You're right. It shouldn't have been in question.

I'm sorry about Metolius, Carla. That one clearly meant a lot to you. Maybe it can still be saved...they're going to reconsider it, and if Komp is there next time, or they twist one of the renegades' arms enough, it will pass.

Rep. Komp was and is opposed to this bill. Another day won't make a difference.

The votes were never there in the House to pass it. It's sad that the Senators and Rep. Clem have refused to make the amendments that would have resulted in enough votes to pass the bill.

That is what makes this a sad day.

I saw you there today, taking pictures with your Camera, I was the lid behind you with the small point and shoot digital camera, and I'm wondering if you could upload the photos you took of the floor that day, especially during that vote.

Kari:

The votes of all 36 House Democrats could be picked up by designating the Metolius Basin as an "Area of Critical Concern," but grandfathering in projects that have already been approved. Just like Betsy Johnson's house and Ginny Burdick's cabin are grandfathered in.

There may be another amendment short of that which could pick up at least one vote, but that amendment would pick up all six votes.

Did the legislature consider purchasing the land and making the Metolious area a state park? I realize as much as anyone that the state is in a budget crunch, but a portion of Lottery revenues are required to be spent on parks. I realize that this money is slated for developing new parks and maintaining existing ones, but if the Metolius is so important, shouldn't it trump those projects? People in the know: what do you think?

Show us that draft ammendment Insider.

M49 already guarantees grandfathering for anyone who has housing rights in the State of Oregon including the proposed Area of Critical State Concern.

I think you will find there is no such ammendment to make as there have been no "approved" projects. The map is still being litigated and an application cannot be submitted let alone "approved" until the map meets legal muster.

Check the zoning, it remains what it was 10 years ago. The State would have to upzone and give housing rights to land speculators who don't currently have them in order to get them on board, grandfathering will get them their current right which is 2 houses on the one site and 120 on the other.

Carla, On the Metolius vote: Please name names. We need to know who is doing what. I don't understand why you aren't naming names. Please let us know about whom you are speaking.

This vote was a travesty and an embarassment. We have no right to tell other states that Oregon is living up to its legacy of good stewardship of the land.

If the D's control the House again next session, we need make sure that someone who cares about Oregon's unique and special places becomes Speaker. I'll never again trust Dave Hunt.

Dave Hunt and the other five House Democrats who voted no on this bill were clear about it from day one.

No games or deception. Just clearly no on this bill without an amendment.

To Insider: These 5 should switch parties. It doesn't help that they decided this from Day 1.

Also, the two who declared conflicts shouldn't have been allowed to vote on this.

Dave Hunt's lack of leadership today was stunning. Give him credit for passing the revenue bills, but on the environment we might as well have Karen Minnis back in charge the way Hunt votes and runs the show.

Hunt's excuse was an inexplicable adherence to the Republican mantra of 'local control.' Why do we need a state legislature if we are going to defer to local governments no matter what? At the end of the day, this and other votes reveal that Hunt basically stands for development at any cost, which is frankly outside the Oregon mainstream.

If Hunt and these other legislators don't think their role is to cast votes to protect values that are of statewide concern, perhaps they should step down and find a new line of work.

Not to cast too broad a brush, but this is the kind of stuff that makes people question the value of supporting and working for Democrats when election time comes around. Its very disheartening when it becomes clear that on some issues the Republicans are still in control, even when the Dems hold 36 seats.

If Hunt is still around in two years, I hope the majority of the 30 Dems who voted the right way today have the sense to make someone else the Speaker - that is if they are still in control.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Representative Clem for all of his hard work on this issue. I know he has spent countless hours talking to Representatives and Senators trying to enact greater protections for the Metolius.

It seems from talking to staff and a few of the members that there is agreement about stronger protections for this area. I think even some Republicans are supportive of the general concept. I think there is wide disagreement on this particular bill. I am still hopeful that one of the members will reconsider tomorrow, but realistic enough to know that it might not happen.

It seems the vote count in the House has been the same for a while. A member of the House Rules committee talked to a group I belong to several weeks ago and indicated that the Democrats in the House who supported the bill were hoping for a few Republican votes because they believed that there were only 30 votes from Democrats.

I think that this vote in conjunction with the Senate Revenue vote raises some interesting questions about the progressive majority and what roles and responsibilities Democratic members play now. Would love for Novick or some other former staffer to maybe post on that. Do you always have to go along with the caucus?

Also, becoming increasingly concerned about the tone of posters here attacking Democratic members. Hass has paid dearly on BlueOregon and now I am sure folks will go after these House members and the Speaker. Are we becoming an echo chamber? If a bill can't pass with a Democratic governor and super majorities in both the Senate and House....

I know one thing...a smaller tent with fewer Democrats solves nothing.

Note that not one of the Ds that voted against the Metolius had the guts to stand up on the floor and explain/justify/defend just why it is that they think this bill is bad public policy.

Instead, what did we see & hear? Some of the most right wing, anti-government, enviro-trashing Republicans expousing the virtues of a land use planning system that they constantly attack & attempt to weaken & kill. They mouthed every green & sustainable claim from the Metolian destination resort promoters...as if they, Republicans with atrocious enviro voting records, actually gave a damn. If you were watching, you could tell they were reading from very unfamiliar scripts written for them, as if choking on the words on paper.

It was truly Orwellian to watch the floor "debate" against strong protections for the Metolius. It was tragic & embarrassing.

This isn't about a smaller Democratic tent. This was a classic example of the disconnect between campaigning and governing and the ability of wealthy landowners & a powerful lobbyist to override a measure that had overwhelming popular support in hearings before LCDC and then the legislature.

Insider,

Fact: The no "D" votes were Hunt and 4 others not 5. One member was absent.

Reports of how any member will vote when the bill hits the floor is speculation and presumptuous at best, a true insider (one that has experience vs a newly found presence the Capitol) would know this.

Fact: Ammendments were made to the bill to attract votes.

The last ammendments that were adopted to the Metolius Bill were the 23rd set offered and 2nd or 3rd set adopted.

The early set were to gain the support of the Ponderosa developers and the last ones were in accordance with Representative Hanna's offer in the Land Use committee.

Both of these were clearly designed to get votes.

Might consider minding your accuracy while the last shred of your claim to inside knowledge but more importantly your veracity remains intact.

It is never easy to lose a vote one cares about so much. But it's also wrong to believe that every democrat should vote with you every single time. and its also wrong to automatically default that the "moneyed" interests won just because the vote did not go your way. none of the five democrats who voted against the bill were deceitful... they just saw the issue a different way. if you want someone to vote your way everytime, then run for office yourself.

worst of all it seems most of you have given up when the bill is still alive. it seems there may be some way to get at least one vote -- or to get all five and maybe more to switch. so work on figuring out a way to get it done instead of whining that a democrat (god forbid) didn't vote the way you expected.

hunt and some of the other dems y'all talk about have led the house to an incredible session in an incredibly dfficult time where they are making $2 billion in cuts, raising taxes on corporations and rich people, protecting schools and other key bdget areas despite an incredibly bad economy. it is true economic issues have been a driving force this session..... anybody check the food stamp and unemployment line lately. so go ahead and disagree all you want -- and work against them if you want next election (good luck with the alternative), but don't call them bad democrats just because the vote went south on you. these folks have worked incredibly hard all session and deserve a lot of love for some really tough votes and some even tougher decisions.

@Horseygirl:

Legislators must vote on every bill. They cannot abstain if they are within the bar.

Carla,

how about the health care expansion where 80K kids without insurance are getting covered? The K Falls dam removal bill? the revenue packakage that focuses on corporations and rich people? foreclosure relief? Marine reserves? the transportation bill? affordable housing? increasing fines on polluters? reductions in greenhouse gas emimssions (hb 2186)? there are dozens of really good bills that were passed this session.

just because one or two legislators told you they had not read the bill, don't lump all of them into the same category. There's been tons of talk about this bill and you don't have to read it to know what's it in, though I do agree they should have.

Funny too that the Democrat who voted against the revenue bill in the House (whose no vote was cancelled by Bob Jenson and not "two republicans" as you write), also voted for the metolius bill. so is he a good guy or a bad guy?

once again, you can have litmus tests if you like, and they can change based on the vote of the day. but what you find in the end is sometimes legislators vote with you and sometimes they vote against you. no one lied to you Carla. Oregon is headed in the right direction. If you think the Legislature is worse now than when R's had control.... or if 36 doesn't matter.... just think what it would be like if we had to balance the budget under republican control. and remember, dave hunt's district is not like arnie roblans or brent barton's or greg mathews or yours. they all have to answer to the people at home, not to you.

so it's never going to go 100% your way. like i said before if you want a legislator who voted with you all the time, then throw yur hat in the ring. if you don't want to run, then you have to accept that sometimes the vote is not going to go your way... and you keep fighting for what you believe in.

Keep up the good fight. But I encourage you to look at the positive things that have happened this session as well as the negative.

Carla says 'We should have been able to pass revenue bills without having to squeeze votes together and without Republicans.'

So much for the much ballyhooed importance of 'bipartisanship' we always hear about if/when the opposition party happens to control things.

I don't have an informed opinion on this Metolius issue one way or the other - but if you think this is the first time legislators (Republicans and yes, even Democrats - plus every stripe in between) have voted on bills they haven't read (e.g., Obama's 'stimulus' bill...), been more influenced by politics rather than good policy, and/or voted in their own selfish interest rather than the public's, you're in for a rude awakening. These malfeasances don't only occur when votes don't yield your desired outcome.

"We should have been able to pass revenue bills without having to squeeze votes together and without Republicans."

That's the pinnacle of political arrogance.

Brent Barton sleazed out. He had a conflict of interest seeing as how his law firm represents one of the developers. He vote traded on this bill with a Republican for a vote on another bill. All it took was less than one session to go to the dark side.

This is total bullshit. They didn't have their shit together this session and have had to cobble votes together it seems constantly.

If they don't pass this or a similar variation of this there is going to be some major blowback. The Metolius is one of Oregon's jewels and these five just handed it over.

I feel lied to as well. After all the talk and pleading for money and time to achieve a super majority, this is what they give us? Yesterday was an unusually disgraceful day for Oregon House Dems...

"I heard one legislator talk on the floor about how he'd heard from his constituents in large numbers who wanted him to vote for the protections but wasn't going to do as they wished. As if his job isn't to represent the people that actually fill out the ballot and pay his salary."

So, what else is new? From the U.S. Capitol and the White House to Salem, that's the way it is. There's a word for people who sell their integrity for monetary or other gain, but I'm having a hard time calling it to mind? Anybody, have an idea what that might be?

Carla: Here is a suggestion for an article after the next Oregon elections for state offices - list those politicians who sold out on the Metolius and those who were re-elected. Then we will see how Oregon stands as a state with a government of, for and by the people.

There are several articles on the Internet today about Democrats selling out. This one - All But 32 House Dems Back Bad Wars, Big Banks - is at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-0.

For the White House version, check this one: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-4.

As long as members of the Democratic and Republican parties tolerate and vote for their miscreants and crooks the U.S. and state capitols will continue as cesspools of corruption and their denizens will continue to treat the people with the contempt they deserve.

It comes down to this:

Many don't like any and all issues, good or bad, shoved down thier throats just because Dems tell us 'It's a good idea'. Whether it is the Metolius or Chavez Blvd., Just becuase any Dem says "its a good idea" does not entitle them, or anyone, to shove the issue down the throats of thier people to enact it solely on principle.

The message: We are tired of having issues shoved down our throats. We need to breathe once in a while.

The score reads:

Throat clearing common sense - 1, Throat stuffing Ecozealots - 0.

Carla,

The pro-Metolian folks have done a really good job on lobbying. It is a shame that the Metolius ACSC which has overwhelmiong citizen support cannot overcome the political $$$ spent. I am of the opinion that the Metolian has many other hurdles to become a resort starting with the Jefferson County Map approval- but they will also need the approval of the Forest Service to use public land. The biggest obstacle they face is the Tribes of the Warm Springs who have so far been fairly quiet on the issue. The Tribes have treaty rights to use of these lands and this will be a significant issue.

There are a variety of "Protect The ___" movements for sites all around Oregon. For longstanding ones, where property owners bought knowing about the protection movements, I wouldn't feel bad about going through with protection measures. But Protect The Metolius is relatively new, right? And while I'm not much of a "property rights" supporter in any political respect, I have to say that I have some sympathy for a property owner who utilized the existing process to move a development forward, only to have others try and take it away.

As an aside, Rep. Clem's crying (literally, as I understand it) about this being a gift from God; as well as the view expressed in comments here, to the effect that voting against a measure somehow dooms a Democrat, is so righteous as to be distasteful.

I'm not a proud lefty today. What a debacle that was yesterday, watching House members drone on about the number of meetings Jefferson County had so let's not get in the way of local control. Do any of these House members realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of the people who attended these hearing were solidly against the siting of destination resorts in the Metolius Basin? And what is the responsibility of a statewide legislative body to overturn bad local policy, policy that goes against the will of the people. As Rep. Smith stated, paraphrasing "If someone was drilling in the Grand Canyon shouldn't we step in and stop the drilling?" This falls squarely in the lap of the Dems, and especially Gov K who scuttled SB30. His legacy will be tarnished by the lack of protection of the Metolius. I can see his portrait hanging in the Capital now, him bent over with Kean squarely behind him holding a fistfull of dollars smiling as a bulldozer is tearing up the land.

This is a message put out by Rep. Gene Whisnant's office on the Metolius vote:

"Metolius Bill Fails in the House

"Bill would have designated Metolius as an Area of Critical State Concern

"House Democrats and Republicans including Rep. Whisnant (R-Sunriver) joined in opposing HB 3298 today which would have designated the Metolius River Basin an Area of Critical State Concern and would have stopped Jefferson County’s land planning process for two resorts.

"Rep. Whisnant (R-Sunriver) stated, “I oppose this amended bill which I believe would destroy Oregon’s Land Use System which I support and is a model for the nation.”

"The Senate Democrats amended HB 3298 with the Metolius Bill and passed it on Friday by a 16 to 12 vote. On the House Floor, many members spoke about how this bill would stop Jefferson County’s right to make their own decisions regarding land mapping and economic development. Rep Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) said, “Are we better informed to set policy than our local officials regarding local issues?”

"“I have stated to constituents on the record I would never vote for a bill which I believed would harm the Metolius River. I also could support the creation of making the Metolius River Watershed ‘an Area of Critical State Concern’ within a reasonable geographic area,” declared Representative Whisnant during the House Floor debate.

"Rep. Whisnant also explained, 'If the bill fails and Jefferson County proceeds with the planning; I will work with the concerned citizens and the local and state elected officials to be sure that the Jefferson County decisions on the application do not damage the environment, water, or fish and wildlife habitat.'”

This is my response:

"Dear Representative Whisnant:

"I am sure you are sincere in saying “If the bill fails and Jefferson County proceeds with the planning; I will work with the concerned citizens and the local and state elected officials to be sure that the Jefferson County decisions on the application do not damage the environment, water, or fish and wildlife habitat.” That, however, may be easier said than done. Visit this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tahoe#Development - to learn how development has degraded the once pristine Lake Tahoe. As Lake Tahoe has gone, very likely so too will the still pristine Metolius River - thanks to those of you in the Oregon State Legislature who were so concerned with the interest of developers that you were willing to put this Central Oregon treasure at risk."

a property owner who utilized the existing process to move a development forward, only to have others try and take it away.

radamacher: when they bought that property is was zoned forest land, they had no right to expect resort development. Those D's who are hiding behind 'process' are betting on the wrong horse. The jefferson county process has been flawed from the beginning. The real process was the public one where hundreds of people turned out to support creating an area of critical concern.

It is the legislature's responsibility to look at the bigger picture and make the decisions best for Oregon, not a few developers.

"Word is" is absolutely right- Barton sold out for his company's clients to the point of, not just voting no, but whipping no votes on the floor yesterday. Yes, he declared a conflict yeterday and then proceeded to put his clients' needs first.

Everyone in the building knows he was trading votes with Ferroli to get his tort bill passed, even the press. Now, his actions are becoming known and the only question is how long til he gets his front page story on vote swapping.

A principled no is one thing, vote swapping is quite another.

"You got screwed on this vote as an Oregonian"

Just because you didn't get your way after force feeding the issue down our throats, does not entitle you to act like a spoiled 6-year-old and force your ecozealot attitude onto me. It's the nature of the game called 'legislating' and you have to live with it. It's the same thing you tell us when your 'good ideas' get shoved down our throats and passed.

I wasn't screwed. I am relieved that (for once) something that was force fed got up-chucked back.

Eric P: And it wasn't force fed on us by Jefferson County? Do some research and see how many of the Jefferson County legislators who voted this land use change for destination resorts were on their way out the door and now work for the developers. It was disgusting to be at SB30 hearings and the lack of accountability that Jefferson County had in explaining who was part of the process. Vickie Walker (who sold out as well) asked repeatedly of Jefferson County officials who was part of the process and no one who represented the county could stand up and state they were at the hearings. And the roll call of ex political officials, including the mayor of Madres who now worked for the developers was disgusting.

As to this being an issue of local control, the Metolius is the sole drinking water source for 200,000 people, most of them in Lane, not Jefferson County.

Jake,

You'll probably want to check your maps.

The Metolius Basin and watershed drains to the East into the Deschutes.

Not likely that Lane county is pumping water over the Cascade Range.

Carla says: 'The Republicans don't give two shits about bipartisanship. Spare me the righteous indignation.'

Of all the people to lecture about sparing you righteous indignation... have you actually gone back and read the tone of the comments you've posted here?

Off-topic comment deleted--Editor

Off topic comment deleted--Editor

Having lobbied as a citizen-activist for many years at the state legislature, I find the content of many of these posts childish. Just because a vote didn't go your way does not mean the legislator who disagreed with you is corrupt, stupid, ignoring the people, a traitor or any of those things. Just because anyone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are stupid or even wrong. Grow up and accept diversity of thought. During the time I worked my issues down there I knew every legislator, some well. I respected virtually all of them, including ones in the other party. Also, it isn't a legislators job to go to Salem or DC and be a fax machine, only spitting out Vox Populi. Read the Constitution, the federalist papers, the writings of Jefferson and Adams. The Congress and the legislatures were the buffer and voice of reason who were there to prevent pure democracy which is also known as mob rule. But, working as a Director of a non-profit advocacy group taught me that many people want things to go their way every time and when they don't they pick up their ball, call the system corrupt, and bitch about politicians while drinking at the bar.

More of the same.

Oregon's legislature is generally great on the easy environmental issues (bottle bills, bio-fuels, recycling) and horrendous on things that are closer to home (logging, development, endangered species.) But of course, as a state we excel at spraining our shoulders to pat ourselves on the back for the easy stuff, and coming up with excuses for why we can't do the hard things.

Expecting Oregon D's to buck development or logging interests is like expecting North Carolina D's to buck the tobacco industry.

More of the same.

Oregon's legislature is generally great on the easy environmental issues (bottle bills, bio-fuels, recycling) and horrendous on things that are closer to home (logging, development, endangered species.) But of course, as a state we excel at spraining our shoulders to pat ourselves on the back for the easy stuff, and coming up with excuses for why we can't do the hard things.

Expecting Oregon D's to buck development or logging interests is like expecting North Carolina D's to buck the tobacco industry.

I'm going to enjoy the coming shitstorm Mr. Barton. You've earned it!

Bill Maher delivered a commentary on his HBO show recently that fits well here. If we are going to pass bold progressive policy now then when? Maher is deeply disappointed with the Obama Administration for not using the political capitol and legislative majorities to pass bold progressive public policy. It's not just about doing better than the Republicans, it's about using your power to maximize success. The idea that after all of the environmental destruction that has been done, that we can't pass this w/ a Dem super majority, is as Carla says, a disgrace. I'll give them credit for no more than mediocrity.

How about all senators and representatives that have a conflict of interest not vote. Johnson, Burdick, Bomemci, Garret and Barton? Would that be fair. Then you won't have to critize only the ones that don't vote they way you want them to.

I am a Conservative and now most of you should know why I don't trust RINO's and you should never trust guys like Dave Hunt.

Too bad, sooooo sad Carla. You got yours handed to you by your own kind, Skunks.

"Just because a vote didn't go your way does not mean the legislator who disagreed with you is corrupt, stupid, ignoring the people, a traitor or any of those things."

True, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that they are "...corrupt, stupid, (and) ignoring the people"

There is considerable evidence to suggest that developers have been part owners of the Oregon legislature for years. Why, for instance, did the pols in Salem pass a statewide law requiring all cities to make a 20-year supply of buildable land available for development? Shouldn't cities and towns have the right to regulate their own territory and keep it the way they want as long as they are not degrading the environment? That's the republican (note the small "r") way.

I am tired of this vote being seen as partisan (as if every vote is a victory for one "side", a defeat for the other "side"---you'd never guess 1/4 of Oregonians don't register with a major party and some people have friends in more than one party).

Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | Jun 17, 2009 11:27:03 AM See if I trust you in the future. I'm an old friend of Brian Clem. I saw him the night before make an announcement to a group about this vote. He was as upset about the possibility (turned out to be true) of 30AYE votes.

Now if you don't think any legislator should ever show any emotion on the floor and should sound like a robot at all times (robots have no emotions), that is your call. But I will think twice before agreeing with you in the future.

I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election, and I think this is a slap in the face to his legacy. If there are members of any party who have a problem with that, they don't want my vote or my support in the future.

Thanks, Carla, for following this vote. I agree with you, this vote was an utter disgrace. Barton and Hunt are of grave disappointment to me especially.

I believe I have been blocked. Change the name to bluefacist.org

My earlier comments was to point out the if one member should not vote because of a conflict of interest all should.....Johnson, Burdick, Bomemici, Garret and Barton.

Pretty soon I will hear a knock on the door and my family will never see me again.

This is so much BS as to be nauseating. The ACSC was pulled out of the magician's hat when those against the two developments were not getting their way and didn't like to potential outcome of the Jefferson county process. Powerful democrats in the legislature decided to interfer and intervene using an old process from almost 30 years ago.

If the Metolius is so gawd awful precious then why did it take until the last minute in the great scheme of things for the ACSC movement to get going? I mean St.McCall has been out of office longer than many current voters have been alive. If this area was so great then why hasn't anyone done anything to protect this pristine area up to now? Let's all be honest here, the dems tried a power play and missed the mark. Common sense has won out over a misguided political party interferring with Oregon land use law.

It is stunts such as this pure political theater that are making those who register NAV proud to be a member of neither party.

Brent Barton has been a definitive NO vote on the Metolius bill for many weeks. Brian Clem and Betsy Johnson both knew it.

You can't "trade" away a vote when you've already committed to vote NO on a bill. Keep looking for those conspiracy theories.

Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you’ve got ‘Til it’s gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot

When future generations look back this session will look like a collection of maggots scouring the final bits of flesh off the bones of Oregon.

I hope they build a big monument to Dave Hunt up there so dogs will have an appropriate place to relief themselves. People that apologize for his conduct with platitudes of politics must be staffers, lobbyists, campaign consultants and other forms of leeches.

thank you

I'm very concerned about legislators that are clinging onto this "Process" leg.

Hasn't the last 2+ years been a part of the process? A legal land use process, including the right for the state to step in and examine local decisions and if necessary, designate an area of state critical concern. Isn't this called SB 100 from 1973 which gives legislators not only the power, but the RESPONSIBILITY to override local decisions in effort to protect the GREATER good.

Jefferson County commissioners have publicly stated over and over that they are the poorest county in our state. I have no doubt that they didn't have the money needed to investigate, research or conduct studies on the long term ramifications of large scale destination resorts on the Metolius River and its basin. The LCDC was able to conduct the much needed studies and review data on potential harm to the river and its inhabitants and voted 7-0 in favor of protection.

Even Governor Kulongoski seemed to understand "process" in his letter to Diane Rosenbaum (Chair of the Rules Committee) June 22, 2007 (regarding SB 30).

"If the agencies advise me that additional laws are necessary or desirable to achieve these objectives, I will work with the legislature to develop those legislative changes so that we protect the natural treasure of the Metolius basin for generations to come."

When I hear the developers and Jefferson County say the rules were changed in the middle of the game, I am appalled that they think we are so naive! The rules weren't changed, the last 2+ years have all been a part of the process! This is OUR process folks, and if needs to be changed, then the legislators should change it.

Carla, you're wrong on this one and you should back off Barton. Take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that some people disagree with you on this issue and that's OK.

Anonymous:

What are the true unemployment statistics in Jefferson County?--that was a point of contention during the legislative debate.

"Jefferson County commissioners have publicly stated over and over that they are the poorest county in our state."

Also, let's look at the unemployment rate of counties with destination resorts. Are they among the lowest unemployment rates in the state? Or does the general economy affect destination resorts?

Check out this editorial:

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20090618/OPINION/906180319/1048

It seems to me the folks in favor of this resort are saying everyone should take it on faith that years from now the area will be unspoiled and the employment rate in Jefferson County will be among the best east of the mountains if only everyone turns their back on the McCall vision.

Oregonians think for themselves, and if they choose the McCall vision over the vision of developers, they are being independent Oregonians. Blaming particular politicians or activists won't change that.

Right on, Carla!

If all the legislators who voted against this bill want to adopt the attitude "Say it loud! I'm for local land use planning and I'm proud" (to use an old '60s slogan) that is perfectly honest. They can say that to their constituents back home in town hall meetings and the constituents will have the right to agree or disagree.

If the constituents agree, they may have an easy election next year. BUT, if the constitutents say "not what we thought we were voting for when we elected you", nothing any blogger says will change that.

Don't forget that the first 3 words of the Constitution are radical that way--WE THE PEOPLE.

NOT "we the bloggers" or "we the lobbyists" or even "we the caucus". WE THE PEOPLE

LT:

I'm confused about what you're trying to say to me. My point is that Passing HB 3298 is the PROCESS coming around full circle! Many legislators are worried that passing the ACSC means somehow the PROCESS is being compromised. My point is that this is an amazing example of the full scope of the PROCESS working. It is working exactly as it is designed to. Meaning, the legislature passing HB 3298 isn't interfering the process, it is almost in a way completing the process as it has come around full circle.

My point about Jefferson County is perhaps the intentions when remapping for destination resorts was a good intention for revenue for the county, however, I don't believe they had the money, resources or time to explore or investigate the long term effects of these resorts on the river. The long term ramifications will be much more costly to the county than the 100 jobs the resorts promise.

By the way, the Metolian resort takes over an hour by car to reach the nearest major Jefferson County city (Madras). Sisters, Redmond, and Bend are all in Deschutes County. In the winter, this drive is closer to over two hours. Who has promised that every worker and company hired will be a Jefferson County resident or Jefferson County company? It seems to me, convenience and logistics would tilt the reality to be the jobs will attract Deschutes County workers and companies.

The (Bend) Source Weekly has a very relevant article - Metolian Resorts’ Impact Is More Than Minimal at http://www.tsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4377&Itemid=66

There is a typographical error in the penultimate paragraph. It should read: "It is telling that the developer has not applied for a right to divert the seasonal stream, but has applied for a groundwater right for two wells. The developer has repeatedly claimed groundwater will not be used and yet they have started the process to gain the right to use groundwater from wells. They say one thing do another." (From the original report on which the Source article was based.)

Like the Metolius, Lake Tahoe in California was once in a pristine condition. It was once so highly thought of that some people wanted it to become a national or state park. It no longer can make the claim of being pristine, and it is unlikely anyone would consider it becoming a national park. The lake and the surrounding land have been degraded considerably with development being one of the major factors in the decline of its ecology and environment despite the best efforts of people seeking to protect them. The once brilliant clarity of the water in the lake is no more with the intrusion of algae and silt.

Oregon can't afford to make the same mistake with the Metolius River that Californians made with Lake Tahoe. Do what you can to ensure complete protection for this Oregon asset.

Which politicians were paid off?

I love the metolius, what can we do to save it from the developers? How can we stop the corrupt politicians?

Everybody should understand how the planning process in Jefferson County works:

First the developer comes in and explains where they want to subdivide and the Commissioners explain that they are sorry that they couldn't approve it yesterday.

Then they spend the rest of the afternoon trying to figure out how they can increase residenial density in farm land.

Then they plan some speeches about how the state ignores them.

In one meeting they approved a huge Measure 37 claim for subdivision of ag land that would have TWICE- yes TWICE the housing of the major city Madras. This is near the ghost town of Ashwood perilously close to the John Day River.

Some of the posters have stated or quoted: "Jefferson County commissioners have publicly stated over and over that they are the poorest county in our state."

One primary reason Jefferson County has such high poverty figures is because it includes the poverty on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Indian Reservation (who oppose "The Metolian.") Another is the high number of Hispanics, largely undocumented. This resort is at the Southern most end of the county and entirely cut off from the population center. If one were to factor out these groups Jefferson County wouldn't be that much different than anywhere else.

The economy for the rest of the population is such a mess largely because the local leaders have relied on the real estate boom and the nearly vacant new state prison to the exclusion of any form of sustainable or locally based economic development (except for Warm Springs). The Chamber of Commerce celebrates a big victory when the land a movie crew for a couple of weeks who have selected the site because of a tacky motel. They all hope that a new string of fast food chain restaurants will lure the wealthy yuppies on their way to Bend or Sunriver to stop and buy a subdivision lot. Honestly it's one of the biggest inferiority and penis envy complexes ever witnessed.

PS: Now you tell me don't you know when the leader deserts the ship that's a signal to those with blind amibition and lack of fortitude that it is safe for them to abandon the cause as well. That's why they call them "leadership" positions.

John Silvertooth writes: "When future generations look back this session will look like a collection of maggots scouring the final bits of flesh off the bones of Oregon."

Exactly the kind of bile and stupid hyperbole that minimizes opponents' effectiveness.

On process, opponents of development around the state use the land use system/process to stop developments or to force major changes in them. The idea that the process is only OK if it stops development is wrong-headed; if you don't like Goal 2 and Goal 5, then lobby for the legislature to remove the possibility of resort exceptions.

"Which politicians were paid off?"

It might be easier to answer which politicians were NOT paid off. Almost all people who interact with others to make some sort of deal are bribed, albeit legally, in one way or another. A wise person once said that if someone gives another a gift and that gift changes their relationship it is a bribe. The gift can be as benign as a boost to one's ego or just some funny joke. Lobbyists are more likely to add something more tangible.

About three or four years ago a former Congressman was on a television program. If I recall correctly it was C-Span. He spoke about going to Congress with the thought of being an honest and upstanding representative. He also mentioned that he knew others who joined at the same time with similar intentions, but he soon discovered that it didn't take long for them to be compromised no matter how much they hated it and themselves for it.

I recall one illustration he gave. He was trying to raise funds for re-election and had a meeting with a lobbyist. The lobbyist sat down across a table from the Congressman without saying a word. He reached into his brief case for a checkbook and laid it open on the table without saying anything. Then the lobbyist asked the Congressman what his position was on a certain issue he was concerned with. The message was clear and legal - but corrupt. If I recall correctly, that was the last time the Congressman could bring himself to run for office.

I just came into this, a bit late, but want to respond to insider's early posts near the top. Insider, you have to remember that the Dutch Pacific Group pulled themselves out of negotiations in, I think, March. You can't negotiate with someone when they won't engage. So perhaps there are amendments that would have worked, but they eliminated any chance of finding them by being unwilling to go back to the table.

On grandfathering in projects, if you were an informed insider you'd know that the proposals that are being banned aren't even projects, there's not even applications in. They don't even have an ordinance in place to allow applications. So there's nothing to grandfather. Someone else already made that point but it's worth making again.

And just in case there is any lingering doubt, M49 is available as a remedy.

You may have a beat on the politics here, then again maybe not, but it doesn't seem you know the guts of this issue very well at all.

I just read this New York Times article (yes, central Oregon made the NYT) and could only think that once it is built, it might just sit. Empty promises and broken dreams. No revenue for the county, no homeowner fees to mitigate through the Metolian Capital Fund. Just a parcel of developed land and a compromised Oregon treasure for speculation. Once a destination resort is built, there is no "rewind" if it doesn't work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/18oregon.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Carla says: 'Seriously alcatross...that's what you're going to bring here?'

I consider it very on-topic. And other people have made similar comments about the nearly irrational tone of criticism here - the point is made.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 18, 2009 3:43:37 PM

has a point.

alcatross, is that an irrational statement?

Is it irrational to say the no vote on the bill was a bill contrary to the legacy of Tom McCall?

Is there an unwritten law somewhere that no matter how admired a person was, after a cutoff date nowhere specified we are not allowed to talk about that person's legacy anymore? If so, where did you hear of that unwritten law, who propounded it, and when?

This is too weird. My Dad called me to say Rep. Clem was on the Lars Larson radio show on Thursday and he said that Clem drove to the Metolius River to rip down Senator Johnsons barbed wire fence that goes ACROSS the river. I told him that he is wrong, she would not have a fence across this river, but it must be the fence that keeps people on the path to view the headwaters. He said that he did not misunderstand? A fence across the river??? I thought it was a wild and scenic river. When I looked the bill up on the oregonian's bill tracker it lists Rep. Clem as voting "NO". He has some balls voting the way he did then trying to vandalize the Johnson's property who have given us all access to the headwaters. Has he lost his mind? Does anyone know if someone can post the audio clip from today's Lars program?

Fence Breaker--this is legislative 101 and I think I explained this to someone elsewhere on BO or another blog.

It is in the legislative rules that if something fails by one vote, an advocate of the bill can "change my vote from Aye to Nay and serve notice of possible reconsideration" using those exact words. That buys a day, and if that one vote can't be rounded up in that day (someone out sick or whatever) then the motion can be made for the bill to be tabled until sufficient votes are found.

I was there for the debate on the bill. The bill had 30 AYE votes including Clem, the carrier of the bill. He then said he was changing his vote ---and whatever the Oregonian says, the official legislative bill tracking system says what I saw happen:

06/16 (H) Clem changed vote from "aye" to "nay" and served notice of possible reconsideration.

Say what you will about this vote, but don't try to tell those of us who were there that what we saw didn't happen because of what someone read somewhere.

Carla. You and I am afraid BlueOregon have completely jumped the shark.

The Johnson property does have a barbed wire fence across the entire river. They can do that because when Sen Hatfield put together the National Wild and Scenic River legislation, at the request of the Johnsons, he started at the boundary at thier property line. While that legislation covers many rivers in several states, this is the only exemption of the kind. The headwaters of the Metolius are not part of the Wild and Scenic River protection and have none of the protections that come with that legislation. It is however covered by the Oregon designation, but not the federal one, which is the one most people refer too.

The Metolius River unlike the Oregon beach which its often compared to as importance along with the Gorge has never been declared "navigable". The bed and banks of the Metolius are owned by the private property owners along it, while those other rivers are owned by the State of Oregon. You would think that would have been part of this legislation, making sure the very river all of this protection is built around would include public ownerhship of the bed and banks. Of course this issue came up two session ago, Sen Johnson asked for an exemption for the Metolius so that it would not be part of a bill to make the river public...it does make you wonder.

I purchased the ralph lauren polo t-shirt for my friend as a gift and he was SO excited he wore it the very next day. When I asked him about how many compliments he received he just grinned. Apparently everyone loved it!

While it's such a great shirt, just be such not to over wear it!

What's a good hulu video

This is ridiculous! I just sat and watched the Oregon House Dems pass SB 519 a landmark achievement for Oregon's workers. The Oregon environmental movement is quickly setting themselves up to be the pro-lifers of the progressive movement. Idealouges that refuse to compromise and turn every vote into a litmus test.

Posted by: Laborgurl | Jun 19, 2009 11:35:59 AM

What does 519 have to do with this issue? I'm glad the minority report failed because I suspect many would have looked at a ballot referral and asked why we pay legislators if they refer such stuff to the ballot.

I am thrilled that 519 passed. But the only relationship between 519 and the environment is that under 519 no employer could pull people off their work duties to listen to a presentation on one side or the other of the Metolious vote.

FYI, there are people who are proud of the McCall/Straub legacy who are not members of OLCV or any other environmental group. These are people who believe in the McCall slogan "Keep Oregon, Oregon".

Perhaps some people complaining about the Area of Critical State Concern would not have voted for either McCall or Straub. But to say that designation has not been around since they were in politics and was somehow pulled out of a hat or whatever is ridiculous.

For those of you who wonder why McCall is so revered more than a quarter century after his death, I have a quote from one of his famous speeches. Use the link if you want to read or see more about it.

Back when McCall and Straub were alive, philosophical debates were not always partisan, and it was possible to use strong language to talk about substance. Too much debate these days seems not only shallow but sometimes vitriol for the sake of vitriol.

Here is that quote:

http://www.onethousandfriendsoforegon.org/resources/mccall.html

But there is a shameless threat in our environment and to the whole quality of our life and that is the unfettered despoiling of our land. Coastal condomania, sagebrush subdivisions and the ravenous rampage of suburbia, here in the Willamette Valley, all threaten to mock Oregon's status as the environmental model of this nation.

We're dismayed that we have not stopped misuse of the land, which is our most valuable finite natural resource. Umbrage at blatant disrespect for sound planning is not taken just here in Salem, because less than a month ago for example, Jefferson's County Commissioners appealed to me for a moratorium on subdivisions in that county, because the speculators, the speculators, have outrun local capacity for rational control.

"I want my vote back" hit the nail on the head! I was there too and it was infuriating, disgusting, sad.. and now to learn that some of the offending 5 Dems didn't even read the bill and were vote trading for things that will soon be forgotten.

I hope that at least one of them acquires some cajones and changes their vote next week to YES! For that they will be long remembered as one of the heroes along with Brian Clem that saved a precious unique area that thousands enjoy in its natural state and will for generations to come. Do we want to look like Aspen or other places ruined by greed over here? Surely there are plenty of other places in Oregon that would love a TRUE eco resort in their back yards.

In the end, the Reps and lobbyists must live with themselves and their actions. Metolius supporters have done all in their power to preserve a piece of nature for ALL to enjoy. Too bad our Reps don't listen to the majority of the people.

"The Oregon environmental movement is quickly setting themselves up to be the pro-lifers of the progressive movement. Idealouges (sic) that refuse to compromise and turn every vote into a litmus test."

There are times to compromise and times to not compromise. When is a judgment call. The Metolius is in a pristine condition that should not be degraded for any reason, especially for the financial gain of people whose only interest is making many bucks and moving on to plunder another choice location. If people were offended by some idiot drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, would they be "quickly setting themselves up to be the pro-lifers" of the arts community?

Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't compromise with Bull Connor and the KKK to settle for a seat in the middle of the bus. Nelson Mandela didn't compromise with South Africa's apartheid racists even though it got him a death sentence. The U.S. Army didn't compromise at the Battle of the Bulge during World War II.

Californians compromised on development in Lake Tahoe. Its water is no longer pristine and the area is becoming tackier each year. Highway US50 in South Lake Tahoe is often like a parking lot. No one speaks of that area with the sense of admiration that people did forty and fifty years ago. Is that what some people are willing to compromise for on the Metolius?

Thank you very much!