Thanks, I'll be following you.

The bill is going down. 30 to 29. 31 votes are required to pass it

You wonder where all the money has gone? Clearly, you haven't followed land use at the local level, where pre-applications, applications, environmental impact statements and other red tape will cost you all kinds of money before putting a single stick on the ground.

Carla- It is Rep. Bill Garrard. Fred Girod is a Senator.

Insider:

The bill will pass with 31.

So, Kari, do you question my Insider information now? :)

BTW, Rep. Betty Komp would have been a NO if she was present.

D "no"s:

Barker Barton Galizio Matthews Hunt

Hunt is a disgrace to Oregon- It was the last House Speaker that killed similiar bill last session- dear Merkley.

If the Democrats can't do this they don't deserve a majority.

Disgraceful.

John Silvertooth Antelope City Council Antelope, Or.

GALIZIO! ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME??????? :(

Jefferson Co. unemployment is so high because of the failure of real estate to sustain it! It has no destination resorts because honestly developers want something closer to Bend and with less poverty in the neighborhood.

All that the Jefferson Co. Commission does is whine about how the state ignores them.

One of the major economic actors in the county the Warm Springs Confederated supported this bill- of course they have a long term perspective unlike the real estate agent commissioners who only want a quick fee- they never met a subdivision they didn't like or a resource they wouldn't jeopardize for a dime.

Jefferson County is a planning disaster. Crooked River Ranch is a thorn in the side of the County and this is the original sage brush subdivision decried by Tom McCall- the vaunted Yarrow suddivisions in Madras have only sold litterally a few units and lots- roads and sewers to no where. Vacant and dismal. They have another land use disaster brewing at Three Rivers- a survivalist type residential development design for recreation but quickly populated full time and they don't even have electric service or running water.

Planning for Jefferson Count means planning to have a beer after the meeting.

Go back to whatever crappy state you came from Larry Galizio! Out. Of. My. State.

I am shocked and saddened that Galizio and Barker decided to vote against protecting one of Oregon's true treasures. The pile of anti-environment votes this session continues to grow. I expect this from conservative districts, but this is starting to get unreal.

If I remember correctly, many of these elected officials were proud to campaign on the environment in 2008. I hope in 2010 we are not too quick to forget how they performed in the line of duty.

It was the last House Speaker that killed similiar bill last session- dear Merkley.

Mr. Silvertooth... while your concerns are well-taken, it should be noted for the record that then-Speaker Jeff Merkley actually co-SPONSORED the Metolius protections in 2007 (Senate Bill 30).

Merkley was always supportive, unless you've got some information I'm not aware of (which is certainly possible!).

I am disappointed in Dave Hunt. When you can't count on the leader to stick with his party on a crtical vote, you have a problem. How does he expect get his members in the line for the next critical vote? Not by following his example!

It also makes you wonder what interest groups have his ear. The groups that prevailed in this vote don't strike me as the type that I'd want to be pals with a key figure in the Democratic leadership.

GO BACK TO LA GALIZIO! GO THE HELL AWAY!!!

Andy B:

This was not a caucus priority. Hunt has no responsibility to "stick with his party" on a vote like this.

"You wonder where all the money has gone? Clearly, you haven't followed land use at the local level, where pre-applications, applications, environmental impact statements and other red tape will cost you all kinds of money before putting a single stick on the ground."

No matter how much the developers put into a project it will always be less than the ultimate costs that evolve, such as sewers, roads and other infrastructure components.

The Metolius and Camp Sherman areas are officially in Jefferson County, but from an access point of view they are more a part of Deschutes County. You would have a hell of a time driving from Madras to the Metolius without driving along US20/OR126.

Wow. I'm very dissapointed with this. The Metolius is a critical piece of Oregon's heritage and needs protection. I'm a little bit enraged at a couple of these folks and will be dropping money on a primary opponent.

"2:11: Rep Clem rises again to close. Unemployment in Jefferson Co is actually 16%. Next door, Crook Co is at 19% and they have destination resorts. They don't solve the problem."

Duh!

Nobody in Jefferson or Crook County has ever said destination resorts solve unemployment. These projects are not driven by their employment, but their infusion of tax dollars. In case you aren't aware, in 2007 Brasada Ranch surpassed Les Schwab tires as the largest taxpayer into the Crook County coffers. (Obviously, this will decline due to real estate values - but the tax benefit to the county still remain extremely high.)

To say there are no positive impacts here (to health and human services, education, and all the other services a county provides) is outright stupidity.

Oh, and Carla, please get your facts straight. There is only ONE operational destination resort in Crook County. The others have been put on hold due to economic conditions, or are just now working their way through the land use process. Your words suggest that there are numerous resorts operating in Crook County with no substantial economic impact - which is just plain wrong.

OK, the house didn't pass this bill. Some kind of manuevering by clem gets it back for further reconsideration later this week? How does that work? Will the democrat leadership begin arm twisting or 'barter' for votes by promising great economic development packages for K Falls, Burns or Ontario?

You folks sure get mad when your own party doesn't give you what you want. Sound like a bunch of sore losers especially when your guys have raised taxes & fees out of sight already. Boo-Hoo

It is Brent Barton (and Larry Galizio, I believe) of Bus Project backing fame. This is incredibly lame. I guess Brent and Larry don't care about the "environment E." I hope these guys get to go visit the Metolius before 5000 toilets are flushed into it over and over...

Brent Barton voted against the Metolius protections and his law firm represents the developers who are planning a resort there. Could be a problem. This was not a partisan issue, it was an Oregon issue. Shame on Barton for doing what was in his client's best interest instead of Oregon's.

If five Dems voted against, is it fair to say that there might be a teeny bit of merit to the opposition argument? Or is exalted leader Hunt simply in the pocket of the "sleazy developers."

And it'll make me think twice about giving money to Bus Project candidates based on their (the Bus')word anymore. I thought these people were screened. I guess it is just lip service paid to get doors and $$$ come campaign season.

If Clem doesn't get this turned around then I believe historically this will be the major black mark of this session, and in a larger context, an even larger black mark in Oregon conservation history.

Way to go jackasses.

slowdownthehype |-

Matthews district is no longer a tough one - Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 10 points.

slowdownthehype |-

Matthews district is no longer a tough one - Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 10 points.

Barton declared his conflict of interest, as he is legally required to do. Legislators cannot abstain from voting--they have to cast a vote. He took the vote that he felt was best. You should let him explain that vote before castrating him here.

Kurt, for as long as I have lived in Salem (decades) there has been a House rule where the carrier or any other advocate of a losing bill had the right to change vote from Aye to Nay and serve notice of possible reconsideration. That gives them something like 24 hours to find a needed vote. Nothing sneaky--happens every session.

Brian Clem's name should be capitalized.

Slowdown, what you are saying is that OIA is powerful in the Metro counties?

Barker--Beaverton Barton's district -- SE Portland and parts of Clackamas County. Galizio-Wash. & Mult. Co. Matthews-Gresham Hunt-Gladstone, Johnson City

All these years we have heard that the Metro area was the fount of all political wisdom, and now we are supposed to accept it is a hotbed of OIA so we shouldn't be upset at these no votes?

Karl, this was not a partisan issue as much as which legislators supported the legacy of Gov. McCall and Straub and which support local planning instead --why, local politics or because nowhere in this state is really of statewide concern?

Cafe: This is why I voted for Measure 65--tired of hearing that the caucus in power RULES and the rest of us are just spectators.

Posted by: Cafe Today | Jun 16, 2009 3:19:08 PM

Andy B:

This was not a caucus priority. Hunt has no responsibility to "stick with his party" on a vote like this. << Whatever happened to "We the People"?

The "bigger picture"? I'll tell you the bigger picture. There has been a push for supermajorities in both chambers. We have that this session, but some are too squeamish to even publicly discuss kicker reform.

Maybe it is time to rethink the way legislators are elected? How's that for big picture?

We've been told for years that the caucus makes all the decisions, and they are wise decisions that should never be questioned. Last night I went to a panel discussion with 2 former candidates in "non-target" districts. They talked about what it was like to run in Marion County.

These men are very open to conversation with the general public, and had they won we could have had a much different legislative session.

What is politics all about in the end? Is it about passing important legislation on all sorts of issues and building coalitions? Is it about whatever the caucus in their private wisdom decides is important and if the rest of us don't like it, tough luck? Is it that someone who cast a tough revenue vote should be excused from a tough vote to protect McCall's legacy?

Perhaps this is why there is a quarter of the electorate refusing to register with a major party.

I see this vote today not as a partisan vote, but as a vote between Tom McCall's legacy on one side and the antithesis of McCall's vision--local land use planning--on the other side.

I support McCall's legacy. I campaigned for his re-election. I was very proud of Brian Clem, Jefferson Smith, Ben Cannon.

My suggestion to those who voted no--go to a local meeting (county party, Rotary or local civic group, environmental local group) and explain yourself. "Darned right I support local land use planning over state planning" is a sentiment I disagree with, but it is honest. Don't try to tell anyone you don't want to talk about your vote! Answer questions in person until there are no more questions.

But don't try to snow anyone by saying there was a lobbyist who was tough, or the legislature should never intervene when the Supreme Court is considering an issue, or that the unemployment rate in Jefferson County is 20% and the Metolian Resort is the only way to bring down that rate.

@Sal:

Metolius will not be a campaign issue of any significance.

I don't think any of the Ds who voted "no" did so for political reasons. They think it's bad policy.

I'd be shocked if a single incumbent Dem got successfully primaried in 2010. But go ahead and try, Sal.

I am not defending Barton's vote (when he runs for reelection he should be pressed on it but I don't think he should get a challenge over it) but don't go blaming his work at Perkins. Of the three legislators connected to Perkins, Barton has the least financial interest and he was the only one to vote against the bill. Sen. Bonamici's husband is a senior partner at Perkins, and she voted for the bill, and Rep. Garrett is a more senior associate and he voted for the bill (also, I would noted that Barton's is a small business litigator, I doubt he is working with the relevant clients). I would note three things as alternative explanations:

1. Barton has been consistent in opposing these bills, he was one of a handful of Democrats that voted against the destination resorts bill.

2. His district is very conservative and majority Republican.

3. Dave Hunt is his carpool partner.

Well Cafe Today, so nice of you to be dismissive of what, as a lifelong Oregonian, I consider a sacred place. Just a regular middle class mom, I may go sit in front of the backhoe. And Mr. Galizio, don't be showing up at my door for another piano serenade of God Bless America. I ain't playing Mr. L A.

deleting comments now, are we?

You know Galizio, when you have javelin/music moms like me ready to throw down in front of the bulldozers after having played God Bless America for you on their piano, you've got a damned problem.

Wake up Larry.

Chris Lowe you're blaming the bus project for Brent Barton's vote? How about blaming Brent Barton?

Where were all you folks two years ago when this whole precess would have been a slam dunk to stop???? The fat lawyers are loving it. We now have state government against a small county in a power struggle. The Greenridge boys made their intentions known years ago.

I have an idea...why don't we start insisting on litmus tests and insisting on purity on every issue. Those Democrats who dare break with the party line, or caucus leadership, or whatever intellectual construct floats your boat...well, those who dare deviate at all can leave the party of be voted out of it.

And guess what we'll become? We can become the minority party all over again. We built our majorities by becoming a bigger tent than the Republicans. And don't fool yourselves...we rose in strength also because independents turned away from the Republicans because of their ideological purity and arrogance, not because all of a sudden the country became a hotbed of liberalism.

So, let's kick Galizio out. Never mind his leadership on stem cell research advocacy in Oregon. And ignore his courage for voting against bad public policy masked in touch on crime rhetoric. Why don't we just ignore what the ACLU has to say about Galizio. Oh, and that pesky vote last week to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy Oregonians in order to keep our schools open and not push our universities off a cliff...well, that we a insignificant vote that didn't mean anything. And, and let's just pretend he didn't win two tough raises against well backed Republican candidates. All of that doesn't matter, because of one silly little Metolius vote.

Go ahead, Sal and others. Lead our party into the abyss. Oh I forget. You are are an Independent...you rise above petty partisan politics don't you.

Posted by: Cafe Today | Jun 16, 2009 6:46:55 PM

Barton declared his conflict of interest, as he is legally required to do. Legislators cannot abstain from voting--they have to cast a vote. He took the vote that he felt was best. You should let him explain that vote before castrating him here.

So, let him explain it. I'd like to hear his reasons.

I don't think any of the Ds who voted "no" did so for political reasons. They think it's bad policy.

I'm calling bullshit on that. There are always political reasons. Don't try to play smartass insider and then try that line.

Cafe Today,

I believe Sal referred to third-party progressives running in the general election, not progressive Democrats running in primaries.

"All I'm saying is that if I were in a swing district, I would want to add that into my political calculations to the extent that political considerations are in any way determinative on some of these votes. "

How does one define a "swing" district? The famous "R to D ratio"? The fact that a supposedly "doesn't have a chance" candidate (like you, Sal) scared the living daylights out of an incumbent?

A really smart legislator or candidate goes door to door and has town hall meetings to find out what the issues are. Not what pollsters say the issues are, but voters.

Years ago there was a wonderful Republican legislator who dared to go against the wishes of Speaker Larry Campbell. Why? Because of all the conversations in campaign events and going door to door, it was the single issue which most often came up that election year. THAT is keeping in touch with the wishes of the district, and showing political spine.

I don't believe that is what happened here. I believe that the word craven applies in this situation (look it up if you don't know the meaning). I believe high powered lobbying by what Tom McCall once called "wastrals of the land" defeated his legacy.

I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election.

I don't have to listen to opportunists say things about political considerations. I once saw a freshman in his first re-election in one of those forums for every local legislative candidate, and there was a question about an issue (maybe capital punishment --this was early 1980s) on the ballot which one poll had 75% support. Some otherwise intelligent candidates incl. a Dem. I was supporting said bland things like "75% ? I'll have to take a look at that!".
The freshman said "I believe that is wrong, I have always believed that is wrong, you can vote me out of office and I will still believe that is wrong!". He's had a long and distinguished career and that stand gained him more support than he lost.

There's an old saying, "are you a man or a mouse"? I think this was one of those votes.

And anyone saying a vote for this bill would have killed land use planning was sold a bill of goods. Seems to me that Reps. Steigler and Jefferson Smith smashed those arguments for anyone who was listening to them.

But maybe the no voters were listening to a lobbyist instead. Perhaps those candidates should invite that lobbyist to their district to explain the vote. And if voters don't like the lobbyist, they don't have to support the legislator! Years ago there was a Democratic politician running for higher office who had been discovered to have spoken one way and voted another way. When he was finally confronted by someone who wouldn't take blather for an answer, he finally admitted, "Well, I showed it to these lobbyists and they said it was OK to vote yes".

Why do we vote for candidates? To represent US? To vote their caucus party line? To choose the lobbyists who will make decisions for them, as if citizens don't matter?

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.

Carla, that's exactly the point. Someone can spend absurd amounts of money in good faith jumping through the hoops at the local level for a project, and then have this state's ruling liberal elite try and wave a wand and make it go away. That's one of many downsides to a land use system that makes housing unaffordable for working families and starves local governments of revenue for basic services like libraries and police patrols. And you people wonder why we almost lead the nation in unemployment.... But go ahead and scream. By the way, that's what children do when they don't get their way. Try holding your breath while you're at it...

thank you

Interesting that folks west of the mountain are willing to destroy the wild and wonderful parts east of the mountain. Has anyone else noticed this divide? The reverse of nimby, it's ok in your back yard.

Gee, I guess that is why there are Deschutes County residents upset at the Metolious vote. Or does Morg know for a fact that all who live E. of the Cascades agree with the legislative vote after discussing it with them? Was Rep. Steigler elected by voters west of the mountains? Check out her speech on this bill.

Morg, do you even know where Tom McCall grew up or the location of the ranch under the rimrock? Or who wrote a book by that name? McCall didn't grow up in Portland, so calling this a vote on McCall's legacy doesn't mean it is a vote simply about Portlanders.

Of course, if one is unfamiliar with Oregon history....

You seem to be implying that all the money spent on the development went elsewhere, but don't back it up with facts or documentation. The "liberal ruling elite" in this case refers to the legislature, which certainly fits that description. My comments about the state's land use laws were about exactly that, not this particular project. I never said that this project had anything to do with affordable housing. Nice try at misdirection, though. It's amusing how you dismiss the minimum wage jobs that the resort would create when you've stated in prior posts that tourism-related jobs are just fine for timber-dependent communities. Which is it? I can understand your frustration, as having supermajorities in both chambers apparently still wasn't enough to put the brakes on this. Feel free to continue screaming. That's what my infant son does when he doesn't get his way...

Metolius developers Ponderosa Land and Cattle Company and Dutch Pacific Resources paid a total of $21,500 in campaign contributions in 2007-08 to elected Oregon House candidates. Rep. Gene Whisnant (R-53, Deschutes Co.) received the highest level of contributions of any state legislative candidate -- $4,500, followed by Dave Hunt (D-40, Clackamas)who received $3,500. Rep. John Huffman received $3,000 (R-59,The Dalles). All three voted ‘no’ June 16 on HB 3298. Seven other state representatives also received campaign contributions ($9,000 total) from one or both of these developers and voted ‘no’ on HB 3298. Six other state representatives received small campaign contributions (total of $5,000) from one or the other but still had the guts to support HB 3298. Rep. Judy Stiegler (D-54, Bend) was the only Central Oregon representative who voted in favor of 3298 and she did not receive a dime from these developers. The final tally is: 9 who received contributions ($16,500) voted against the bill and 6 who received contributions ($5,000) voted for the bill. Does money buy votes?

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!

It's clear, Carla, that you have such an emotional investment in this issue that you are well beyond any semblance of reason or objectivity. I can respect that. The closest I've come to this issue was in March, at the Dorchester conference. I just happened to be sitting next to one of the Jefferson County Commissioners during dinner and the tent show (which was actually funny this year). So I turned to him and said, "So...tell me about Metolius." At that point, steam began coming out of his ears, and didn't stop for at least another ten minutes. I could personally care less if anything ever gets developed around Metolius, but think this sends a bad signal to anyone even thinking about investing in Oregon.

It's clear, Carla, that you have such an emotional investment in this issue that you are well beyond any semblance of reason or objectivity. I can respect that. The closest I've come to this issue was in March, at the Dorchester conference. I just happened to be sitting next to one of the Jefferson County Commissioners during dinner and the tent show (which was actually funny this year). So I turned to him and said, "So...tell me about Metolius." At that point, steam began coming out of his ears, and didn't stop for at least another ten minutes. I could personally care less if anything ever gets developed around Metolius, but think this sends a bad signal to anyone even thinking about investing in Oregon.

Loved the comment by Posted by: Outsider | Jun 18, 2009 4:49:20 PM

And remember, there are members of the public who lived through the McCall / Straub years.

And saying anyone who claims a no vote on this bill was a vote against the McCall/ Straub legacy means they "have such an emotional investment in this issue " won't change their minds.

McCall was for statewide land use planning to protect the jewels of Oregon for posterity even if that meant making the local county unhappy. Period.

McCall quote:

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

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.

We're in dire need of state land use policy, dire need of newsubdivision law and new standards for planning and zoning by the counties and cities of our state.

The interests of Oregon for today and in the future must be protected from the grasping wastrels of the land. We must respect another truism – that unlimited and unregulated growth, leads inexorably to a lowered quality of life.

ITS A SAD DAY WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IGNORES OREGON LAWS TO FURTHER A CAUSE SOME DEMS LIKE - PUSHED BY OWNERS WHO ARE OREGON LEGISLATURES.