This shows the tension within OIA between those people who are willing to gamble so they can have it all (Aaron Jones and Dale Riddle) through the initiative process, and those who are willing to reduce their risks (Larry George and Dave Hunnicutt) and take half a loaf.

Jones and Riddle were wrong with Measure 7, and lost it all in court. Given the Measure 37 court challenge, they may be wrong again. Of course, as long as they're writing the six-figure checks, they dictate what OIA does.

Why any legislators (or lobbyist) would be willing to sit down with Dave, who agrees to things and then renegs on the deals, I don't know. Measure 37-related issues are difficult enough without having to re-negotiate everything.

That the House is refusing to simply clean up some of the processes of Measure 37 shows the lack of power that the League of Oregon Cities and Association of Oregon Counties have in the building.

The LU committee has just been closed, NOTHING at all will be passed.

M37 passed with a mandate. With slightly clearer drafting and a fair read from the AG's office there would have been no reason for OIA to endorse any M37 revisions.

Hardy Myers' M37 opinion was intentionally designed to bring OIA to the table.

OIA was wise enough to turn away from the bait and avoid the trap. If the OSC tries to screw with M37, then they'll probably find themselves in the crosshairs (again), but no need to neuter M37 for a couple of weak concessions.

Evan, I would amend that to say five random voters and the test should be if they come up with the same interpretation. I've been in hearings and as one person put it at the end of one of the public hearings, "We heard 45 different people tonight and 45 different interpretations of Measure 37." And that was from a huge supporter of M 37.

I would watch out for another initiative from these folks since it is apparent that M 37 isn't going to give them near to what they really want (just look at the sprawl between Olympia and Everett in Washington to see what they really are after).

Only political geeks like ourselves remember ballot measure numbers. I'll give you $500 if 1 in 10 voters remembers what M25 is today (minimum wage).

The real question is whether people continue to support the idea of property rights that protect you from regulations that lower your property value.

You want to measure its mandate?

Run a poll on a proposed measure to give state and local governments the unchecked authority to enact regulations that will lower your property values without providing compensation as currently required under the law.

Watch it poll 80-20 in opposition.

Kari -

David Hunnicutt is not the devil. Neither are his Board members. There are ligitimate disagreements within that group, and it is to be expected.

I have heard David Hunnicutt speak a couple of times over here in Central Oregon, variously to the Central Oregon Association of Realtors, and the Prineville/Crook Co. Chamber of Commerce. He is reasonable, well thought out, and presents well. The central theme in all he talks about is fairness. I recall a talk he did on some local history on takings, the Tigard store with Fanno Creek frontage that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In case you don't remember, the Supreme Court sided with the land owner. The City of Tigard was not allowed to set as a condition of building a new store that the land owner had to surrender land along the creek for a new public right of way.

Perhaps because he is well thought out, thinks about this stuff day in and day out, he gets ahead of his board. Its only natural.

Do I agree with Measure 37? Absolutely not! But I agree with and feel myself the frustration with takings. I personally have lost money through regulatory/land use takings. Was Measure 37 the solution? No, it is a new layer of problems. I can tell you plainly that those of us in this area that voted against Measure 37 saw it as the mess that it was, but the vast majority of the people that voted for it saw it as a response to what angered them.

It should be absolutely irrelevant what David Hunnicutt or his Board says or does about what the Legislature should be doing to clear up Measure 37. The State shouldn't "negotiate" with these people, but the Adminstative branch of the State Government should be taking to the Legislative Branch its perception of the problems caused by Measure 37, and proposed cures. The Legislature should address this, and of course Hunnicutt et al could testify.

I have been mystified for some time how people who are Measure sponsors gain the status of unofficial representative when the Measures go to the legislature for clarification. Sizemore and Hunnicutt were not elected even if their Measures passed. Sizemore did "negotiate" his Measure 47 to the clarified legislative version, Measure 50.

So, from where I sit, Hunnicutt is more or less irrelevant. The people who should have their feet put to the fire on cleaning up Measure 37 are those we elected, all 90 of them, to govern the State at the Legislature.

Steve,

Every one of those 90 representatives has a constituency. There is a risk in altering an initiative without the support of the initiative's sponsor if your constituency supported that initiative.

Since M37 passed in almost every district, the price of monkeying with it is a primary challenger if you are an R, or strong issue for your opponent if you are a D in closely divided district.

This is Political Reality 101.

Beyond that, the people generally have a dim view of the Legislature second-guessing them before a measure has an opportunity to be implemented.

Article IV Sec. 1 of the Oregon Constitution delegates the legislative to the Legislature while reserving that power for the people through initiative process. These are co-equal powers to legislate.

Legislators who piss on a passed initiative, do so at their own risk.

Pancho:

While I agree that it is politically dicey to try to fix an initiative that has passed, I still feel it is the legislature's job. There are times when they must take political risks to do what's right. This is one of those times.

M37 is a bad piece of legislation. It is not what most people voted for. Steve is right; most of the pro-37 voters were voting their anger with a confusing, unfair land use system . The legislature had years to solve the problem and didn't. Now we have M37.

It is the legislature's duty to give us a good land use system. A repeal of M37 is political suicide and puts us back where we were. However, something sane and clear that accomplishes what the pro-37 voters thought they were getting is feasible.

Would the anti-government loonies cry and whine? Sure, they always do. But if the system were fair, most people would be happy. And it would be a concrete accomplishment the legislature could trumpet.

It looks like its dead for this session. But next session, the legislature has an opportunity to do something good and popular.

Kari, Once again you have simply dreamed up something to become an authority on. It is abundantly clear you have zero knowledge of the particular inner workings of OIA, their supporters or Mr. Hunnicutt's (the Democrat) mind.

Your speculative analysis which focuses on some powerful, behind-the- scenes, forces calling all the shots is something which never quite rises to the surface when the issue is public officials and issues such as South Waterfront.

I know the people at OIA, their operation, their motivations, alignments and allegiances.

In whole, it is without question far more grass roots that much of the cabal you align with.

You can throw spears at them (and M37 yes voters) all you want, but your approach shows only that your perception of OIA and Dave is merely what you desire them to be. Something along the lines of deliberate ignorance.

For those interested in a survey of Oregonians on land use issues, go to www.oba-online.org and scroll to the bottom of the home page. You can download a PDF of the survey results.

The survey that Ashley sites seems well done. It shows that Oregonians are of two minds. We want land use controls to promote livability and we want property owners to make reasonable use of their land.

An excerpt:

The survey results indicate there is no mandate on either side: property rights or managing growth. Oregonians recognize a fundamental value in property rights. They also want to protect the environment and recognize land use policies make the state a better place to live. The challenge is to strike a balance between diverse but strong values. It will force policy makers to establish a clear set of objectives while maintaining fairness toward landowners and flexibility in land use policy implementation.

This is what the legislature should work on next session.

Evan wants evidence?

What's evidence.

Do you mean like the mountain of evidence showing the back room power and influence peddling in South Waterfront through City Hall. The kind of evidence that shows the Portland elite, power brokers and big league developers who have no use for M37 when they can just buy their way around zoning and other policies.

That kind of evidence?

As many of you know, I was one of the primary proponents of Measure 7 and my husband was Chief Petitioner. But I must say I'm appalled at the notion of transferability. That is far afield from what I believe was the original intent of the measure. Not a good idea. It smacks of the worst of what our opponents charged, that we were trying to reverse Oregon's land use planning laws entirely. We denied it truthfully at the time, and I hope that Oregonians in Action has not shifted its position since then.

Steve, the reason the Legislature negotiates with people like Sizemore and Hunnicutt are that legislators understand that these individuals have constituents, networks and money to back them should they decide to refer a legislative decision to the voters or to put another measure on the ballot. When that person comes to the legislature with polling showing they have a good chance of winning in such an event, as Sizemore frequently did, the wise legislator will seek a compromise to avoid that drawn-out, ugly and expensive eventuality.

Finally, if any of you has a better idea than Measures 7/37 to ensure overbearing regulators don't steal the assets of ordinary people by regulating away their property rights, I'd love to hear it. Nobody seemed to be able to come up with a plan prior to Measure 7, and I have yet to see one since, nor have I heard of any egregious loss of valuable environmental resources that has resulted from the passage of these property rights measures. Until there's a workable plan on the table, one of my fondest fantasies is to see an end to the whining about it.

The problem with the article in the Oregonian, and any coverage of the Oregon Legislature for that matter, is that while the "what" may be answered, the "why" is seldom told.

Of course, this leaves those outside the political process to attempt to fill in the gaps with speculation based upon preconceived biases and false assumptions. I have found this is something we Democrats seem to be very successful at: My mind is already made up, please do not confuse me with the facts."

Commenting publically on an ongoing negotiation based upon a second-hand news article that is not entirely accurate nor complete is a lot like Bill Frist making a medical diagnosis based upon a video tape.

I do love reading armchair politics!

It was Ringo, Brown and the Senate Dems who first put the kibosh on the deal the Legislature was working by refusing to pass SB1037 over to the House.

Or do your memories not go back that far around here?

A little more recently (last Wednesday) the D’s on the Rules committee started getting all pouty and pissy when it began to look like the House Land Use Committee was making real progress where the Senate had so miserably failed (even Bob Statcey was saying at least early on in the House process that he liked the give-and-take going on there better than Ringo's lame backroom dealio). So they yanked the transferability language out of SB1037 just to spit in everybody's face who still thought a compromise was possible. That's when Mr. Hunnicutt and his people said "Screw y'all", and walked away.

Apologies: Bob Stacey

Becky, whose husband was Chief Petitioner of Measure 7 writes,

"Steve, the reason the Legislature negotiates with people like Sizemore and Hunnicutt are that legislators understand that these individuals have constituents, networks and money to back them should they decide to refer a legislative decision to the voters or to put another measure on the ballot. When that person comes to the legislature with polling showing they have a good chance of winning in such an event, as Sizemore frequently did, the wise legislator will seek a compromise to avoid that drawn-out, ugly and expensive eventuality."

So, let me get this straight - you've got money, or those that give you money. You've got a network of like minded people with money. They can convince some people to vote their way. Therefore you are welcomed into the legislative process as if you were elected to negotiate with those who actually are elected.

If that doesn't tell you that we have devolved to oligarcy, nothing else will. The death of democracy is stated matter-of-factly as if that's just the way it is done.

Yeah Steve! So, let me get this straight - you've got money, or those that give you money. You've got a network of like minded people with money. They can convince some people to vote their way. Therefore you are welcomed into the legislative process as if you were elected to negotiate with those who actually are elected. If that doesn't tell you that we have devolved to oligarcy, nothing else will. The death of democracy is stated matter-of-factly as if that's just the way it is done.

Except that is NOT the way things have always been done. Sometimes something amazing happens (like today when the expected vote on the Minnis school budget never took place).

Politics 101--if enough people voted against anyone who put initiativemeisters above elected officials, if voters tired of backdoor politics decide to be a new broom sweeping clean (as happened most recently to Salem School Board but also to some Senate and House seats), and if legislative campaigns were run locally rather than by some sort of generic caucus process, we would have a very different legislative process.

There is a theory of political tinder which says that if a strong leader arises (of the sort McCall in Oregon and both FDR and Reagan were nationally) then there will be a forest fire which destroys much of the current political status quo. Too many people are getting tired of ideology and interest group politics getting in the way of solutions, and are forming friendships across party lines to get things done.

LT writes, "Too many people are getting tired of ideology and interest group politics getting in the way of solutions, and are forming friendships across party lines to get things done."

Glory be! I can't wait until we start actually SEEING this phenomenon.

<h2>Steve, I suppose you would have legislators bury their heads in the sand and waste their and everyone else's time chasing after legislation that will only be referred to the voters and overturned? What's the point? Why not figure out ways to make sure that what passes stays passed and makes most people happy enough to let it be?</h2>