power to do things against the will of the local people. Ironically, the process of involving the local folks would very likely result in the same outcome (like this Metolius issue), but rather than be patient and take the time and effort needed to have people involved - the steam roller rolls on.

One of the key reasons that rural people are biased to vote conservative is the build up of issues like this. One hill of beans here, one there, and pretty soon you have a landscape that stinks of beans.

I didn't even address the water issue noted in an earlier post, because again this is an issue that might look like a hill of beans to someone with their perspective grounded in the Willamette Valley, but its a big thing here. The water issue has been solved for a long time, around 10 years now. If in the Deschutes basin you want to create a new water use, you have to buy an existing water right as Jason writes, but apparently Jason doesn't know that you have to buy 110% of what you need, putting 10% back into the river. So, if a destination resort needed 30 acre feet per year (an acre foot is about a third of a million gallons), that would mean that the river would get 3 acre feet it doesn't have now. If water were a concern, then resorts that would use a lot of water would actually be a "solution", only limiting future growth. To the point, this externally implemented decision about water did not arise locally, but was forced upon the Deschutes basin from the external source of the Water Resources Board. Other creative solutions were never sought or considered from the local Counties affected. No one came here and asked us how we might deal with a current and future water shortage. It was a done deal.

Year after year, you add this sort of stuff up, stuff that does not live in the memory of our urban progressive friends, but burns in the memory of those of us affected in rural Oregon, and after a few years, you've got a real resentment going.

And it just grows and grows. The Metolius issue then is another example of the heavy boot of the State more than it is about the destination resort issue. Salt in the open sore...

And Torridjoe, if you've been to the Metolius, in part you have made one of my points. It is already a tourist destination. Where did you stay? The campground at Indian Joe Creek outside of the area? Or did you stay in the Metolius basin? Did you flush a toilet while there? Breath the air? This place is already in use. The question isn't about keeping the place pristine, because it already isn't, but whether we should allow gated exclusive communities to exploit the area.

And that is truly a statewide issue, not one for just the Metolius "cause of the day".

SCB hit a home run again.

And one thing, Carla, that rankles with some of us the way "Democrat Party" does when a Republican says it.

It is about word use.

Anyone who has been on a ballot and won an election is an elected official. A group of them is called elected officials.

No one I know out of the sphere of political activists and staffers would demean them by calling them "the electeds". Makes it sound like staffers and others using that term want to make themselves look more powerful than mere "electeds".

I'm not a fan of most of our county comm., but that doesn't mean I call them "the electeds". They are elected officials, local officials, county comm. etc.

SCB's paragraph reminds me of a conversation years ago among a group of Dem. activists all in the same car to go to an event out in the country somewhere. Here is the paragraph:

"Each time a small rural County is steam rolled, a price is paid. Urban progressives often laugh and say "so what!" These places are small, their votes don't amount to a hill of beans, it just doesn't matter. Yet, these same "progressives" during election cycles come back and point fingers at these same places that are voting in a conservative knee jerk reaction to the naked use of power to do things against the will of the local people. "

There had been a big debate about legislators and others who insisted on running on issues important to the district rather than obeying the wording of the Democratic platform.

What is better, the debate went--total obedience and losing the election, or running on issues important to constitutents and winning?

Urban Progressives is a pretty good term for the folks in Mult. Co. and other areas who think they have the right to tell the rest of us what to think--as if their viewpoint is more important than ours.

It is like the state central comm. meeting years ago when a bunch of inland activists wanted all good Democrats to side with them over the concerns of coastal Democrats. The people who opposed that idea said, "You mean you don't want Democrats elected from the coast?".

And the whole Future Pac target vs. forgotten candidate mess is part of this disgust felt by some who live in partly or completely rural counties.

This may have started out being about the Metolius. But as some conversations do, this one has morphed.

I've never been to the Metolius, but I have been in rural communities where people were on both sides of a controversy. Very often there is more to the story than meets the eye, and sometimes several points of view, not just 2 competing sides.

And I'm old enough to remember when LCDC was founded. Back in the days when Tom McCall was in office (especially with his roots at the Ranch Under the Rimrock), I'm guessing a way might have been found to solve this without LCDC and the county being on 2 different tracks.

But that would involve interested parties talking face to face, using negotiating tactics, not just debating this issue on a blog.

Does anyone try to quantify quality of life, in all this? All around the world, locals are about ready to go mental on part-time resident, luxury property owners.

Yet another hilariously over-the-top dissertation in which any nonbeliever is assumed to be venal. I suspect Carla protesteth too much.

For the 1,293.456,344th time, why is it always "they dumb, we smart", when it's pretty clearly, "they crooks, you victim". Is it really impossible for Dems to consider that the forces arrayed against ANY progressive legislation aren't just stupid, and mistaken about their facts? That they are consciously dissembling, pasty faced, for consideration? That they say to themselves, 'Fuck the Metolius, that's money in the bag"? That they don't succeed far, far more often than you?

Which do you think motivates people more, "they're poor dumb bastards", or "they're out to get you"? That's why you catch it from progressives. By calling them stupid, you dilute the natural rage that one could leverage if it were generally known that these people are actively fighting against our values.

Posted by: WTF | Mar 30, 2009 11:52:57 PM

You're the fuck! You left the "B" off, "Wonder, The Fuckin' Blunder".

Thanks, billy

Carla: The flack is from people who articulate that there is some sort of west-side, out-of-region process that's an attempt to railroad the locals.

Kurt: Thank you Carla, that is EXACTLY the issue here. Central Planning Overloards comfortably living between Eugene and Portland really want to to tell the rest of the state what is best for them. Sorry, Tilt, Try Again.

The governor and central plannering advocates at the state level conducted a surgical pre-emptive strike against local planners and the local county process. Seems we only use the process herein Oregon when we are pretty sure that we will approve of the outcome. The proper way to weigh in on this subject is to WAIT for the local county to complete their work and recommendations. Then if they fail to arrive at the "correct" decision in the eyes of the all powerful elite living in the golden zone between Eugene and Portland, there is an appeal to LCDC. Of course I guess some animals really are more equal than others.

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 31, 2009 1:50:49 PM

Is it really impossible for Dems to consider that the forces arrayed against ANY progressive legislation aren't just stupid, and mistaken about their facts? That they are consciously dissembling, pasty faced, for consideration? That they say to themselves, 'Fuck the Metolius, that's money in the bag"? That they don't succeed far, far more often than you?

Cuz "they're evil and just want to hurt you" has been a successful strategy somewhere? Enlighten me.

<h2>I think the question is, "has it been tried"? Too direct?</h2>