A story of contrasting priorities
Our state is fortunate to have many amazing representatives who care deeply about Oregon. They do more than just pay lip service to protecting and preserving pristine pieces of our state. They actually do the work to make it happen.
After many. many months of grueling effort, Senator Wyden and Reps. Blumenauer, DeFazio and Walden (yes, a Republican) worked to pass a vital land conservation law that protects a number of important pieces of land in our state. They do this despite heavy lobbying efforts to get them to do otherwise.
Today Wyden and DeFazio introduced legislation to protect Devil’s Staircase, Oregon Caves and the Lower Rogue River as well.
Contrast this with another of today's events. I sat in the gallery of the Oregon House and watched a handful of Democrats and all of the Republicans bow to one very wealthy land speculator and a well-heeled lobbyist. 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.
This wasn't about the public policy, incidentally. I believe that good people can disagree on policy. But I know of at least two Democratic legislators who voted no today that never read the bill. Or at least that's what they have said. One specifically articulated that voting no shows that he's not like those other Dems and this would be good for his reelection. Not because of the policy..but because he could say he's different.
It's not often that I'm ashamed and sad because of those whom I've supported for office. Unfortunately, I am today. Good people supporting good policy for the right reasons lost a battle today that should never have been in question.
This vote was an utter disgrace.
|
June 16, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (103 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: AdmiralNaismith | Jun 16, 2009 9:45:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Insider | Jun 16, 2009 10:09:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Manny | Jun 16, 2009 10:15:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 10:18:37 PM
Insider, what sort of amendments would be enough to garner one more vote?
Posted by: Insider | Jun 16, 2009 10:45:31 PM
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.
Posted by: Brian Collins | Jun 16, 2009 10:58:55 PM
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?
Posted by: Fact Bot | Jun 16, 2009 11:17:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Horseygirl | Jun 16, 2009 11:36:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Insider | Jun 16, 2009 11:48:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Horseygirl | Jun 17, 2009 12:11:11 AM
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.
Posted by: unforgiving | Jun 17, 2009 12:17:47 AM
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.
Posted by: Cafe Tomorrow | Jun 17, 2009 12:58:46 AM
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.
Posted by: I want my vote back | Jun 17, 2009 3:03:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Fact bot | Jun 17, 2009 7:00:34 AM
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.
Posted by: maxgramm | Jun 17, 2009 7:01:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 8:18:29 AM
No. This is not an "incredible session". This is a session where Democrats in the House were given (by the hard work of many people who write and read this blog--as well as thousands of other Oregonians) a super majority.
We should have been able to pass revenue bills without having to squeeze votes together and without Republicans. We should be able to get a decent bottle bill. We should be able to get a cap and trade policy.
Instead, no cap and trade. We have a bottle bill that's been so watered down that it's barely recognizable..and the lobby is still fighting it..and the votes aren't there. We had to have TWO REPUBLICANS step up in the House to save schools and other key public programs because the House Dems don't have their shit together.
And now we have this. It's a complete and total disgrace.
This vote is not about policy. It's not about "local control" or process. It's not about bringing jobs to a hard-hit region. Those arguments have been well aired out and frankly they're lame. Local citizens have come out in droves against this. Job creation from this development will be low-wage and won't even be for Jefferson County, by and large.
And honestly, if legislators aren't even bothering to read bills, especially ones where they're pretending to give a shit about the policy, then why am I supposed to believe they're simply honestly disagreeing?
Many, many people worked hard to get 36 Dems in the House because we were told that's what was needed to make sure Oregon was headed in the right direction. After yesterday (and having watched the rest of what's gone on this session), I feel lied to.
Posted by: Cafe Today | Jun 17, 2009 8:29:41 AM
@Horseygirl:
Legislators must vote on every bill. They cannot abstain if they are within the bar.
Posted by: maxgramm | Jun 17, 2009 8:51:07 AM
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.
Posted by: alcatross | Jun 17, 2009 8:59:56 AM
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.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 17, 2009 9:05:49 AM
"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.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Jun 17, 2009 9:13:55 AM
It's like Dave Hunt is Bizarro Tom McCall. Trying to get booted out of his party for being against sound land use legislation....
Posted by: Word is... | Jun 17, 2009 9:20:25 AM
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...
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 17, 2009 9:23:50 AM
"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.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Jun 17, 2009 9:37:50 AM
I also don't understand where the Republicans were on this. There was a time that Oregon Republicans fought to ensure freedom of access to these natural wonders for all Oregonians as an issue of liberty. Where are they now?
Tom McCall essentially got kicked out of the ORP for trying to open up the banks of the Willamette to all Oregonians, which spat in the face of the ag and timber lobbies. Where is his spirit of conservation today?
It is a sad day for Oregon's pristine and beautiful natural resources. I'm sad that our leaders let process and party lines get in the way of what's right for Oregon.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 9:42:02 AM
So much for the much ballyhooed importance of 'bipartisanship' we always hear about if/when the opposition party happens to control things.
The Republicans don't give two shits about bipartisanship. Spare me the righteous indignation.
These malfeasances don't only occur when votes don't yield your desired outcome.
Nor have I claimed otherwise, and that doesn't excuse it.
This was a highly scrutinized, well-publicized vote with a very passionate support base, some of whom worked hard to get these folks into office. To not even bother reading the bill is an insult to everyone who worked on it. It's like they can't be bothered because...oh..maybe they're just too busy having meetings with lobbyists.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 9:46:39 AM
The pinnacle of political arrogance? Really, Jason?
Cuz that's what we were told when these guys came to us for help to get elected: help us get 36 Dems for a supermajority. Then we won't need Republicans to pass these important tax increases.
You were saying?
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 17, 2009 10:37:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 17, 2009 10:43:26 AM
The score reads:
Throat clearing common sense - 1, Throat stuffing Ecozealots - 0.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 11:13:08 AM
Wrong, Eric.
The score stands: Oregonians-0
Land speculators and lobbyists-1
You got screwed on this vote as an Oregonian.
Posted by: hopeful | Jun 17, 2009 11:26:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | Jun 17, 2009 11:27:03 AM
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.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 11:29:30 AM
But Protect The Metolius is relatively new, right?
No, it isn't.
Unless you consider Tom McCall's vocal advocacy on the protections of the Metolius (as well as his work to get the ACSC a part of Oregon law) 30 years ago to be "relatively new".
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jun 17, 2009 11:49:44 AM
What you also saw with this vote was payback to the senate for pushing around the house by not taking up several unrelated bills of importance this session. Personalities have a lot to do with this, and the decided lack of cooperation in many areas between the chambers throughout the session is partially reflected in the nay votes on this bill. Some of the senators backing the Metolius bill are not known for compromise, and shouldn't be surprised at an outcome in which the house mimics their methods.
I completely concur with Carla that this is not an extraordinary session, partially because the senate made it clear back in January they wouldn't be going along with the push from the house for much-needed radical reforms. This is the end game of a very conservative session.
Posted by: leinad | Jun 17, 2009 11:56:05 AM
Carla, you have lost your mind. Legislating is hard, and a supermajority doesn't mean that that party should run roughshod all over the legislative process. Feel as you may about bi-partisanship, but I am very proud of this legislature. They are thinking about EVERY Oregonian when they vote. You assert that this session is a failure and you are plain wrong. I know it sucks to lose, we have all been there, but don't disparage the hard work this body has and continues to do. Step off the high horse for a second and keep trying to get your voice heard. And, if you don't like what is happening in Salem, do something about it. Form a PAC, raise money, knock on doors and get elected. Then go to Salem to be a legislator and then report back if it is easy to do that job.
Posted by: proud lefty | Jun 17, 2009 12:04:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 17, 2009 12:08:22 PM
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."
Posted by: Barton was vote-swapping with R's | Jun 17, 2009 12:12:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 17, 2009 12:13:21 PM
"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.
Posted by: proud lefty | Jun 17, 2009 12:34:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Jake Leander | Jun 17, 2009 1:17:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 17, 2009 1:31:42 PM
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.
Posted by: alcatross | Jun 17, 2009 2:48:15 PM
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?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 2:57:55 PM
Seriously alcatross...that's what you're going to bring here?
This thread is about the legislature and protections (or lack thereof) for Oregon's pristine lands. Either stay on topic, move on or get deleted.
Your choice.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 17, 2009 3:09:23 PM
Off-topic comment deleted--Editor
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 17, 2009 3:15:21 PM
Off topic comment deleted--Editor
Posted by: KenRay | Jun 17, 2009 3:25:06 PM
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.
Posted by: leinad | Jun 17, 2009 3:28:55 PM
Carla,
You can delete my comments all you want. All I am looking for an honest debate about this issue and would ask you to not torpedo dissenters and the whole session because one of your pet projects died.
Hell, I want to see an emissions cap come out of this session, it doesn't look like it will happen. You don't see coming out and saying the legislature failed because of that. I commend them for what they were able to accomplish and you should too. Like I said before, if you don't like it, run yourself.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 17, 2009 3:31:26 PM
KenRay:
As has already been stated a number of times, good people can disagree on policy. That isn't what happened in this case.
I submit that you should learn more about the specifics of this issue and the politics surrounding it before making such assertions.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 16, 2009 9:39:26 PM
I subscribe to the Lincolnian view of "government of the people, by the people and for the people."