We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them at the U.G.B.

Charlie Burr

Bluebook99

Our state made a lot of progress in protecting clean air and water last session -- modernizing the bottle bill, kick-starting our biofuels sector, passing the landmark clean energy standard -- but there remains much to do in the next two months. One issue on this November’s ballot above all others will define the farm and forest land safeguards that help protect the Oregon we love: Ballot Measure 49.

You can help the effort too, by attending a party organized by the 13 Enviros for the Yes on 49 campaign! next Friday, Sept. 7

Started to fight Measure 37 four years ago, The 13 Enviros Party has grown each year. It's also a great examples of one of our mantras hereat Blue Oregon: that the world really is run by those who show up. In 2006, nearly 300 people came out to our BBQ in an amazing show of force for the governor's campaign, helping the campaign pull in nearly $80,000 through a lot of $100 checks.  In addition to the money we raised -- and like last year, each dollar will be matched -- the governor credited the event as a defining moment in the race, helping give him the energy and grassroots momentum for victory.

Let’s do the same for the critical Yes on 49 campaign!

It's a great cause, and if you aren't familiar with the Measure 49, this event's a fun way to learn what the fight over Measure 49 means for our state. More importantly, it's a kick-ass party (many claim the best event of the year). There will be wine from many local vineyards, crafty microbrews, a well-stocked bar and artisan foods too numerous to mention. Good music and good people, including a host of local electeds and candidates. Reserve the evening on your calendar right now!

What: 13 Enviros Party to Fix Measure 37 (Hosted by Charlie Burr, Cassie Weiden, Katy Daily, Mari Margil, Evan Manvel, Jeff Bissonnette, Paul Shively, David Moryc, Scott Bricker, Nicole Cordan, Tom Wolf, Jeremiah Baumann, Sam Blackman, and Rhett Lawrence)

Where: 2143 SE 57th, Portland, OR When: Friday, September 7, 5:30 p.m

Who: Everyone (except trolls), including friends and loved ones

R.S.V.P: Here – We need a rough count to ensure sufficient procurement of booze and food. Thanks!

An example too of what's at stake: Stimson Lumber Company, a $30,000 contributor to the original Measure 37 campaign, has filed at least $269 million in Measure 37 claims since 2004. Stimson is already moving forward to subdivide 1,100 acres in the coast range of Washington County, and according to company CEO Andrew Miller, "If it all went the right way we could have bulldozers out there in spring."

Failure will mean countless more acres of forests, farms and beaches theatened with strip mall and McMansion conversion. Oregon can do better!

Please let us know if you're coming. If not, you can still contribute! Call Katy Daily at (503) 224-4011 or send her an email at [email protected] to give with a credit or debit card. If you make a pledge before the party it will be also be matched.

See you all at the party!

  • Alex Davies (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Really amusing how those who caused all the problems and created all people-unfriendly, property-rights-hostile policies that resulted in Measure 37's robust popularity in the first place are now the ones who claim to truly understand what voters wanted in 2004 (even though they vehemently opposed it at the time). Now they've devised a densely complicated, entirely partisan "fix" that will solve everyone's problems and make everybody happy...except, of course, the very people who actually wrote the most successful citizens' initiative in Oregon history in the first place, and most anybody associated, affiliated or who identifies with the political party in Oregon that has traditionally championed property rights and rural values.

    Sounds like a textbook fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation to me. A little like having Dick Cheney and a bunch of Exxon execs rewrite the Kyoto Protocol.

  • (Show?)

    Charlie, that RSVP link doesn't seem to go where it should.

    But count me in--it should be a great warmup for Obama that night. Hey, maybe you can get him to stop by, Charlie! :)

  • (Show?)

    "wrote the most successful citizens' initiative in Oregon history in the first place"

    Er, by what do you judge success? Number of confusing court cases due to poor drafting? Number of people who say they voted for it who now say "it's not doing what I thought it would"?

    Or by actual number of people who voted for it? Several initiatives in 2004 got more votes than Measure 37.

    As far as who's backing Measure 49, it includes lots of business leaders and the most recent Republican governor.

    As far as the RSVP link, it works for me... perhaps someone more versed with the chaos of Evite can advise.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Torrid. The link works for me too, but if others have problems, feel free to call Katy or me directly at (503) 913-5407.

  • (Show?)

    The link takes me to a completed response...it says "Rhett, you're invited" and the only button available is to change Rhett's reply. Since it says "Your reply has been posted for the host. Click the button below to make changes" and I don't want to make changes but respond for myself, I wasn't sure what to do. Should I use that button?

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, Charlie, since I'd like to buy five acres someday and build myself a small house and set up a small organic farm outside any UGB area, you're comparing me to a Nazi?

    Your attitude also reminds me of good ol' boys in the South who for some time "protected" the Alabama they loived, and the Mississippi they loved... all by squashing other people's rights. People who are not harming anyone (of course they're not -- just ask any progressive who already has a place in the country).

    Bob Tiernan

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That is correct Bob. Don't you know that you're supposed to live in a row house next to a Max station? If you don't conform to that then you can't be a good person. Only the really selfish people have yards where their kids can play. And where do you get off thinking you actually own anything? Don't you know that the collective owns all of the land and that personal ownership is evil?

  • (Show?)

    And the enviros are the humorless ones. Got it.

  • Debbie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, I've got 5 acres. Worked my butt off for it as a kid. After I got it the eviros lied and changed the 'rules'...I'm almost a senior now and I'm still trying to build one house on it. Sad to think they all feel grass and weeds are a better crop than what I could do if I were there.

    Last place out there without a house on it....yeah, saving the farm land....I'll just lean over and ask my neighbor for some sugar in my coffee....

  • (Show?)

    You're in luck, Debbie! If you were able to build a house there before, you'll be able to again with the passage of M49. Sounds like your best bet is definitely a YES vote.

  • (Show?)

    Hey Bob -- If you're going to accuse someone of using the N-word, could you provide a source or a quote?

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The 13 enviros"... you've got to be kidding with that name, right?

  • Alex Davies (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Several initiatives in 2004 got more votes than Measure 37.

    Name one.

    Never mind, you can't. While a number of ballot measures received more "yes" votes than Measure 37, they were all legislative referrals (like Measure 49 is), not citizens' initiatives. Measure 37 garnered more favorable votes than any other citizens' initiative in Oregon history.

  • (Show?)

    "Measure 37 garnered more favorable votes than any other citizens' initiative in Oregon history."

    And to put that into perspective, George Bush got more votes than any other candidate in US history in 2004. Think there's just a TOUCH of buyer's remorse on that one? :)

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari:

    Hey Bob -- If you're going to accuse someone of using the N-word, could you provide a source or a quote?

    Bob T:

    Sure, it's the article heading itself: "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them at the U.G.B.", mostly borrowed from Winston Churchill's statement regarding how tough and determined the British would be regarding defending their Nazi-free island.

    The use of that phrase was unfortunate, and shows that most if not all of you are determined to treat Oregon's UGB system as a fight against some people who are "violating" the rights of everyone else.

    Sorry, but in a free society you're going to see a lot of thing you don't like, even if those activities do not violate anyone's rights. Too bad you guys don't see it that way. When I hear someone say, while pointing to a large pasture, "Let's get a law passed to keep it that way", I hear the voice of someone who's uncomfortable living in a free society.

    I usedto feel that way, too, while looking at rural settings. I got over it. I became tolerant. I became more liberal.

    Bob T

  • Karl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is the Oregon we love massive clearcuts and mono-culture forests and farms? Is it aerial pesticide applications on clearcut moonscapes poisoning rural residents and polluting our waters? Is it vast fields of burning grass spewing pesticides and noxious fumes into the air? Short answer is yes.

    The statewide planning goals are mostly about protecting the interests of big-ag and big-timber they aren't some perfect instrument aimed at preserving Oregon's environment.

    Measure 37 was a nightmare, so is the status quo, so is the "fix" as it largely preserves the status quo. Oregon needs to take a hard look at where it wants to go in the future and ask how we get there. I hope the answer would be that we want to move to a sustainable future. Part of the probvlem is that people like 13 enviros think that the planning goals are about the environment when they aren't. These groups attempt to use a tool for a job for which it was never intended. The planning goals do much to encourage the destruction of Oregon's environment and to stymie progress towards a more sustainable future. Was Measure 37 the answer? Definitely not. But the status quo isn't working either. Try being a middle income person dreaming of an Organic farm. Your probably out-of-luck unless you are lucky enough to find the right amount of land already built upon. What if you wanted a communal farm/living situation--well you are out of luck too. Co-housing and food production within the UGB--no way, it won't meet planned density.

    A good start would be to "fix" the system by appropriately zoning property. I have seen innumerable properties with horrible soil (Class VI-VIII) but productive for Douglas fir zoned EFU. Those properties should be zoned F-2. If you are going to have strict rules as to what can and should be done on a property they should be based on the reality of that property. That type of thing might alleviate some hard feelings. As Oregon is doing that, we should be looking to the future and trying to find ways to encourage not just forestry but sustainable forestry, not just agriculture but sustainable agriculture. If we did that, Oregon's land use system could go along way towards protecting and more importantly, improving the Oregon that we love.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, right, it got more votes than any other. Perhaps because the population is higher and because everyone turned out for the Presidential election?

    Somehow I think elections are determined by percentages, as in 50%+ ... by that measure Measure 26 (2004) had more than 75% support, just a wee bit more than Measure 37.

    Please stop with your innumerate madness.

  • Alex Davies (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Evan, would you consider it "innumerate madness" for me to point out there was no Measure 26 in 2004?

    And to put that into perspective, George Bush got more votes than any other candidate in US history in 2004. Think there's just a TOUCH of buyer's remorse on that one?

    Not enough for Democrats to grow the spine to try and impeach the Napoleonic freak, apparently. And let's not forget either that Bill Clinton's wife proudly did her bit to enable the most disastrous foreign policy blunder since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution -- given that we probably all agree the primary reason for the president's long overdue fall from public opinion grace has been the unfolding catastrophe in Iraq. What's truly sad, pathetic and more than a little nauseating, however, is all those allegedly "antiwar" lefties who're still going to vote in droves for that crazy cuckolded harpy anyway come November 2008.

    Btw, really about the only similarity I see between Measure 37 and the Iraq War is that in both cases the media fell all over itself hyping nonexistent threats in order to fan the flames of fear and paranoia, per the wishes of their political masters in the halls of government power.

  • (Show?)

    The argument that this referral ignores the will of the people is nonsense.

    The supporters of the referral believe that many voters thought they were voting for one thing and found that they got something else. They believe that the referral better represents what that section of Measure 37 voters wanted, while better addressing the concerns of opponents.

    The opponents of the referral believe that what Measure 37 has proved to be in practice is indeed what all those who voted for it wanted and continue to want.

    The question has a simple resolution: the vote. If the opponents of Measure 49 are right about "the will of the people" it will fail. If the supporters are right, it will pass. Generally "No" votes have an edge in situations of uncertainty.

    Given the stakes, it is not a waste of money to make sure we're getting it right about the people's will.

    As to property rights and values, I remain puzzled. Why should some property owners be excused from regulation or compensated speculative loss of value, because the putative loss of value is due to public action, while other property owners whose land loses value due to resultant private development have no recourse or compensation from the private developers? This applies especially to those who purchased property after a regulation, in expectation that it would be fully and equally applied. The loss of that expectation appears to be no different from the loss of expectation by purchasers who bought prior to a regulation.

    I would think Measure 37's promoters had more intellectual and ethical integrity if they supported a law requiring compensation for putative & speculative harms done by private actions, to be paid by those causing the harms, as well as compensation for putative and speculative harms done by public actions. But they don't. I am left believing that the issue for the promoters really isn't property rights for all, but making a lot of money for a few by legalized blackmail, for those with the resources to push the big claims.

    Measure 37 is also a species of right-wing victim politics. (Remember when conservatives were against victim politics?) In reality, anyone who buys or inherits property does so as part of a political community which creates and defines property rights. No state, no property. Property is created by law. Capitalist private property, far from being "natural," is in fact a great departure from property systems of overlapping use rights (i.e. not exclusive private rights) that have characterized virtually all human societies until about 300 or 400 years ago, and most until much more recently.

    Any sensible adult person moderately observant about the world understands that as the economy and society change, rules affecting their property may change too, perhaps to their advantage, perhaps to their disadvantage. If Measure 49 goes down, those of us who support it will have to accept it as such a change. The same applies to Measure 49 opponents, who should stop whining and grow up.

    Finally, it is perverse of people who claim to oppose "nanny states" to want to be completely indemnified against the inherent risks of property as a legally created & hence revisable phenomenon. It is perverse of those who like to speak of law and order to seek privileged and unequal exemptions from the law. And it is perverse of those who complain that public expenditures to address social problems are corrupting to claim unequal and privileged access to the public fiscal teat for some property-owners, tied to the a so-called right to use it to negotiate private privileged exemptions from the law.

  • Alex Davies (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In reality, anyone who buys or inherits property does so as part of a political community which creates and defines property rights. No state, no property. Property is created by law.

    I'd love to hear you explain the morality of your conception of "law" to an American Indian -- or for that matter an African American.

    Indeed, what about life and liberty? Are they merely entitlements bestowed by government, too? After all, it says in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that neither life, liberty nor property shall be deprived "without due process of law." It seems a little paradoxical and nonsensical to require government to have to go through the time, expense and headache of proving a case for taking something away when the government created the privileges in the first place. Slavery? If government is the grand designer of all rights then it's hardly problematic for it to declare that certain people can legally "own" others (subject to provisions of law outlined by the political community which creates and defines those rights, of course).

    So much for certain truths being self-evident, I guess.

    Capitalist private property, far from being "natural," is in fact a great departure from property systems of overlapping use rights (i.e. not exclusive private rights) that have characterized virtually all human societies until about 300 or 400 years ago, and most until much more recently.

    Translation: Oregon "progressives" are pining for the halcyon days of medieval feudalism.

  • (Show?)

    The argument that this referral ignores the will of the people is nonsense.

    <h2>Good discussion, Chris. But it's even simpler than that. Measure 49 will be voted on by the people. If they approve it, then it is the new will of the people.</h2>

connect with blueoregon