Crunch time: The Metolius situation heats up
Carla Axtman
Behind the annoying, assinine firewall at today's Bend Bulletin website is a story highlighting a new development in the Metolius fracas:
Backup resort ban put forward in SalemBy Nick Budnick / The Bulletin
Published: April 19. 2009 4:00AM PSTSALEM — Backers of the proposed Metolius River Basin destination resort ban are finding it may be more difficult to pass than they once thought.
The heightened concern stems from a two-pronged lobbying effort by Jefferson County officials and the developers of the Metolian project, both of whom have become increasingly aggressive in recent weeks.
Even as concern about the resort ban’s chances in the state House has increased, legislation that amounts to a backup plan has been scheduled for a hearing in the Senate. At the same time, the Metolian developers have stepped up their push to kill the ban while abruptly pulling out of negotiations that some lawmakers had hoped would make the necessity of a tough decision go away.
“There is concern because the Metolian developers are working hard to kill this thing,” said Eric Stachon, spokesman for the conservation group 1000 Friends of Oregon. “They seem to have a presence inside the (Capitol) building that is disproportionate to what we think the level of public support is for protecting the Metolius.”
This absolutely squares with all of my sourcing on the situation. Essentially, the lobbyist and developers for the Metolian resort, the Jefferson County Commission and the Mayor of Madras are sucking up a lot of air--while the hundreds of citizens from the region who've come to Salem to push back against the resorts are underpowered in this battle.
Negotiations between lawmakers and the developers had been moving along in recent weeks. But at the end of this week appear to have fallen apart. More from the BB:
In December, Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked the state Land Conservation and Development Commission to craft a ban on destination resorts in the basin, designating the Metolius an Area of Critical State Concern.Last month, LCDC did so, issuing a recommendation to the Legislature that capped months of closed-door negotiations and public hearings.
While blocking two landowners’ plans to build resorts comprising 3,100 units, the plan allowed them to proceed with limited development. Essentially, the Metolian could build 35 dwellings and the Ponderosa Land and Cattle Co. could build 120.
But if another site elsewhere in the state is found for the Metolian, that project’s landowners will only have rights to build two houses in the basin, according to the plan.
That provision alarmed the Metolian group, which wants to make a profit off its Metolius investment before starting any new projects.
Since early April, the legislation carrying the plan, House Bill 3100, has been sitting in the House Land Use Committee, pending what environmentalists and lawmakers say have been negotiations with the Metolian developers.
The negotiations have revolved around legislation under which the Metolian developers could build their “eco-resort” in a forested location outside the Metolius basin by transferring development rights from one part of the forest to the other, and preserving the rest.
In the last week, Jefferson County officials have become more aggressive in lobbying the Legislature, saying that if the Metolian is allowed into the basin, they will drop a legal action filed in the Oregon Court of Appeals to block the state’s Metolius plan.
And on Friday, Jim Kean, a member of the Metolian development group, said he has told the bill’s lead co-sponsor, Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, that the group is pulling out of the negotiations. Kean’s group on Friday distributed a letter stressing that the developers are “committed to finishing our proposed project on our existing property.”
So rather than trying to get this settled and get to build a resort in another area (or a smaller scale resort on the current property), Mr. Kean and his partner Shane Lundgren (and by extension Jefferson County, since they're the ones who filed the lawsuit) have decided to take their chances and hope they've greased the wheels enough to get their way.
Budnick continues:
Campaign contribution reports provide insight into the Metolian developers’ contacts with lawmakers. Their group, called Dutch Pacific Resources LLC, has contributed more than $22,000 since August 2007, according to the Secretary of State’s office.The group’s lobbyist, Hasina Squires, said the contributions were given to lawmakers who were receptive but have “not necessarily” said they would support the Metolian project. Top recipients on the Democratic side include Rep. Larry Galizio of Tigard ($3,000), House Speaker Dave Hunt of Gladstone ($2,500), Rep. Tobias Read of Beaverton ($1,250) and several with $1,000, including Roblan.
Top recipients on the Republican side were Rep. Gene Whisnant of Sunriver ($2,500), and several with $1,000, including Sen. Chris Telfer of Bend and Rep. John Huffman of The Dalles.
To be fair, Tobias Read is a cosponsor of the bill in question and is obviously a solid supporter. If the bill does run into trouble, it won't be Read's fault.
Interesting quote from Squires, too. Translation: We gave piles of scratch to those we thought we could shoehorn into doing what we want.
Looks like we'll be finding out pretty soon who that works with.
 |
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
8:24 p.m.
Apr 19, '09
This is another example of why the progressive tax system is inherently fair. Joe & Jane Q. Public typically aren't in a financial situation where they can afford to hire a lobbyist and spread five figures worth of scratch around to various members of the lege. It doesn't matter what issue Joe & Jane Q. Public might want to see the legislature decide favorably. It's about the very level of access that those with the gold can buy, even if they eventually lose. That dynamic ramps up several orders of magnitude with respect to Congress.
It'll be interesting to see what this Metolius access purchase will end up buying.
Apr 19, '09
Although i love camping( always tent), hiking ,fishing and Oregon's beautiful mountain areas I have to say The Metolian Resort doesnt seem such a big threat as the other huge golf course disaster. They often get lumped together. I know i could never afford to stay at The Metolian but if it is eco-friendly as they say and its position near to the main road, i dont see the big problem? The promises they made in their letter to the Legislature seem genuine and i can find little wrong with them and much to recommend. http://www.themetolian.com/assets/OpenLtrToLegislature%20-%20Final.pdf
If they are down right lieing it is pretty silly of em to put it down in paper.
Apr 19, '09
Glad you are pursuing this Carla. I remember at about 8 years old, my parents to my sister and I on a trip through that area. Seeing the miracle of the Metolius, the beauty of the area and Black Butte; it still holds very fond memories for me.
Development in this area is just plain wrong. Oregon can do better. We've been on the cutting edge of managing growth and protecting the environment for 35 years. Let's not drop the ball now.
Keep up the good work, Carla!
8:54 a.m.
Apr 20, '09
Apparently disagreeing with Ms. Axtman is a necessary and sufficient condition for being on the take.
The concluding remarks in Axtman's post represent the height of arrogance.
I've received more than 20 times the amount of money identified in this cynical rant from public education interest groups.....following Axtman's logic that is why I support public education. It has nothing to do with the fact that I've been in public education for over 15 years and was chair of the ways & means education subcommittee in the 2007 session that made the greatest investment in education at all levels of public education in Oregon's history.
FYI Ms. Axtman - running in a swing district....$3,000 is a pittance. Moreover, Ms. Squires represents special districts and other clients with whom I've met on several occasions. This obviously illustrates my evil intent.
What an irresponsible, obnoxious, and simplistic piece of writing. Ms. Axtman's armchair pontificating pollutes the public sphere and illustrates why the eponymous term "blog" is often such an apt term.
Blue Oregon can do better.
Apr 20, '09
I was at the 4/7 hearing for HB3100 at the House Land Use Committee. There were over 100 people in attendence, and the ONLY people who spoke in favor of the Metolian Resort were those who had a financial interest in the project. I strongly suspect OregonScot is in that category,a troll.
HB3100, which will protect the Metolius River basin, needs our active support. Contact your legislator today and ask for their support. We can balance out the money guys with a strong grassroots campaign. And don't be shy about contacting the House leadership-Rep. Hunt,Rep.Nolan,Rep.Barnhart, and Rep. Gelser, especially if they are your represenative.
The Metolius area is too important to leave to the developers to "take care of" for us. Keep up the great work Carla.
9:20 a.m.
Apr 20, '09
Rep. Galizio:
Let me be the first to say that your work on issues surrounding education is exemplary. I am an enormous fan of what you've done in this area and am grateful for all of your efforts there. You're a true champion for Oregon's schools.
But we're not talking about education here.
Perhaps the Bend Bulletin story is in error, in which case I hope you'll offer a correction here in comments. I'm simply reporting what the story says.
Those of us who care deeply about what happens at the Metolius (and there are many of us), are honestly and faithfully trying to determine why some legislators aren't in support of HB 3100.
Now that you've engaged with us here, please tell us where you stand on the bill and why. It would go a long way to inform all of us and help us understand.
Apr 20, '09
patm: I am in no way a troll. But i do think The metolian resort is worth considering. Come on its just off the main highway on land that has been previously logged. Its hardly in pristine Metolian Basin land. The Ponderosa monster, yes thats just way too much and not eco-friendly. Im just taking the developers of The Metolian at their word and they do not seem like the greedy developer/destroyer types to me. That is my opinion.
9:40 a.m.
Apr 20, '09
Rep Galizio,
I just reread the last half of Carla's post very carefully, and have to concur in her defense. It was the Bulletin and Ms. Squires that set the table and Carla just drew the most logical conclusion from the article and quotes.
Do you argue that Carla should have arrived at different, more favorable questions, based on her reading of the article? If so, what would some of those conclusions be?
Also worth noting here, is that in a system which publicly financed political campaigns and prohibited all donations from any source whether unions, business, or charitable orgs, these questions would never arise.
Do you favor publicly financed elections to preclude any and all questioning of your financial interests relative to legislation going forward?
9:55 a.m.
Apr 20, '09
To weigh in a bit here:
I'm always troubled when activists and bloggers assert that an elected official made some decision based purely on campaign contributions. I just don't think it happens very often. (We can talk at length about why, but I won't expound on that now.) And when it does, it's pretty easy for prosecutors to figure out (see Blagojevich, Cunningham, etc.)
When elected officials are asked about the intersection of policy and fundraising, they inevitably say something like: the donations follow the policy, not the other way around. Major donors will say that they donate to candidates that already support their position.
And I think that's generally true.
What's troublesome in this case - and I must admit that I haven't followed every twist and turn of the Metolius issue - is that Ms. Squires seems to be implying that her client's political donations were given with a goal of influencing legislators.
Now, I know Rep. Galizio well. I think he's one of our best legislators - and a very upstanding guy. I trust him when he says he's going to make his decision based on the policy. I find it hard to believe that he'd allow a contribution to sway his vote.
But it's not Carla who is asserting that his vote can be influenced by a campaign contribution. It's Hasina Squires who is making that assertion. There's no other way to read that comment - "contributions were given to lawmakers who were receptive".
I don't know Ms. Squires - and had never even heard of her before this story - but telling a reporter that you're doing your best to buy off legislators can't be a very effective lobbying strategy. You've just made it much harder for those legislators to support your position.
9:57 a.m.
Apr 20, '09
Rep. Galizio, I'd like to second Pat Ryan's request for your opinion on public financing and Carla's for your stand on the bill.
Carla, representing Blue Oregon, did fine work analyzing and article that provided facts on your contributions in reflection of your potential votes. If you have a response, we'd love to hear it.
Apr 20, '09
THANK YOU for telling it like it is, about the Bend Bully and the proposed Metolian. Most of us here in Camp Sherman are fighting to keep these rural subdivisions out of the basin. The Forest Service has already determined we are at carrying capacity re recreational use & can't handle another big influx of residents and increased use. Let's not love it to death but save for future generations to have a place to visit and enjoy, not destroy. Is it really a 'green' resort if they want to spend $215 million in construction? (quoting lobbyist Hasina Squires at last public hearing). We the people should not be giving them a bail out just because they speculated on some favorable zoning changes by Jeff. county long before they were approved. The Governor declared 2 years ago he wanted to save the Metolius, yet they whine they have already spent 3.8 million on a 600 page plan. The traffic study doesn't even show the roads leading from it to Camp Sherman--a convenient 'oversight'? The land they bought was forest zone and is still forest zone... nothing has been taken away from them. 1 unit per 240 acres is what they should be allowed to build. Period. For many reasons, their development does not belong west of Camp Sherman, right on border of Mt. Jefferson Wilderness & within a few miles of a Wild & Scenic River. The elected officials who can determine the fate of the Metolius Basin need to hear from ALL Oregonians that they care about the Metolius! Please write a short letter to your Rep. TODAY! For details to who to send to, see savethemetolius.org or centralorgeonlandwatch.org. Thank you!
Apr 20, '09
Here is a photo of Black Butte and the Metolius River in Bend's earth day parade of the species on Saturday. This mountain can move to Salem if need be...
http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090419/NEWS0107/904190408&nav_category=
Apr 20, '09
Poor reporting -
Carla, I asked you before to be clear about this, but you have failed.
Which Commission? The Jefferson County Planning Commission that has the legal responsibility to hear plans for land use, or the Jefferson County Court, the elected body that governs Jefferson County?
Obviously, if a lawsuit was filed by a "Commission" it was filed by the County Court. (They are called "courts" not "commissions" due to structural and historic reasons.)
Out of the 20,000 people + that live in Jefferson County, of course there are some that have the time/money/interest to make it over the Cascades on the three hour (one-way) trip to Salem. Who testifies for or against ANYTHING in Salem having to do with Central Oregon is not a statement of whether the people here are for/against anything, but rather who has the time and money for travel. So, stating as fact that a number of people showed up in Salem to testify, and infering that it meant that there was "support" for the ban on development is not a statement based in any truth.
And remember, I'm on the side of limiting or banning development of this awful destination resorts. But more importantly, I'm on the side of Oregon's core values of an open and transparent process, and of local control.
Having been a County Planning Commissioner, and living in an adjacent County, I have to say that in spite of my opinions of destination resorts being a blight on the landscape, I too would bring a lawsuit against the State for the heavy handed treatment if this were in my County.
This isn't about the resorts at this stage, its about the process.
If the State can take away local control, based upon what is written in Carla's piece as a whim of the Governor, what individual or property right is safe?
And, due to the process as written in Carla's piece, there is a huge payment going to be due the Metolian and Ponderosa Land and Cattle under Measure 49.
Where in the State budget is the $millions to be paid for the loss of development rights due these two land owners?
If the process had been left to Jefferson County, a local compromise that would have allowed some development beyond a few token cabins, set backs from the river, protection of the area's values, and an overall workable solution would have been found. Now, with the heavy handed State stepping in, everything just got very expensive, attorney driven, and bad for every citizen of Oregon. Oregon's Attorney General might as well hire two or three full time Attorney's and some support staff for this now, it's going to be a major budget items for that department for at least a decade.
This ban on destinations is another Attorney employment act.
2:30 p.m.
Apr 20, '09
The Jefferson County Commission are these folks. I'm adding a link to this piece so that you won't have to worry about it again, SCB. From this time forward when I refer to "Jefferson County Commission", this is who I mean.
Generally, when a person refers to a "county commission", they mean the people who serve as county commissioners.
Obviously, if a lawsuit was filed by a "Commission" it was filed by the County Court. (They are called "courts" not "commissions" due to structural and historic reasons.)
Label it the way that best gets you through the day. I care not. According to the Oregonian, the Jefferson County Commission voted to sue the state. If you have information that this is false, please offer it. Otherwise this is just haggling over labels, not substance.
Out of the 20,000 people + that live in Jefferson County, of course there are some that have the time/money/interest to make it over the Cascades on the three hour (one-way) trip to Salem. Who testifies for or against ANYTHING in Salem having to do with Central Oregon is not a statement of whether the people here are for/against anything, but rather who has the time and money for travel. So, stating as fact that a number of people showed up in Salem to testify, and infering that it meant that there was "support" for the ban on development is not a statement based in any truth.
If you're going to continue to ignore the hundreds of people who showed up in Sisters and Madras at the LCDC Hearings to oppose the resorts, you'll continue to undermine your credibility on this issue.
This isn't about the resorts at this stage, its about the process.
Agreed. The process began in Camp Sherman, Sisters and Madras--and that's where some the greatest opposition push is coming from. Those residents are getting screwed in the "process" the County thought they could ramrod through.
If the State can take away local control, based upon what is written in Carla's piece as a whim of the Governor, what individual or property right is safe?
If this were the "whim" of the Governor, then it wouldn't be up to the legislature. This is a red herring.
If the process had been left to Jefferson County, a local compromise that would have allowed some development beyond a few token cabins, set backs from the river, protection of the area's values, and an overall workable solution would have been found.
Based on what evidence do you make this assertion? The County tried to change the zoning with absolutely no consideration for the impact on water, wildlife, infrastructure, services and residents. So I'm fascinated to see what you can offer to show they were ready to negotiate in good faith to bring about something that locals could live with.
Where in the State budget is the $millions to be paid for the loss of development rights due these two land owners
THE DEVELOPERS DON'T HAVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. I've written about this ad nauseum. They haven't applied for rights because the zoning is in court. They won't be owed anything under M49 because there's nothing to reimburse them for.
Apr 20, '09
Irresponsible, obnoxious, and simplistic? I disagree, but not only that, am surprised that if the Representative wishes to engage or respond, he chose to do so in this flare up of temper, rather than a reasonable, factual comment or reply.
Please Representative Galizio, tell us where you stand on this issue.
Apr 20, '09
Ms. Axtman's armchair pontificating pollutes the public sphere and illustrates why the eponymous term "blog" is often such an apt term.
The statement is a better example of politicians seeing the internet as "unpoliced speech". They're legitimate questions, and it's a legitimate point of view. Having a forum to ask them is undoubtedly better than the distant murrmurrings of public dissatisfaction.
Or is it that the official, unoffical blog of the Oregon Democratic Party is more official?
Apr 20, '09
LandWatch Releases Fiscal and Economic Impact Study of Destination Resorts in Oregon
Read this report if you want to understand how developments impact local residents financially.
Apr 20, '09
I don't know what happened to the link I set up, but here it is for a copy and paste: http://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/content/landwatch-releases-fiscal-and-economic-impact-study-destination-resorts-oregon
Apr 20, '09
I don't usually comment much here, but I do enjoy reading the posts. I am shocked that Representative Galizio posted what he did, and then didn't come back to answer the inquiries that followed. Who knew he was such a hot head? As someone who canvassed for him, and is generally supportive of his work, I am annoyed. The nasty and accusatory tone to the writer were uncalled for. Are we sure that was really him, and not just someone using his name?
Apr 20, '09
Carla writes, "Those residents are getting screwed in the "process" the County thought they could ramrod through."
I'd like to point out that you are no longer writing without bias.
Carla writes in response to a quote of mine (included for clarity), SCB:" If the process had been left to Jefferson County, a local compromise that would have allowed some development beyond a few token cabins, set backs from the river, protection of the area's values, and an overall workable solution would have been found.
(Carla)Based on what evidence do you make this assertion? The County tried to change the zoning with absolutely no consideration for the impact on water, wildlife, infrastructure, services and residents. So I'm fascinated to see what you can offer to show they were ready to negotiate in good faith to bring about something that locals could live with.
First of all, you don't understand how the planning process works. There are two different things at work here, that you apparently run together without understanding the distinctions. For a destination resort to end up in the Metolius River area you have to have both a zone change and a proposal acted upon by the Planning Commission. The County Court/Commission cannot overrule this process, and if they did the LCDC could kill the project upon appeal.
Zoning: All (meaning every single one) zone change starts at the Planning Commission (hence my confusion over your loose use of the word "commission"). Such a proposal must be passed by the Planning Commission, sent up to the County Court/Commission, and then LCDC must fail to appeal it. There is a three step process here. So, any statement that the "County Commission" (meaning County Court) is "ramroding" is just baloney on the surface of it. There is a legal process to be followed. If you are on the losing side of an issue, then it can look like a "train", but everyone has legal rights to testify, object, appeal, and ultimately bring a lawsuit.
Projects: A proposal to develop a property for any use that is not outright permitted or a conditional use (such as destination resorts), has to go though a Planning Commission. At the hearings, the petitioner makes their case for the development of the land and anyone is allowed to testify in support or opposition. At that time the Planning Commission can deny, approve, or approve with conditions within the context of the law. So called "compromises", which are actually "conditions" as there is not a negotiation to come to a compromise between two or more sides, are made by the Planning Commissioners as part of the motion. This is where the most interaction between Planning Commissioners takes place, and the wording of motions is debated (after testimony by the public and the applicant is ended). Many motions are amended, re-amended, and re-re-amended before the Planning Commission makes a final decision. Again, just like a zoning decision, and planning decision on a project is subject to appeal to the County Court, appeal to LCDC, and the potential of a lawsuit.
-- My entire point, and I don't need to quote any press articles for this, comes down to this:
The two processes I just described have not been allowed to happen in Jefferson County due to the State taking the process away in a pre-emptive manner.
If people in Jefferson County don't like development of the Metolius (if I lived in neighboring Jefferson County, I'd be one of them), then they have the right to appeal in the stages allowed by law. By the State stepping in, there are no appeals, and this is a one-sided process.
If the State doesn't like the development of the Metolius, the LCDC can act upon the appeals of Jefferson County residents, or if the State really doesn't like what is happening, a representative of the State can testify at the public hearings thereby gaining status to do the appeal without citizen involvement.
In other words, there is no reason to step outside the existing legal process if it is the goal of the State to halt or limit development in the Metolius River area.
Carla, that was what is at the root of my discomfort with your writing on this issue - you don't seem to understand the basics of the existing process.
As far as developers not having development rights, you are technically correct. It is land owners that have the right to pursue what would have been legally permitted development under the laws at the time they purchased their property or at any time during their ownership. Developers are not necessarily land owners. I have been a land owner that lost development rights due to a zoning change (prior to Measures 37 and 49), and it cost me what was then a lot of money (to me). I know exactly how this works, and doesn't.
Really, if the liberal/progressive people of Oregon are not concerned with the loss of individual and property rights, meaning most of the readers here on Blue Oregon, who will be? I find it extremely objectionable that a staff writer for this blog has taken the position that it is just great that the State of Oregon is in the process of taking away rights of any type. I further find it objectionable that when a legal process is undertaken by elected or appointed officials, that is called "ramroding". (As if what the State is doing wasn't!)
10:08 p.m.
Apr 20, '09
I make absolutely no apologies for my response to Axtman's post.
The clear implication from the post is that voting against HB 3100 + receiving a campaign contribution from interests opposing the bill = captured politician. And did Ms. Axtman or Mr. Budnick detail contributions that I've received from environmental groups? And that total from OLCV and others would be....? How much?
And what of those firmly in support of HB 3100? Following the logic of the Team Budman those in support of the bill receiving contributions from environmental groups are necessarily on the take.
There does seem to be a pattern here though. I received contributions from the firefighters and voted in favor of the cancer presumption bill.....shoehorned! Took money from Basic Rights Oregon and voted for domestic partnership bill.....gotcha! Cashed several checks from unions and voted in favor of the employee free choice bill....Kaching!
HB 3100 will be a gift for all of the interest groups that seek to eradicate Oregon's land use planning system. If you're an anti-land-use interest group - you love HB 3100. Why? Because it justifies your existence. It legitimizes your fundraising operation and writes that first post-session fundraising letter for you.
The tyrannical legislature from Salem....some with private interests in the area.....usurped the local government and community and decided that they knew better. Dorothy English is smiling somewhere at the thought. They just don't get it...those people in Salem. The Big Look? The legislature doesn't care. Measure 37 & Measure 49? The legislature just ignores them.
THAT will be one of the most significant impacts of HB 3100 in my estimation. And that is a major reason why I'll be pushing the red button on HB 3100.
People can passionately disagree on issues, but impugning someone's character by assigning motives really degrades the discourse and isn't even permitted on the House Floor in Salem.
So, yes cw....it's me. And I'm sorry if you regret canvassing for me but I'm not an automaton, and I refuse to sit back and have my character impugned. In my not-so-humble opinion, too many Democrats have became all too technocratic and meek. I try not to take the first shot, but if someone hits me, I'm gonna' hit back....harder. I believe we'd be a lot better off if more Democrats followed suit.
Back to clearing teabags from my office.
Apr 20, '09
Yea Larry and SCB!
Some of us remember the days 20 years ago before Republicans took over the legislature and it became the battle of Team R vs. Team D.
Back in those days, it was common to have arguments which included viewpoints as diverse as Carla, Larry, and SCB.
Hint: the folks who ultimately won such arguments and prevailed on an issue were the folks who worked hard and understood the process.
NOT those who called someone "hothead", confused related issues, or made comments like Carla's "shoehorn" comment.
Apr 21, '09
SCB said: The two processes I just described have not been allowed to happen in Jefferson County due to the State taking the process away in a pre-emptive manner.
Yeah, actually the County DID try this through the normal process near the end of 2006. They bungled it fairly well: changing agendas from what the public notices said, keeping planning documents from the public, eradicating the general plan for a few days... Jefferson County has had the chance to go through a correct process on this issue and has failed.
SCB said: "If people in Jefferson County don't like development of the Metolius... , then they have the right to appeal in the stages allowed by law"
Yeah, but Jefferson County's favorite trick is apparently to have their public notices say one thing and then suddenly decide to put something else on their agenda. Not to mention: How can the public appeal a proposed plan if the COUNTY REFUSES TO SUPPLY IT TO THEM BEFORE THE MEETING?!
SCB said: "I further find it objectionable that when a legal process is undertaken by elected or appointed officials, that is called 'ramroding'"
Ah, but what Jefferson County did was a far cry from a "legal process."
SCB, you seem to have a good idea of how zoning and planning is MEANT to happen... but if you had followed the Jefferson County process since 2006, you'd understand that it bears no resemblance to a fair process that allows for citizen involvement.
1:08 a.m.
Apr 21, '09
I'm sorry if you regret canvassing for me but I'm not an automaton, and I refuse to sit back and have my character impugned. In my not-so-humble opinion, too many Democrats have became all too technocratic and meek. I try not to take the first shot, but if someone hits me, I'm gonna' hit back....harder. I believe we'd be a lot better off if more Democrats followed suit.
And that's why I love Larry Galizio. Pull no punches. There's no Battered Democrat Syndrome here.
That said, Larry, I still think your outrage is best directed to Hasina Squires. She's the one who suggested that the candidates she directed donations to were "receptive". (Assuming that Budnick's paraphrase is accurate.)
7:34 a.m.
Apr 21, '09
I'd like to point out that you are no longer writing without bias.
I've never claimed that my writing on this issue doesn't have a bias. In fact, I don't know a single blogger (or for that matter, journalist) who doesn't have some kind of bias.
The rest of your comment has been effectively addressed above by Former Bendite.
Apr 21, '09
Former Bendite writes, "Ah, but what Jefferson County did was a far cry from a "legal process."
Okay, you describe what would be a violation of Oregon's public meeting laws. There is a remedy for that in the law. You can have any decision made in violation of the Oregon public meeting laws made null and void. In fact, it's easier to deal with a violation of the public meeting laws to get a decision reversed than to appeal a land use decision.
For those who oppose development in the Metolius, that is a piece of great news! If you can prove that improper notice of the meetings happened, then basically its all over except the shouting.
Again, there is already a due process. That people either didn't use it, don't know about it, etc. is not solved by the State coming in and playing overlord.
Why do Carla and Former Bendite think its okay to take away the rights of people? Why is a process whereby the State takes away the rights of the people of a County superior to using laws already on the books?
Why do you support tyranny?
10:50 a.m.
Apr 21, '09
The clear implication from the post is that voting against HB 3100 + receiving a campaign contribution from interests opposing the bill = captured politician. And did Ms. Axtman or Mr. Budnick detail contributions that I've received from environmental groups? And that total from OLCV and others would be....? How much?
Rep. Galizio--once again, this was the connection made by Hasina Squires, not me. Unless Ms Squires was misquoted, I sincerely don't know how else to read what she said.
HB 3100 will be a gift for all of the interest groups that seek to eradicate Oregon's land use planning system. If you're an anti-land-use interest group - you love HB 3100. Why? Because it justifies your existence. It legitimizes your fundraising operation and writes that first post-session fundraising letter for you.
Oregonians In Action is neutral on this legislation and has said so publicly. This bill follows the spirit of Measure 49 by not changing the rules after the fact. It would be helpful if you could please explain why you believe they'll using this as an example to stoke outrage and "justify their existence"
People can passionately disagree on issues, but impugning someone's character by assigning motives really degrades the discourse and isn't even permitted on the House Floor in Salem.
But it is permitted in newspapers. And if this was done falsely toward you by Ms. Squires, I certainly hope you've made it clear to her that it's unacceptable. Or if she was misquoted, I hope she demands and gets a retraction from Nick Budnick.
Apr 21, '09
SCB: If you can prove that improper notice of the meetings happened, then basically its all over except the shouting.
Were you born yesterday? That's just about the most politically naive thing I've ever seen written down.
SCB: Why is a process whereby the State takes away the rights of the people of a County superior to using laws already on the books?
A) No rights are being taken away; the bill keeps land use and zoning at its current status.
B) Really? Why is State action superior to County action? Hmm... how about the State Constitution, which explictly gives the Legislature authority over county governments.
Apr 21, '09
Yikes, I certainly didn't mean to imply that I regretted canvassing or supporting Rep. Galizio. Only meant to point out that, though I am (not was) a supporter, I am annoyed by the perceived 'attack' on the writer of this post, which I think is misdirected.
I also wish I better understood your answer about HB3100, which I do not. But I am assuming good will here, I just am not following.
4:22 p.m.
Apr 21, '09
SCB: Again, there is already a due process. That people either didn't use it, don't know about it, etc. is not solved by the State coming in and playing overlord.
Why do Carla and Former Bendite think its okay to take away the rights of people? Why is a process whereby the State takes away the rights of the people of a County superior to using laws already on the books?
Why do you support tyranny?
Oh, bravo!! The Lost Cause of the Confederacy lives again, demonizing rhetoric and all!
Where is the militia meeting to form up?
Apr 21, '09
In all the discussion about process and the perceived threat to our land use system posed by the creation of an area of critical state concern, no one is mentioning that the creation of an area of critical state concern IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN part of our land use system.
The statutory process for creating an area of critical state concern was laid out in Senate Bill 100, passed into law as a component of our land use system in 1973. It is every bit as much a legitimate/lawful part of our land use system as urban growth boundaries, planning goals, or county mapping for land that are ELIGIBLE, not entitled to host destination resorts.
When Tom McCall left office, he in fact asked LCDC to recommend the creation of an area of critical state concern around the Metolius Deer Winter Range habitat. The commission at that time didn't feel the area was threatened.
Now some 35+ years later, the Land Conservation and Development Commission, at the request of Gov. K, has undertaken a legitimate/lawful and public process before making the recommendation found in HB 3100. That process involved 4 public hearings in Central Oregon, several proposed plans, several revisions to those plans based on public input, and overwhelming public support for the recommendation of an area of critical state concern. Ultimately the LCDC voted to make the recommendation. Now the legislature gets to decide its fate.
That's the process that's been playing out, a process that IS a part of our land use system, not a threat to it. If it's one that needs changing, the legislature should change it. But IMO it's just not telling the whole story to simplify one's opposition to HB 3100 with a process argument. There's been an entirely legitimate area of critical state concern process that, btw, HAS responded to lots and lots of public input.
Apr 21, '09
"Tom McCall" hits the nail on the head. The ACSC was put in place from the beginning to address just this sort of situation and specifically with the Metolius in mind. The real Tom McCall even advocated vocally to designate large portions o the Metolius as an ACSC. The reason that didn't happen, the story goes, is largely becuase Jefferson County had instituted strong forest protections to safeguard the area.
The ACSC IS part of the land use system, like it or not, and this is it's rightful role. For or against these resorts, it's just wrong to say otherwise. And it's shortsighted to think that Oregon's land use system is about staying out of the way and letting local government do whatever the hell it wants and that anything else is, as Senator Ferriolli has put it, a "subversion of democracy" or anything of the sort. What a short-sighted view...
May 2, '09
Off-topic comment deleted. --Editor
May 10, '09
This is typical. A bunch of politicians influenced by eco-money lobbyists are trying to impose restrictions on land owners in a different part of the state and deny them their rights as land owners. It should be left up to the people who own land and live in the area, not a bunch of Valley politicians whose only interests are in maintaining their votes among their constituents. It is a Jefferson county issue let Jefferson county handle it.
10:32 a.m.
May 10, '09
Sam:
The residents of Jefferson County are the ones driving this at the legislature level. They're the ones being ignored by their county commission, planning commission, etc.
This is an issue for all Oregonians, however. What's typical are those who work to despoil Oregon's greatest treasures to make a buck--with places like destination resorts which close off beautiful Oregon areas to cater to a few elites.