Yes on Measure 34: Timber Companies try to buy "our" State Forests.
By Mari Anne Gest of Portland, Oregon, who describes herself as a "native Oregonian that hasn't met a fight yet that scared me off just because 'they' have more money than 'we' do." She is on the staff of the Tillamook 50/50 campaign.
Ballot Measure 34 is about restoring balance to the management of our state forests that "we" the citizens of Oregon own. Oregonians lay claim to only 3% of all the forestland in Oregon. The rest is owned by private timber or by the federal government.
Oregon law requires that our state forests be managed for the "Greatest Permanent Value" of the citizens of Oregon, not special interest groups. The current state plan will log over 85% of our state forests, leaving little to protect our drinking water and fish and wildlife habitat. 1 in 10 Oregon families get their drinking water from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. The problem is our laws are too vague and easily manipulated by interested parties.
The legislature already found that the state violated the plan recently by attempting to make a back room deal with the timber industry as reported on the front page of the Oregonian in April. Measure 34 restores the integrity of the public process and allows citizens to have a say in how their state forests are managed, rather than just special interest groups that profit from cutting the forests.
Two generations ago-after a logging caused fire called the Tillamook Burn, the people of Oregon, paid for and replanted, the Tillamook Forest. Tom McCall declared it a State Forest in 1973. Today, that legacy is in danger. A diverse group of coastal businesses, conservationists, fisherman, and recreational users have joined together and put Measure 34 on the ballot to protect this living monument. Measure 34 requires that the state balance as equally beneficial, protection of drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation with timber production in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests.
The current state plan benefits special interests - the timber industry - and they are paying to keep it that way. Timber has raised $2.3 million to defeat Measure 34 which balances all the values important to Oregonians. Some look at this forest with dollar signs, some look at it as a source of drinking water, some see only the wild salmon. We see it all. We can balance sustainable logging with protections for drinking water, salmon, recreation and tourism for everyone. Vote Yes on Measure 34 and tell Timber Barons our State Forests are not for sale. Visit www.tillamook5050.org to learn more.
|
Oct. 02, 2004
Posted in guest column. |
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
Oct 2, '04
Hi Folks....
My, albeit limited, knowledge of the Tillamook and Clatsop Forests suggests that they were designed to be and are working forests for timber production. My trips through the area lead me to believe that despite its proximity to Portland it has yet to become overly trendified as compared to the central coast.
Many rural residents lack the entrepreneurial, social and intellectual skills necessary to adapt to changing economic environments. Decreasing logging, hauling and mill jobs while increasing opportunities for recreation, real estate and baristas does little to help dislocated natural resource workers. It amy well be true that the long term value of water, fisheries and recreation outweigh the immediate value of timber harvest and processing in the agreggate. Unfortunately families don't live in the agreggate, they live paycheck to paycheck in the immediate.
Capitalism is based on creative destruction and renewal. I don't expect profit making business to consider the negative consequences of their decisions although it's refreshing when they do. I do, however, expect NGO's to weigh those consequences. Until the 5050 folks delve more deeply into this aspect I can't vote yes on this initiative.
Also...Is it the intent of the founders of this site for it to be used to merely restate the base areguments of initiative and referenda or is it to be a place for thoughtful discussion. I was dismayed that this post seemed to be little more than a pop-up for the 5050 site.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
3:55 p.m.
Oct 2, '04
Pat, you ask about our motivations here at BlueOregon. I'll speak for myself, as the primary mover behind the site.
My motivation is to generate meaningful dialogue amongst progressives. While Mari Anne does work for the 50/50 campaign, I do think Mari Anne's piece should provoke some thoughtful posts in response -- and in fact, it already has. Yours.
BlueOregon is an experiment, in politics, journalism, and even among blogs. We've been live for just over two months now, and it's working better than I could have expected. Of course, we're always looking to improve things - and I appreciate any input and suggestions we can get. To avoid making this thread a suggestion box, I suggest making suggestions here.
(Incidentally, it was Mari Anne who originally contacted me six weeks ago - and suggested the idea of guest columns.)
Oct 2, '04
Thanks for an insightful piece and thanks to the people of the 50/50 initiative! A mandate like this is a long time coming! I am a full time fishing guide and I have been SHUT OUT of 5 of our 6 wild fish fisheries due to season closures! The salmon populations that are doing the worst require the longest periods of time in fresh water ecosystems. Our fresh water habitats are in disrepair and DEQ's web site proves it. All 7 of our Tillamook County streams violate tempature standards for the successful spawning and rearing of wild salmonids. We need larger riparian buffer zones and a forest that will be managed for fish production along with timber production. Our industry depends on it and before I lose the last run of wild fish to fish on, I will vote for Measure 34 and I hope you will too if you value wild fish on the Northern Oregon Coast!
Thanks for a great web site! Bob Rees
Oct 2, '04
Howdy blue oregon, thanks for the information on Measure 34. I have read a few opinions regarding Measure 34 and it never fails to surprise me that most of the folks who have an opinion against this measure seem not to have read it. I hope that Pat Hayes will read the measure at www.tillamook5050.org and reconsider his position. Under Measure 34 family wage jobs will be created in the woods doing restoration work and harvesting timber, local hiring is preferred and an apprenticeship training program will help develop skilled labor (see section 5).
Please don't insult rural Oregonians by assuming that they don't have what it takes to make their economy better. It seems that they might know something that the valley doesn't because the unemployment levels "out there" are lower than in Portland. Since timber jobs supply less than a few percent of the jobs in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties they must have already figured out how to handle the shift away from a timber dependent economy. Mechanization of harvest and automation of the mills promises to eliminate more jobs than more timber harvests can create, so it makes a lot of sense to protect the recreation, tourism, fishing, construction, financial planning, medical and all the other jobs that benefit from protected areas in our state forests.
A healthy and diverse economy makes for strong communities. While I don't expect the businesses who are making a mint on our state forests to vote yes, I do think the rest of Oregon's voters might want a say about what happens in our state forests. I’ll be voting for clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and Measure 34 on Nov. 2nd.
12:03 p.m.
Oct 3, '04
From the "independent restoration science team" to the requirement that all work on the Tillamook be considered public work and requiring prevailing wages, to the requirement for local contractors and the provisions for an apprenticeship program, Measure 34 is a progressive, thoughtful proposal that deserves the support of Oregon progressives.
Why self-proclaimed progressives are either silent or opposed to the measure continues to amaze me. Measure 34 gives progressives something to vote FOR on a ballot filled with too many things to vote against. Measure 34 gives progressives (and the hard core Naderite Greens) a local issue to get people to the polls with "yes" and "vote for change" on their minds - all necessary and part of the message to also get them to vote for Kerry-Edwards.
Oct 3, '04
Hi Folks...Chuck brings up a succinct, well-made argument in favor that begs rebuttal. For me and for a significant number of "normally considered to be" progressive folks the issue comes down to trust. Those of us who live and work in rural communities have been on the receiving end of a long series of unmet promises. I had originally typed the word "broken", but changed it to "unmet" because I believe that proponents of revision to traditional natural resource economies are sincere but unwilling to follow through once their initial objectives are achieved.
The requirements for fair wages, local contracting, sound forest management principles, etc. will be turned over to an unaccountable bureaucracy. Consider stewardship initiatives. They have all the right feel good attributes but, as developed and managed by USDA, they remain contentious long drawn-out processes with minimal benefit.
Another concern that we have is the seemingly unending procession of increasingly rigid participants claiming stakeholder status. I have been involved in numerous negotiations that have achieved consensus only to be later derailed by some individual or organization whose often marginal interest was not addressed to their picayune satisfaction. More and more frequently the wacky private property/RS 2477 folks are as involved as the huggers and sitters.
My skepticism comes from my reluctance to disrupt a process that seems to work ok for the allure of a process that has no track record. I don't dislike the principle, I'm unconvinced of your abilities to make it happen.
4:17 p.m.
Oct 3, '04
I was a leader of Friend of Abiqua, the first group to ever sue the Oregon Department of Forestry over a timber sale. ODF countered with a suit against us - a "strategic lawsuit against plaintiffs" - or SLAP. We negotiated a settlement in the case, and one of the issues was that the Dept. would finally develop rules for the statutory standard of managing forests for greatest permanent value.
Measure 34 comes from the Oregon Department of Forestry and the Forestry Board breaching the public's trust with their management of the Tillamook. And it puts into statute the protections for jobs and wages - making them enforceable. Don't try to let problems with the way the federal government handles stewardship matters taint this Oregon solution to an Oregon issue. The reason this initiative was proposed was because the current process does not work.
6:49 p.m.
Oct 3, '04
Some serious work still needs to be done in getting labor and environmentalists to work together. Clearly, the drafters of Tillamook 50/50 worked hard and thought carefully in their attempt to get good jobs to be part of the plan -- and unlike Pat, I think that bureaucracy CAN be held accountable.
Yet the language is not enough. The Oregon AFL-CIO Board, many of whom probably DID read the measure, and the rest of whom at least understand the measure better than most, voted (I believe unanimously) to opposed Measure 34.
They argue: "Measure 34 will cost the state and local governments $21-$30 million a year in timber revenues and cancel as many as 2,650 family-wage jobs expected from harvests managed to preserve habitat for critical species."
I wish Measure 34 would pass. But until we work VERY hard to get everyone in the progressive community on board with an idea beforehand, we're not likely to be able to withstand the timber industry dollars pouring money to move voters.
Organized labor didn't buy in. Organized labor, like it or not, is the voice of good jobs. If someone at the campaign wants to explain the behinds-the-scene effort with organized labor to me, I'd love to hear it.
That's part of the power of working on a bill, instead of an initiative. New interests and ideas can be added into the bill as it moves along. Of course, that's part of the drawback, too.... :)
Oct 3, '04
Hi Folks...
Chuck, in your post you point out what I believe to be a significant challenge. You reached a settlement agreement with ODF and now have to propose this initiative in order to force them off the dime. I don't mean to denigrate folks but in my experience a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, ad ifinitum. If this initiative passes I suspect you'll be tied up in litigation for years.
Evan, [for full disclosure I am a member of the Machinist Union, a former member of the Federation of Teachers and a former AFL-CIO staffer. My wife is a member of OEA and a former member of the Federation of Teachers] I can't speak to the insider discussions inside the Oregon AFL-CIO but I can give you a glimpse of our thinking. Consider the labor movement in the US to be reactionary progressives. We will support those initiatives that help our members and our non-member constituency. A universal health plan, overtime, expanded home ownership, better school funding and college money are things that leadership can explain and sell to members.
Although mainstrean green organizations and organized labor are both firmly rooted on concepts of social justice, both have been somewhat factionalized. We in labor are under severe pressure from this administration and from the right wing. With limited exceptions our efforts to organize and regain strength are not going well. Although leadership may well recognize the long term value of 5050, many members do not see 5050 as contributing to their well-being or their community well-being. Granted it is very self serving, but if stae and local government stand to lose multiple millions, who will get the pink slip ?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Oct 3, '04
The reality for us unintellectual, socially inept and unentrepreneuerial residents of Tillamook county is that the county government and school systems will lose 4-6 million dollars in forest trust payments per year if 50/50 passes. The ballot measure provides no compensation for this loss.
So Tillamook County gets to take a kick in the nuts so Portlanders can get a big green warm fuzzy on their twice-yearly drive to Seaside to eat cotton candy. Gimme a break!
50/50 if passed will eventually be held to violate the terms of the Trust that was created when the counties ceded the forests to the State. The Oregon Supreme Court has already upheld the validity of this Trust.
10:58 p.m.
Oct 3, '04
I encourage folks to read the FAQs at www.tillamook5050.org and the measure. And like the folks at www.tillamook5050.org I'd like to see the study and how the jobs loss numbers were calculated. Evan used the numbers - show me the study. In the M34 proponents' FAQs you will see the protections for funding.
The environmental community is certainly guilty of ignoring the jobs issue on too many timber issues over the years, but the Measure 34 gang isn't. They addressed the issue. Sadly, organized labor in Oregon would be hard pressed to show when they have differed from the timber industry on an environmental matter. They have too often bought the industry's hard line. If the measure passes, it may well end up in the courts, but that's hardly reason for the timber industry and their friends to urge people to vote "no," as the plaintiffs will be the timber industry, not the environmentalists.
Federal timber sales were stopped because federal judges found that the US Forest Service did not follow the law (including the Forest Service's own rules making the spotted owl an indicator species for forest health) in managing a public resource. If the Forest Service followed the law timber sales would not have been halted. Put the blame where the blame belongs.
Here, fishing guides and others concerned about the watershed think that the management plan for the Tillamook is ill-advised and have come up with a different way of producing greatest permanent value. The plan has some flexibility and protection for counties and workers. Albeit its not controlled by the timber industry, but they aren't written out of the plan, either.
Oct 4, '04
If this is true, how could anyone vote for this measure in good conscience? Trees over kids?
11:47 a.m.
Oct 4, '04
Trees over kids? That's over the top. We could say -- Timber company profits over clean drinking water for kids? How could anyone vote against this measure in good conscience?
And that would similarly be rhetorically over the top.
The measure is not there to protect trees for their own right or simply meet the recreational desires of yuppie Portlanders -- but rather manage forests to meet a variety of needs, including making sure our species doesn't wipe out other species, protecting clean water, creating good jobs, etc. Whether it's the right balance or not is up for debate.
But the more important part of your posting is the first part: "If this is true..." The measure tries to require equal funding as past levels. I haven't seen anyone really address if this will or won't do it. Here's from the 50/50 web site: "local schools will be held harmless from revenue reductions and timber dollars will be dedicated to the Common School Fund. (See Section 4 (b))
• The ballot measure text states that local public schools in the Washington, Clatsop and Tillamook area are guaranteed not to receive less from timber harvest revenue than received from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests in their 2002/03 budget period.
M-34 guarantees revenue amounts from timber at the 2002/03 level thus, these local schools will receive $6.5 million more than they received this last year.
In 2001/02 these schools received $16.4 million dollars. In 2002/03 they received $18.5 million and in 2003/04 local schools received $11.8 million in timber revenue. This guaranteed level of funding provides additional stability and certainty for these rural schools and helps ease the burden from the State School Fund which makes up shortages that occur in local revenue reductions to schools. This can mean a savings for the State School General Fund.
In addition M-34 provides 5% of timber receipts from the Tillamook and Clatsop for the Common School Fund ($800 million Constitutional Fund) to benefit all of Oregon's schools. The compounding effect of this annual investment of approximately $2.6 million per year will help offset future demands on the state for increased revenue for the State School General Fund."
Can someone enlighten us as to the problems in this formula? It seems as though we might lose a bit of overall state tax money through this, but it wouldn't be targeted on the local counties (?), instead rather creating a new liability for the state that is only partially funded.
Oct 4, '04
4(b) says:
The Oregon Common School Fund shall receive 5% of all timber receipts from the Board of Forestry Lands in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. The local public school districts shall not receive less funding than the revenue represented in their 2002/03-budget period from timber harvests in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests.
I don't understand this second part. Where is the replacement revenue for the schools to come from? The general fund? Won't that just take away from other schools or programs? My fear is that this is just empty language.
Measure 5 had this exact requirement, and that revenue was never replaced. Schools suffered as a result. Without a specific revenue source, what's to stop the same from happening here?
10:27 p.m.
Oct 4, '04
Brett, you're not exactly correct. Measure 5 had that language - and the money WAS replaced. The difference is that the money was replaced using a formula that distributed the funds differently than they had been before Measure 5.
Before M5, school funding was based on local property tax base. Lake Oswego did great, Estacada less well. Under Measure 5, school districts with expensive property base transferred funds to rural, low-value areas. Some places did quite well under Measure 5.
Now, school funding equalization is a worthy goal - but the net effect of measures passed AFTER Measure 5 (the "cut and cap" of 47 and 50, and the placement of the kicker in the constitution, along with more routine tax cuts - plus new spending requirements, like special ed/which are good) led to an overall reduction in school funding.
If we were to raise school funding today statewide, the greatest gains would be seen by poor, rural areas. Unfortunately, those are the very areas that tend to vote AGAINST their own financial interest. Rural folks complain that their communities are being gutted - but they refuse to vote to raise taxes, the bulk of which would flow FROM the metro area TO the rural areas.
So, I'm now convinced - at least in the immediate term - that it may be time to scale back school funding equalization and continue to grow local option funding.
Oct 5, '04
I've never heard a liberal defend Measure 5 before. I still don't see how Measure 34 won't cut funding to local governments without an act of the Legislature taking money from somewhere else to replace revenue.
Oct 7, '04
I appreciate this discussion and I would like to make some clarifications. First of all, I worked for labor for 15 years - both the Oregon School Employees Associatin and SEIU Local 503. When I went to work for this campaign I brought with me the values I hold important - that whatever we do to save the environment, we must not hurt schools nor hurt workers. And that is why the labor provisions are in the measure, the local hiring provision, apprenticeship training and requirement that people be paid a family wage. That is also why we fully fund local schools at the highest level in the recent past. I have always beleived that those in labor, education and those in environmental circles need to not only work together but support each other in our efforts to make Oregon a better place to live, work and play. We spend so much time fighting each other that we often forget we are all on the same side.
The current process that brought us The Tillamook Forest Management Plan that we have today shows the process is broken. Oregon Law requires that these forest be managed for the "Greatest Permanent Value" of the citizens of Oregon. ODF held many public hearings. Over 3,400 comments came in that oppposed the current plan which valued timber production over other values such as clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, etc. Only around 300 public comments supported ODF's plan.
ODF not only ignored public comment but they ignored the scientific review (11 of the 12 Scientists that reviewed the plan) said that the Dept. of Forestry lacks adequate protection for our watersheds and fish and wildlife habitat.
All decision making regarding the Tillamook is made by people with a conflict of interest in determining the Greatest Permanent Value. ODF is building multi-million dollar buildings right now with money from cutting the Tillamook. The government workers are paid with money earned from logging. 6 of the 7 members of the Board of Forestry have ties to the timber industry. Is there any surprise that timber production is the primary use of the forest?
As for Tillamook county, the county commissioners are saying the "sky is falling" but small local businesses in the area disagree. Their number one fear is the more they cut the forest, the more flooding that occurs which closes their businesses. One retiree who moved to the area and bought a home to convert into a bed and breakfast had her dreams eliminated when one day the forest behind her residence was clear-cut. What may be good for the county government may not be good for the citizens of the county. Jobs in Sportsfishing are declining. Why are these jobs less important than timber jobs? Actually the timber companies have mechanized to the point that it doesn't take many workers to log and mill anymore. Only 4% of Oregon's workforce is in wood products. The jobs driving our economy are in recreation and retail. These rural counties benefit from a more diverse economy.
The truth is that Measure 34 is not going to reduce County earnings. In the last 10 years they have harvested on average 116 million board feet a year from the Tillamook and Clatsop. Measure 34 will provide up to 145 million board feet a year according to the State Fiscal Impact Committee. This is not a reduction! But it does reduce timber revenue that is expected from increased harvesting in the Tillamook in the future. Will the sky fall? No. Counties will have a sustainable revenue flow far into the future under Measure 34. The current timber binge is short sighted and will hurt local governments and schools in the long term.
Again, this is the peoples forest. The people of Oregon paid to replant this forest following the Tillamook Burn. It is not a rural forest - it is a state forest! The people of Oregon have the right to weigh in on this issue and determine the greatest permanent value. They restored the damn thing and paid for the trees. What arrogance that some people don't think that voters have the right to vote on the values for which the forests are managed.
Vote Yes on 34 to restore balance!
Oct 7, '04
So you don't contest that the measure will reduce local revenue, but you say it doesn't really matter because forests are more important?
More money will hurt them in the long run? If this is a timber binge, I'd hate to see the purge.
I think you've answered my question: Schools and local government will be hurt. Trees over kids.
Oct 7, '04
I'm sorry if I did not clearly say this: Schools are fully funded under Measure 34! No revenue reduction at all because of Measure 34. None!
As for the county, I explained that they will not recieve a reduction from what they have received on average to date in the past from timber revenue. More money from cutting the entire forest might be good for Tillamook county government coffers to grow and a few timber company profits in the short term but long-term it sacrifices drinking water and jobs for short-term profits.
Oct 9, '04
Mari Anne Gest wrote: "I'm sorry if I did not clearly say this: Schools are fully funded under Measure 34! No revenue reduction at all because of Measure 34. None!"
Ms Gest: Please describe the force of law created by M34 that will immediately produce the replacement revenue. Does M34 bind the legislature to produce these new monies?
Given the total inefficacy of our legislative body it's a sure bet they won't produce the money unless they are legally bound to do so.
Oct 10, '04
First, you make the assumption that replacement revenue is needed. Your assumption is wrong.
Fact, Measure 34 provides on average the same amount of timber revenue that was recieved in the last 10 years from these forests. Measure 34 provides a sustainable amount of revenue for many years to come. But we do cut into the expected future revenue in the future from increased timber harvests. But this will not have an effect on schools.
Oct 11, '04
Mari Anne Gest wrote: "But we do cut into the expected future revenue in the future from increased timber harvests. But this will not have an effect on schools."
Once again, where is M34's specific language with force of law that will make certain that Tillamook and Clatsop schools and children don't take the major impact from your high hopes?
Oct 11, '04
Look in the ballot measure Section 4 (b). It guarnatees more money then the Tillamook and Clatsop School districts received this past year. $6.5 million more. We guaranteed the local schools at the higher rate of timber revenue that was received in 2002/03. Check the Oregon Dept. of Education web site that lists dollars received by these school districts and you will see that Measure 34 guarantees there will be no revenue reduction to local schools and in fact dedicates more money for schools overall by contributing to the Common School Fund.
What is driving our economy? Not timber which makes up only 4% of the jobs in Oregon. In this new economy it won't be cut trees that will grow our economy and ultimately help schools, it will be standing forests that attract new businesses and workers for its recreational opportunities, abundant clean water, wild salmon and wildlife habitat. In a techno society where people can live anywhere they choose, they are choosing Oregon for the beauty, the water and fish. That is a fact. And this brings in income taxes which fund schools (70%) It is the number one reason new business and workers come to Oregon.