Live-blogging the Metolius vote
1:08PM Preparing to live-blog the vote on the protections for the Metolius. From everything I'm hearing, this vote is expected to be extremely close.
Hang on to your hats kids, we'll be underway shortly.
1:18 Other bills are up for discussion first. As soon as the Metolius bill debate starts, I'll get started.
1:25 Rep. Clem motions to accept the Senate changes to HB3298, the bill to protect the Metolius..and begins his speech.
1:35 Rep Girod Garrard (sorry)..."family wages jobs"..WRONG..."local process" thwarted...WRONG. "Green development.." development on pristine Oregon land that will likely be disastrous to the area..and can't be fixed. Now talking over the timeline of events....Metolian people did a whole bunch of stuff to get their development moving.
These developers have invested $3.8 million into the project...(yet not a shovel of dirt has been moved..wonder where all that money has gone?) This project will have no negative impact on the Metolius basin (unless you count the scientific studies)..the developers have offered compromise after compromise (only to back out of them...)
1:40 Whisnant--this is a gut and stuffed bill. I have many colleagues and experts who've talked to me about this bill in support (but I'm not going to listen to my constituents...apparently I don't represent them). I have stated to constituents that I won't vote for something that harms this region (except for when I won't). This bill destroys the Oregon land-use system (wrong--except that it doesn't because it's using the process). I'll make sure that none of this harms the habitat (personally? that should be interesting)
1:45Rep. Hanna: this is a bad bill because it violates separation of powers (huh?) and it's all been done locally (except for when the locals were consistently ignored). It's legitimate to build on this pristine and fragile piece of Oregon because economics trumps all. And what's the rush? It's only been three years. Why are we in such a hurry?
Note: Nobody is questioning Rep. Clem...who knows this legislation inside and out. They're so far just in pontificating mode. Interesting that they're not asking Clem about specific problems they have with the bill.
1:50 Rep. Stiegler: The law to implement the area of statewide critical concern has been on the books for 3 decades.
1:51 Rep. Huffman: I oppose. We're interrupting the legal process of Jefferson County. In 2006 the county followed the legislature's process and required studies and hearings. Lots of locals don't like how things go..but we have to press forward. Taking out locust trees can make people mad, but it still gets done. Cuz that's exactly the same as paving over the Metolius.
JEFFERSON COUNTY UNEMPLOYMENT AT 20%! (This has been said about 5 times)
(Someone in comments is predicting that the 31 votes aren't there because someone is missing. Possibly correct. Rep. Komp is out sick today.)
1:58: Rep. Esquivel: VOTE NO We interrupted private gain of fireworks companies just a few months ago..and now we're trying to protect the Metolius!! DAMN US!
2:02: Rep. Smith: Process is important, but is it the most important part of this conversation? It's our job to interrupt bad process.
2:04: Rep. Cannon: This isn't about a few people. This is about the passion of hundreds and hundreds of Oregonians. This is about the passion of members in this legislative body, who've never dreamed of owning land at the Metolius. This proposal comes from Representative Clem. Period. Support for this bill comes from lots of places...but Clem's sole desire is to protect the public interest..this special place. That motivates many members of the assembly to do this today.
2:05 Rep. Greenlick: This is about family. This is about children and parents bonding together. They believe there's no place in the US like the Metolius. It's a magic place worth saving.
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. The management plan allows development in the area, but smaller scale. It allows any development under current zoning. They can go forward with the development, but they have to prove that they have no negative impact on water, fish and wildlife. the question before us is...is this land so sacred...that it's worth protecting? All I've ever hoped for is that my daughter..will see what her father and grandfather have seen in this river.
Here comes the vote.
30-29
Clem changes his vote to nay..to get motion of reconsideration. The bill is suspended to appoint a conference committee.
Dems who voted no: Barton and Matthews for sure...checking on the rest.
Add to the list: Galizio, Hunt and Barker.
|
June 16, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (85 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Insider | Jun 16, 2009 1:36:42 PM
The bill is going down. 30 to 29. 31 votes are required to pass it
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 1:37:03 PM
Reminder for folks: You can watch the debate here - click on "House Chamber".
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 16, 2009 1:53:07 PM
who's the missing legislator this afternoon, Insider?
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Jun 16, 2009 1:54:03 PM
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.
Posted by: to err is human | Jun 16, 2009 1:56:59 PM
Carla- It is Rep. Bill Garrard. Fred Girod is a Senator.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 2:07:12 PM
Clarification: Insider is making a prediction, not reporting events on the ground. (Much as people say things like "The Steelers are going down in in the Superbowl." We know how that turned out.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 2:08:45 PM
Greenlick: "The Metolius is a magical place. Anything we can do in this body to protect moves humanity forward."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 2:13:51 PM
I really enjoyed Jefferson Smith's analogy about drilling in the Grand Canyon. Just because someone bought a bunch of gear and has started drilling doesn't mean the legislature must abdicate its responsibility to protect the Grand Canyon.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 2:16:28 PM
The vote was 30-29, one excused. Clem formally changed his vote to No and served notice of reconsideration. The next step is to appoint a conference committee - though that order of business is suspended pending reconsideration tomorrow.
Posted by: Insider | Jun 16, 2009 2:20:54 PM
So, Kari, do you question my Insider information now? :)
BTW, Rep. Betty Komp would have been a NO if she was present.
Posted by: John Silvertooth | Jun 16, 2009 2:39:48 PM
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.
Posted by: John Silvertooth | Jun 16, 2009 2:56:33 PM
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.
Posted by: backbeat | Jun 16, 2009 2:58:47 PM
Go back to whatever crappy state you came from Larry Galizio! Out. Of. My. State.
Posted by: Shasta | Jun 16, 2009 3:01:01 PM
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.
Posted by: DSS | Jun 16, 2009 3:02:33 PM
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!).
Posted by: Andy B | Jun 16, 2009 3:07:01 PM
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.
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.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Jun 16, 2009 3:27:54 PM
Fireworks bill? Did they do somethng to step on Wayne Scott's business?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 16, 2009 3:31:54 PM
"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.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 16, 2009 3:35:55 PM
So, Kari, do you question my Insider information now? :)
You were right this time. Since you're anonymous, there's no way to know if you have inside info or if you were just lucky. :)
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 16, 2009 3:36:31 PM
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.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jun 16, 2009 3:42:13 PM
I haven't followed the environmental bills very closely, so I'm curious...
If this bill fails, will it be safe to say that the environmental community had zero big wins in this session?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jun 16, 2009 3:42:17 PM
I haven't followed the environmental bills very closely, so I'm curious...
If this bill fails, would it be safe to say that the environmental community had zero big wins in this session?
Posted by: Word is... | Jun 16, 2009 3:48:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 16, 2009 4:02:03 PM
"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.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jun 16, 2009 4:15:02 PM
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?
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Jun 16, 2009 4:15:38 PM
hmmm destination resorts and baseball stadiums....my my how these issues really aren't all that different.
Posted by: Karl | Jun 16, 2009 4:16:02 PM
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
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 16, 2009 4:22:36 PM
Is that Brent Barton of Bus Project backing fame? What's up with that?
Posted by: Word is... | Jun 16, 2009 4:34:54 PM
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...
Posted by: Barton has a problem | Jun 16, 2009 4:35:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Miles | Jun 16, 2009 4:36:55 PM
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."
Posted by: Word is... | Jun 16, 2009 4:40:51 PM
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.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Jun 16, 2009 4:59:40 PM
Carl, a privately owned resort developing wildlands, and a publicly owned stadium in a major city aren't the least bit similar. What the?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 16, 2009 5:09:01 PM
I'm disappointed too, but a couple of points:
If you thought that the Bus Project stable was made up of Hard Lefties, you haven't been paying attention. The group has a broad range of viewpoints and has had from its inception, (kinda like the Dem Party of Oregon), and that's a Good Thing.
I don't know why Dave Hunt went the way he did, but I am clear that Barton is in the Freedom Works/Hair Club crosshairs for the next cycle. Maybe that had something to do with it.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 16, 2009 5:12:38 PM
Well, I hate to have to say it under these circumstances but this all is why I'm an NAV. Although I will say that I was a Republican when Vic Atiyeh was Governor and that I happily voted for him. He was the kind of Republican that I was proud of. And the fact that he went to bat in a very public way for the Metolius reminds me why I chose to go NAV when I quit the GOP.
Barton, Matthews, Galizio, Hunt and Barker may very well all have voted the way they did out of political considerations due to expected tight races for re-election. They need to be disabused of the ass-u-mption that peeling off a few "R" votes in their next election is all they need to worry about.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Jun 16, 2009 5:23:26 PM
TJ-
Private resorts, public stadiums, whatever the chosen vice probably isn't going help their respective areas all that much.
Posted by: slowdownthehype | Jun 16, 2009 5:26:19 PM
Unlike the Hass situation , the reps who voted no on this bill live and represent constituents in districts where property rights are highly coveted and land use planning is met with suspicion. Those are just the ABC's of their districts. Some of these same reps, such as Barton and Matthews took hard revenue votes just last week. Votes have to be measured in context and the bigger picture.
Posted by: NBH | Jun 16, 2009 5:56:39 PM
slowdownthehype |-
Matthews district is no longer a tough one - Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 10 points.
Posted by: NBH | Jun 16, 2009 5:56:47 PM
slowdownthehype |-
Matthews district is no longer a tough one - Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 10 points.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 16, 2009 6:23:47 PM
Posted by: slowdownthehype | Jun 16, 2009 5:26:19 PM
Unlike the Hass situation , the reps who voted no on this bill live and represent constituents in districts where property rights are highly coveted and land use planning is met with suspicion. Those are just the ABC's of their districts. Some of these same reps, such as Barton and Matthews took hard revenue votes just last week. Votes have to be measured in context and the bigger picture.
Granted. But revenue will go up and down over the years. Always has, always will. The Metolius is pristine right now and thus is a fundamentally different situation from revenue votes.
The Metolius aside, your premise begs the question: What is the raison d'etre of being a representative? Is it to enact good leglislation... to be a good steward on behalf of all Oregonians, present and future? Or is it to get re-elected?
Frankly, I would find the use of re-election calculations less onerous on revenue votes than on once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to preserve something as magical as the Metolius for future generations.
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.
Posted by: LT | Jun 16, 2009 7:28:56 PM
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.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jun 16, 2009 8:17:32 PM
A bunch of the Dems who voted against this bill based on political considerations should reconsider. Thanks to Richard Devlin, 2010 is likely to be a banner year for lefty spoiler candidates. The last thing some of these house candidates need is a couple of people running to their left because they are pissed off about Metolius or Palomar.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Cafe Today | Jun 16, 2009 8:26:21 PM
@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.
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: backbeat | Jun 16, 2009 1:24:34 PM
Thanks, I'll be following you.