Kulongoski's plan to make Measure 37 worse

By Peter Bray of Portland, Oregon. In 2004, Bray ran satirical Yes on Measure 37 arguments in the Voters' Pamphlet, and maintains a similar Web site.

The governor has made right-winger and M37 sponsor Dave Hunnicutt "proud". How? By agreeing to support Senate Bill 1037 which, quite simply, gives property speculators even more rights than Measure 37 itself.

While Ted Kulongoski might feel that he has "struck a balance", a quick read of the Bill reveals otherwise. The modest environmental protections from Charlie Ringo's original bill are now gone. Instead, property owners will be able to fully "transfer" development rights to subsequent owners. This effectively clears the way for widespread sprawl. (After all, without the ability to transfer rights, future owners may violate the original regulations that the previous owner was exempted from; this confusion is a good thing, as it makes developers and financers uneasy about using Measure 37 for their own sprawling ends.)

With the ability to transfer rights, developers can now proceed with their list of mega-projects. Indeed, already there is word that Cooper Spur-type developers (golf course with 450 homes on Mt Hood) are setting their targets on a massive Hood River destination. Can you imagine 842 McMansions replacing orchards?

From gorge gambling to AuCoin mishaps, Kulongoski has now revealed his true anti-green colors by lobbying for a bill that only increases the devastation on Oregon's open spaces.

There is still a chance that the Senate will not pass 1037. Please take action today!

  • Jesse O (unverified)

    This is the last straw for me. Say it with me folks: I'm not voting for Kulongoski if he runs again. First, I'll vote for someone else in the primary. Then, whether I vote Pacific Green, write-in, or, god help me, Republican, I know I'm not voting for Ted. He's simply lost my vote.

    While I've always been a passionate Gore-over-Nader person, we have to hold our folks accountable. And this is totally unacceptable. Ted's legacy will be destroying 30 years of land use planning, paving over farmlands, and letting out-of-control development ruin the air, water, and landscapes.

    This isn't a place you meet in the middle, Ted. This is where you draw a line in the sand, if you really believe in Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    I am voting for Kulongoski. This is a man who loves fishing in the high country, favors camping over 4 Star hotels and bowls for fun. He supports Planned Parenthood and civil unions. He attends every funeral of our fallen men and women in the stupid war in Iraq. His decision to strike a balance on 37 falls in line with the vast majority of his decisions, prudent, careful, thoughtful and considered. Go vote for Mannix and see how you like it.

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    While I am extremely incensed at Kulongoski for this latest terrible action (along with his shameful inaction on just about everything but attending soldiers' funerals, the one thing I support)-- the election is a ways away and I haven't yet made up my mind how to vote. I don't want to vote for Kulongoski but Mannix would be even worse. I also don't want Kulongoski as our only choice in the primary, we need some alternatives.

    Meanwhile, back to land use protection: everyone should call Salem today, without fail! Governor’s office: 503.378.4582 Kate Brown’s office: 503-986-1700

  • Sid (unverified)

    You can also take action at OnwardOregon here. It's quick and easy because they already have a database that matches you up with your legislator when you send a message through their "action alert" system.

  • Jesse O (unverified)

    With the Senate in firm Democratic control, Planned Parenthood wasn't threatened this session. And what has he accomplished on civil unions? So he bowls, camps, and attends funerals. That a governor does not make.

    In fact, our land use planning system is only threatened by the Governor.

    Prudent and careful? Thoughtful and considered? Please. Ask his staff how many new developments SB 1037 will cause. Ask them if they have any idea what this bill will mean to Oregon's landscapes.

    And what are we balancing -- developer's rights vs. protecting air, water, and farmland? Measure 37 gives people property rights. It's a mess. SB 1037 expands those rights to out-of-state speculators. It broadens the mess.

    Do you think OIA will stop destroying the Oregon legacy because of this deal? Please. SB 1037, as originally passed by the Senate, was thoughtful and considered and careful. SB 1037, as amended by the House, is hasty and uncautious, not thought out. You don't rewrite 30 years of laws in a week, with no models or ideas on what the consequences will be.

    Thoughtful would have been making sure the bill setting up comprehensive four-year look at Oregon's planning laws passed. Stupid is Ted's action.

  • Sid (unverified)

    Ruth, Thanks for posting those numbers. People need to call. I called earlier and found out that they've been getting quite a few calls this morning about this. Keep it up!

    Yes, we need a challenger in the primary! Having a challenger will give Kulongoski a scare, if anything, and if the challenger wins the primary, then we've got someone we can be proud to vote for.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    Kulongoski is the pits -- he has shown disregard for his base, disregard for other Dem elected officials, and moved rightwards in some bizarre attempt for who-knows-what reason.

    As Sunday's Oregonian noted, it is unclear if he will even run again. Now is the time to convince him NOT to run. Why? Because Mannix came extremely close to beating K. last time. Now, K. has some of the lowest popularity scores of any governor -- he WILL be beaten by Mannix if they rematch.

  • (Show?)

    The entire Hood River Valley will wind up looking like JacksonColoradoBendSistersRedmondOregonMarfaTexas within twenty years.

    Portland will wind up looking like HustonKansasCityLosAngelesAtlantaLasVegas in twenty years.

    We don't need to speculate on what might happen. Just look around Governor.

    The prestige land will have the prices jacked up so high that the servant class for the resort areas will have to be bussed in from remote slum areas, and the urban land will be snarled into endless traffic gridlocked suburbs.

    We probably can't stop this entirely, but we can at least slow it down a bit.

  • (Show?)

    Kulongoski's base: moderate, fiscially conservative, socially responsible.

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    You are so right, Pat and Peter.

    It's like Kulongoski's lip service to the importance of education--he has done zilch-o. All talk, no action. His school funding plan was pretty good, but he should have been out working to make this happen since he was elected.

    Back to the topic--can't hurt to repeat those numbers:

    Call now to protect land-use laws! Governor’s office: 503.378.4582 Kate Brown’s office: 503-986-1700 Find your Senator's contact info here.

  • (Show?)

    I am not quite where Jesse is because I never want to commit a year in advance, but this action of the Governor drives me up the wall. His position will cause permanent damage to the Oregon I love. This can not be fixed in the next budget like many things can. What was he thinking? I have always been lukewarm about Ted because of his absolute failure to support education when it counted with more than words. Now he supports the destruction of our land use laws. I am not convinced now that Mannix could be any worse.

  • Kevin M (unverified)

    "Yes, we need a challenger in the primary!"

    We have one, Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson.

  • EugenePeopleareinsane (unverified)

    "We have one, Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson."

    We need a candidate that can win. Pete needs to spend millions just to have people outside of Lane county know who he is. Teddy will kill him with name id alone. Where's he going to get the money?

    There's only one Lane County mad man for me and he's gun lovin' Peter Defazio.

  • Sean M (unverified)

    Mr. Bray: Let’s reframe this issue, shall we? Instead of shallowly casting the Governor as a scapegoat, worsening our opinion of him for each and every move of his that even slightly treads along bi-partisan lines, let’s deconstruct the issue a bit more so as to get to the meat of the reasoning behind Kulongoski’s recent actions.

    Frankly, what the Governor’s support of the amended version of SB 1037 comes down to is that the people of Oregon, along with the Republican held House, have given Governor Kulongoski a nasty, nasty choice to make: either support SB 1037 even though he may think it to be a thoroughly inadequate response to a huge problem, or veto the amended SB 1037 and force the counties and municipalities of Oregon to bankrupt themselves dealing with each Measure 37 submission individually through the courts. Crappy as he may think this bill is, with the Republicans holding the House majority a more liberal slanted bill regarding M37 is not so much an option—at this point the Governor simply wants to install at least a few safeguards for the wellbeing of the state (which this bill most certainly does) and to make sure that the process is dealt with similarly throughout the state (which the bill also does). As much as we liberals might like him to, Governor Kulongoski just does not have the power to repeal Measure 37. He has done, however, all that has been in his power to do. He came out strongly against the measure before its passing, publicly imploring the voters of Oregon to vote down M37, he has urged the legislature to deal with the measure firmly and effectively, and he has held out as long as he possibly could against passing a less than adequate bill.

    Honestly Mr. Bray, how would you have done better in his place? The Governor is dealing with what the people of the state and the House have forced on him, ignorant of the consequences that may result from their actions—he’s done as well as anyone (including yourself or Mr. Saxton) could have given the situation. Let’s stop the needless and irresponsible scapgoating, take responsibility for our own actions and start recognizing this situation for what it really is.

  • James S. (unverified)

    Wow! I didn't realize that it was Kulongoski that passed Measure 37 into law. Or Measure 5, which has effectively caused a complete toilet clog in our educational system, and then there is Measure 11 which is bankrupting the state. Damn, he must be one powerful guy!

    Listen, I wish this was a better situation too, but to blame the Governor is ridiculous. As far as I can tell he is the only person down in Salem actually trying to make the state work under the heavy load of crap Oregon voters keep passing through the initiative system.

    What good bills have the actual legislators proposed? Umm….Oh I don’t recall. The fact that he can point to the fact that he has proposed an Educational Plan that would help fix out school funding issues and it was his Civil Union’s and Anti Discrimination Bill, is enough to show me that he is proposing and supporting bold ideas. It is the legislature’s job to create and pass laws; it is his job to execute them.

    As far as Measure 37 is concerned, it sucks. That is easy. I urge anyone to figure out a way to get us out of the mess WE have put OURSELVES in. That is the tough part. It was put into law by the Oregon people and can’t just be overturned.

    I don’t think the Governor deserves the blame for the problem. Finding a balanced solution that will give only extremely limited transferability is much better than having this go into the courts where it further bankrupt local counties and the state taking even more money out of our schools and human services.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)


    I don't think you are following this issue closely. Have you read the most current version of 1037?


    The ORIGINAL 1037 indeed did have some environmental protections. The current one has NO safeguards or protections. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Show me a single safeguard. They have ALL been removed. So when you say that the bill "install[s] at least a few safeguards for the wellbeing of the state (which this bill most certainly does)"... well, you are wrong.

    This bill almost exclusively grants transfers of waivers, something that was not part of M37. Perhaps you mean that this is a "safeguard" to administrative complexity? Please. While it might be costly for the courts to ultimately decide, for example, that waiver transfer is NOT part of the original M37, it is absolutely inappropriate to head-off this possible cost by granting waiver transfer outright. Indeed, this bill may simplify administration and court costs. So would getting rid of the endangered species act. The courts need to define M37 (personally, I think they will find it unconstitutional), and it is wrong-headed for a Governor who says he is against M37 to clarify it by giving more to land speculators.

    You say he can either support 1037 or veto it. Actually, that is not true. If he didn't actively support it (which he is doing now), it would NOT pass the Senate, and he would NOT have to veto it. It still will probably not pass the Senate.

  • Adventuregeek (unverified)

    Ok, Kulongoski really lost me here. I will support almost any primary challenger at this point. M37 and son of M37 (1037) are probably with worst thing to ever happen to Oregon (really can you name something worse, let me know if you can [Measure 5 is close]) and the Gov just rolls over. I hate this attitude of "hey everyone voted on it, better find a compromise". If you really belive in something you don't compromise, you go down fighting. It's becoming very clear Kulongoski doesn't belive in ANYTHING. He makes Kitzhaber look like a fanatic.

    If it bankrupts local governments then so be it, maybe it will teach the voters a lesson. As gov he has one of the biggest bully pupits around, why not use it to work to replace M37 with something that actually solves the minor problems with Oregon's land use laws.

    Anyway, call now before Hood River becomes a giant gated community for millionaires (just sickening).

  • djk (unverified)

    "We have one, Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson."

    "We need a candidate that can win. Pete needs to spend millions just to have people outside of Lane county know who he is. Teddy will kill him with name id alone. Where's he going to get the money?"

    Pete can win if progressives want him to win.

    How many progressive challengers will there be in the primary? If Sorenson's the only one, and progressives (at least those who are active in primary season) are sufficiently pissed off at Kulongoski, I don't think Mr. Sorenson will have any problem getting his name out there or raising money to compete. Sure, Kulongoski is the establishment candidate and has access to plenty of business dollars and the Goldschmidt network -- but his low popularity means he can be knocked off by an inspiring challenge.

    I've never lived in Lane County, but I saw Pete Sorenson speak several times at the annual environmental law conference in Eugene, back in the early 90s. He left a pretty good impression; I remembered him long after I forgot most of the other panelists, and I remember thinking "we need more like this guy in government." I think that as more people learn about him, he could pick up a base of solid progressive support.

    Of course, much hangs on whether the media will declare him a serious challenger or dismiss him as a Don Quixote.

  • (Show?)

    Sean and James thank you for pointing out the obvious. The people spoke on M37.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    The people did not "speak" on M37 -- that is, they did not rise up and demand these changes. Instead, Oregon has a crappy initiative system that allows any rube with enough money to put simplistic questions before voters. The voters passively answer these questions, probably spending a few minutes on each, without realizing the far-reaching consequences. A few sound bites from cranky Dorothy English goes a long way -- indeed, marketing and hype overrides any nuance and complexity, and unwinds the careful consideration of many land-use experts over the years.

  • Adventuregeek (unverified)


    The misinformed people spoke on M37. I have talked with many people who voted for M37 and though it was a emanate domain type issue (which it isn't). When I explain what M37 really is, they feel duped. Comment like "wow so zoning goes out the window?!" Yeah, exactly, patch work of exemptions based on how long you owned land.

    The thing that really chaps my hide about M37 is that it's more of the "someones right to get rich is more important than the public good attitude" that has become endemic on America today. We all make choices in life, some choose to be a farmer, some choose to drive a truck, some choose to be a developer. No one has a guarantee that they will be able to sell their property for a million dollars and retire in style (ie. Dorthy English) at the expense of everyone else. I'd love it if there was a law that everyone in the state had to pay me a $5, but that's just not how it works except in the selfish M37 mindset.

    <h2>BTW here's the relevant section of ammeded 1037: Sure sounds like it's allowing almost unlimited waiver transfer which would open up almost any kind of development on most of Oregon's farm land. Oh well we all knew Oregon was to good to be true right, might as well join everyone else in the big race to the bottom, hey the people spoke.</h2>

    { + (11)(a) If a public entity waives a land use regulation, the waiver is transferable and remains effective until: (A) Ten years after the date of the final decision in which the waiver is approved if the claim is filed on or before December 2, 2006; or (B) Two years after the date of the final decision in which the waiver is approved if the claim is filed after December 2, 2006. (b) When a use allowed pursuant to a waiver is substantially implemented, the use has the legal status that would have applied to the use if the use was lawfully established on the date the owner who obtained the waiver acquired the property. (c) A conveyance of the property that is subject to a valid waiver does not affect the validity of the waiver. (d) The time periods described in paragraph (a) of this subsection are tolled during the time a final decision implementing a waiver is on review or remand. (e) As used in this subsection, 'substantially implemented ' means: (A) For a land division, a final partition or final subdivision plat has been recorded; or (B) For all other uses, the use specified in the waiver has vested. + }

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    When my parents conceived me in 1972, they did so under the assumption that I would be born into 1972 laws. Therefore, I hereby demand that any laws passed since 1972 no longer apply to me -- as well, I can transfer this waiver to my offspring.

  • LT (unverified)

    First of all, "can win if progressives want him to"? Yeah, that "if you just believe in the candidate and don't ask tough questions" routine really elected Sen. Bruggere, didn't it?

    Some friends and I are impressed with some of the concrete things Sen. GOP Leader Ferrioli has done this session--allowed his members to disagree publicly, took a positive approach to defeating the AuCoin nomination ("the person for the job is the one who has it now, not AuCoin"), and he sent out a newsletter saying that public comment to his office cause him to change his mind to oppose the bill to gut Measure 3. Is there anyone in Republican leadership anywhere else in the country who has allowed public input from ordinary people to change his opinion on an issue? Admirable! I disagree with Ferrioli about 80% of the time, but admire the job he has done.

    So what is Sorenson's positive vision for the state? Where does he stand on the editorial in the Oregonian this weekend ( a play on the song "Sweet Home Alabama")? How would he implement his vision? What does he think are the high points and low points of the session just completed? Did he think the Senate did a good job as the first solidly Democratic Senate in a decade? If not, why not? Can Sorenson supporters give us 3 concrete reasons why he would be a better candidate than, say, Sen. Schrader, Sen. Deckert, or any other current elected official?

    On the subject of 1037-D: It may not be the problem it appears to be. I was in the capitol Saturday. There were 2 bills on the Third Reading under the heading "requires suspension of the rules". When I visited my state rep's office and asked about that, I was told that the other bill (forget the number) had been raised as a motion to suspend the rules, but not 1037. And to the amazement of many, there was no 1037 on today's House Third Reading. Speculation is there aren't the votes, and why bring it up if the votes aren't there.

    Plus the fact that the B version passed the Senate, this is the D version. And there appears to be some skittishness about not wanting the sort of "how could you vote on this without understanding what would happen?" which caused a firestorm in the last interim over the 24/7 school speed limit.

    Given that the legislature may well adjourn sine die in a few days, maybe (we can hope) the calculation was made this is not worth the effort--Ted K or no Ted K.

    But Ted K. is as responsible for his own words and actions as Minnis, Scott, or anyone else serving in the capitol as an elected official. And if people think this stand on 1037-D is their "3rd strike" as far as being disappointed about Kulongoski,so be it. Maybe we will see people running for Gov. whose names are not yet part of public conversation. Many I know say the public has grown tired of Mannix, Saxton, Kulongoski and it is time for some fresh candidates.

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    He has done, however, all that has been in his power to do.

    I almost snarfed my Rolling Rock on that one. I voted for the guy, and I consider myself a loyal Democrat, but I am absolutely disgusted at Kulongoski's lack of ACTION on this and so many issues (school funding topping the list). Instead of rolling over on the "govt waste is rampant-no new taxes" frame, he should have been spending his entire term out holding town halls in every single county, educating people about how money is really spent and where it is really needed, and using the bully pulpit of his office to advocate strongly for good policy.

    Instead, he gives a speech every couple months about how important education is. And then he pulls "compromises" like this disaster out of his hat at the last minute.

    Thank you, Peter, for your excellent analysis of SB 1037 and its consequences. As others have said--with M37, voters were duped by a highly misleading ballot title and demogogue-ing TV ads. An overwhelming majority of Oregonians want land use protections.

  • James S. (unverified)

    AdventureGeek, Let's have another vote of the people on this matter then if they are so easily convinced that they were duped by M37. I am all for this being overturned.

    It is time to quit playing defense. We are getting run over by the right's 'simple' language that causes devistation upon our state. Where is our 'simple' language that not only stops them in their tracks, but pushes good ideas?

    I know there are around 30 initiatives already filed. Almost all of them are absolutely horrid, attack progressive ideas and hurt Oregon. Who knows which one will pass and be the next 5, 11, or 37?

    Why are the conservatives so much better at this than we are? We need to get out there and fight, come up with a plan, get our offense going, and win.

    There is no use pointing fingers anymore. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    James: URL for current initiatives filed? Or some idea as to what they are?

  • Sid (unverified)


    You've made some excellent points. Oregonians did not understand the complexities involved in the passing of M37. I too have spoken with people who voted 'yes' on M37 and who now feel duped. Several of my friends almost voted 'yes' until I explained to them what the measure meant for the state. They were surprised that it wasn't such a simple matter after all.

    Unfortunately, opponents of the measure weren't able to get a clear message out there that would have resonated with a majority of Oregonians. A poll that was published by the O a few months ago showed that Oregonians want their cake and to eat it too. They want to preserve Oregon's beauty, its open spaces and environment. At the same time, they believe a property owner should be compensated if the government makes changes in laws that affect the price of their property or that the property owner should be allowed to develop, but with limits.

    Opponents need to find the language that resonates with the conservationist leanings in Oregonians in order to win the battle over the 'right to develop' leanings. Kulongoski has failed to do this. I understand he's in a tough position with the Republican controlled House, but he hasn't stood out as a leader on the issue and instead has made the situation worse by allowing the House to go further with M37. Kulongoski is the Governor. He's got the microphone and he hasn't used it.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    Why ARENT there more progressive iniatives for 06?


    Surely with all the internet organization on the left, someone would blast out a dozen great initiatives?

  • LT (unverified)

    A dozen great initiatives? On what? Need I remind you folks how many measures there were on the 2000 ballot (about 25) and how many passed (about 8). Where I worked that year a number of us decided to rebel. Unless we had signed a petition, knew a lot about a measure, or a friend had convinced us it was worthwhile, our default position was NO--NO to reading such a huge voter pamphlet(except for measures we cared about), NO to voting for Sizemore measures (the public agreed with us on that) because rather than getting a real job in the real world he ran ballot measures for a living, NO on any measure we had no positive reason to vote for.

    No consultants were involved in that process. Later a political professional would get angry and say "that's not what people do--people read each and every ballot title!", but I never heard of winning votes by telling people that they are not doing "what people do!". This was just friends saying "there are too many measures this year, let's rebel" and talking in ones, twos, or slightly larger groups. And then if each of those people talked to 2 friends, and they talked to 2 friends, etc. that is how word of mouth is spread. I voted for Measure 3 because of one of those friends.

    If someone has great ideas (like campaign finance reform, nonpartisan, etc, by all means run a ballot measure campaign. But unless it is an idea whose time has come, I think most of the energy should be on House races.

    And need I remind you that in 2006 there will be new young voters not old enough to vote in 2004? Getting them involved (as the Bus Project does) seems more worthwhile to me than "the right is winning the ballot measure war, we must beat them". How many registered Indep. care whether "the right" or "the left" is winning some battle or other? If there are too many measures, people will just tune out. Some friends and I got together in the mid-late 1990s to study ballot measures, but in 2000 there were just too many.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    As for a dozen good initiatives, well, many things... but I would suggest initiatives by incrementalism, rather than vast sweeping changes that tend to get rejected. Things like expanding bottle bill to include all plastic beverage containers; limiting some logging in Tillamook forest; requiring state agencies to get X% from renewables; etc.

  • (Show?)

    Well, let's see.....what did the 61% of Oregonians that voted for M37, among the nation's most informed voters, have in mind when they said property owners did in fact have property rights that could not be taken without just compensation? Maybe they are more informed than we might like to accept. Even the recent US Supreme Court decision on eminent domain ruled that just compensation is required when the public acts to acquire private property rights for larger public good including the eventual usage by private sector uses. Your anger is mis-directed at Governor Kulongoski. The legislature and the Governor heard the majority of Oregonians that voted on M37 and have followed the voters direction by preserving transfer-ability, one of the fundamental rights of fee ownership. As a property owner I am happy my ownership rights have been sustained.

  • dispossessed (unverified)

    "Maybe they are more informed than we might like to accept. Even the recent US Supreme Court decision on eminent domain ruled that just compensation is required when the public acts to acquire private property rights for larger public good including the eventual usage by private sector uses."

    Whoa whoa whoa. Don't throw that in here. That ruling had nothing one way or another to do with "just compensation," in no question or dispute. It had to do with public use vs. public good through different private use.

    Please make your argument on other grounds. (In fact, that ruling might quite upset the grounds your apple cart would be teetering on.)

  • LT (unverified)

    Things like expanding bottle bill to include all plastic beverage containers; limiting some logging in Tillamook forest; requiring state agencies to get X% from renewables; etc.

    A suggestion: Take those ideas to a civic organization (Rotary, Toastmasters, presentation to a church group, etc) and also to the new Rural Caucus.

    If you find enthusiasm, then go for it. But if it is a tough sell ("didn't we just have a Tillamook ballot measure?", "didn't an expansion of the Bottle Bill fail awhile back?", "exactly how would that renewables measure work, actually, and where else in the country is that being done successfully?") they may be ideas whose time is not yet come.

    If you don't have a pitch which could be "sold" to the folks in the breakroom at work, or to your neighbors, or to Little League parents or any other gathering of people you know, it probably won't succeed with that broader group of registered Independents who seem to have decided a lot of House races (more people registered that way than the margin of victory in a lot of House races). Paid petitioners can't get people to sign petitions if the idea doesn't make sense to them. And even if it gets on the ballot, people whose lives are complicated by work, family, or whatever aren't likely to vote for something that just looks like "Oh No! Not another measure to study! I don't have time for this".

    Political activists think they know what the political climate is, and then sometimes they are surprised. As an old friend of mine used to say, such activists are "the 5% of the public who think they win elections". But the decisions are made by those folks who aren't always thinking about politics, but about more down to earth matters: that family wedding this summer, the job interview where the result was supposed to be known "in a few days" but there was no news for almost 2 weeks, dealing with hot summer weather in a home without air conditioning, what to take to the neighborhood potluck, etc.

    Supporting the nonpartisan measure because people are "tired of partisan bickering and game playing" is a short explanation of why it is a worthwhile measure. If other ideas can't be explained in such a short time, do they really have a chance of winning?

    In Carville and Begala's book with the long title beginning BUCK UP..., they tell a story about trying to make Bill Clinton less long winded. One read the Bible verse John 3:16 "For God so loved the world..." while the other held a stopwatch. It took about 7 seconds to read 25 words out loud. Their message was "if all of Christianity can be summed up in 25 words, what makes you think you will convince people by being long winded?"

    What people might wish for, and what will win are often not the same thing. When planning for ballot measure campaigns, it is wise to remember that, and to ponder what the Adult Adoptee measure sponsors did right. They weren't professionals but they had a great story. They did a lot of their office work in Kinkos (state of the art machinery, and they only had to pay for what they used). Their operation was small, their success was large. I'll take that over someone who has a "great idea" which fails to win.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)

    I was expecting someone to post a credible excuse for the Governor's support of 1037, but haven't seen one yet. streamlining the process for local government does not justify multiplying the damage M37 will cause. I hope we are all missing something here.

    by the way, I think Sorenson would make a good candidate. Does Saxton have better name recognition? Mannix does, but his negatives are sky high. Sure, Defazio would be great, but would we want him to leave Washington, where there are way too few leaders of good character already?

  • Adventuregeek (unverified)

    Paulie, I think your comment pretty well sums up the problem.

    "As a property owner I am happy my ownership rights have been sustained."

    It's I above WE. As an Oregonian I would gladly give up my property "rights" so that WE can ALL live in the kind of state that is now the envy of the nation. Unfortunately you exercising your property "rights" (who knew property had rights, I thought those were reserved for people?!) infringes on the rights of others. This is the textbook definition of selfishness. At least be honest that it's just simple greed, I really hate the double speak of the property "rights" crowd more than anything.

    As for what to do, I think an education campaign is in order. Oregon has had many many new arrivals in the past few years. I don't think many of them understand why Oregon is the way it is. They seem to think they stumbled into some undiscovered nirvana. No, it was made this way by foresight and hard work by the leaders of the past. They need to know about the land use laws that allow Oregon to be what it is today. I would love to see 1000 Friends of Oregon take this up. It need to start now, don't wait till the next M37 or 1037.

  • Anon (unverified)

    To the folks who are hoping for a slate of progressive ballot measures... don't worry, they'll arrive soon enough. The right folks are doing the research and gearing up.

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    Any word on what is happening with SB 1037? (Nothing in the O. that I could see; "if it matters to Oregonians, it's in Blue Oregon")

    I picked up a voice mail last night from a staffer in the Gov's office who had called (I had requested a call back re: his support for 1037), so I will call back today and see if I can find out how they are justifying his stance. Funny thing, this is the first time in months I've had any kind of response from his office; guess he really is planning to run!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    Well, it is on today's Legislative Schedule:


    Under House, Third reading of Senate Bills, SB 1037 D-Eng...Garrard

    I am an idiot when it comes to all this protocol, because I thought that 1037 was now awaiting some Senate action, not further deliberation from the House??

  • Becky (unverified)

    The upcoming gubernatorial race is shaping up like recent national races. Nobody exciting on either side. Or should I say downright worthless on the one hand and nearly evil on the other. If it's a Kulongoski-Mannix race I'll probably sit it out just like I did in the last Presidential race. I'm so sick of having to vote for the "lesser of two evils" - not to mention the whole issue of whether your vote actually gets counted these days. Wouldn't it be great if we could get a Ron Wyden to run for governor? Someone who is a real person with real convictions, and who is honest? I guess there aren't too many of those left in politics.

  • Patrick Allen (unverified)

    For process clarity:

    The original bill (SB 1037) was amended in committee and sent to the Senate floor (1037-A). That bill was referred to another committee, amended, and sent back to the Senate floor (1037-B) where it passed.

    In the House, the bill was referred to two committees. The first committee amended it (1037-C) and sent it to the second committee. The second committee amended it again (1037-D) and recommended it to the House floor. It's up today.

    If it passes the House, it will need to go back to the Senate for concurrance in the House amendments. the Senate can either concur or send it to a conference committee.

    Hope this helps.

  • hoarse_radish (unverified)

    the iniative process doesn't seem to work in progressive's favor simply because- on a whole- progressives are civil libertarians and would be shocked- SHOCKED- to pass any iniatives that somehow limit, in any way, the ability of people to live their lives.

    anyone notice how all the iniatives sought after by the right- M37 notwithstanding- all are based around the concept of "no": you can't do this; government can't do this; cna't, can't, can't...

    progressives are to collect signatures to ensure that we CAN do things? it jsut shouldn't work that way.

    still, if I had my way, I'd begin my signature drive for my divorce-outlawing iniaitve nay day now... you know, to "protect marraige" and all that stuff...

  • Patrick Allen (unverified)

    HB1037D just passed the House 40-18.

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    Thanks for the process overview and update, Mr. Allen!

    Is 1037D substantially different from the terrible version described earlier? What is next-- is there any hope and what if anything can we do?

    Thanks again!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    Can anyone provide any links to who voted which way in the house?

    Also, does anyone have any down-low word on what the senate is likely to do?!

  • (Show?)

    Here is the Full Measure history as of 6:52pm Tues. It's on the Leg. Website. I'm not going to give a link because that encourages laziness.

    SB 1037 By Senator RINGO, Representative GARRARD -- Relating to land use; declaring an emergency.

    4-4(S) Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.

    Referred to Environment and Land Use.

    4-6 Public Hearing held.

    5-10 Public Hearing held.

    5-17 Work Session held.

    5-26 Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng.)

    5-27 Second reading.

    5-31 Carried over to 06-01 by unanimous consent.

    6-1 Third reading. Motion to refer to Rules carried.

    Ayes, 22; Nays, 7--Atkinson, Beyer, George, Kruse, Starr, B., Starr, C., Whitsett; Excused, 1--Nelson.

    6-15 Work Session held.

    6-27 Work Session held.

    7-5 Recommendation: Do pass with amendments to the A-Eng. bill. (Printed B-Eng.)

    7-7 Bill read. Carried by Ringo. Passed.

    Ayes, 20; Nays, 10--Atkinson, Beyer, Ferrioli, George, Kruse, Starr, B., Starr, C., Verger, Whitsett, Winters.

    Beyer, Kruse, Nelson, Starr, C. declared potential conflict of interest.

    7-10(H) First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.

    7-11 Referred to State and Federal Affairs with subsequent referral to Budget.

    7-15 Public Hearing held.

    7-18 Work Session held.

    7-20 Work Session held.

    7-25 Recommendation: Do pass with amendments, be printed C-Engrossed, and be referred to Budget by prior reference.

    Referred to Budget by prior reference.

    7-29 Work Session held.

    Work Session held.

    Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed D-Engrossed.

    8-1 Second reading.

  • Sid (unverified)


    Based on a voice message I got today from Brown's office, SB1037 is being sent back to committee in the Senate. The Senate Dems don't concur with the House amendments to the bill.

    It sounds like they listened when we all called yesterday!

    Good job guys! More work is on the way, for sure.

  • (Show?)

    Would the people who voted for M37 have approved it if it had this transfer of waivers included it in? I don't think so.

    Already Wal-Mart has been trying to take advantage of M37. They lease (rather than buy) property from long-term property owners. The property owners then say they'll sue under M37 if the Wal-Mart isn't allowed to go in. Imagine what would happen if Wal-Mart was the one with the ability to sue?

    Personally, I think that if the Dem parties and organizations around the state would just give Sorenson a chance to come and speak to them that he could win. We have to stop treating people like traitors if they run against a terrible incumbent in their own party.

    Gov K's approval numbers are hovering just over 30%. He only won the governor's race by a few points over Mannix. Do you really think he has a chance next November?

    Give Sorenson a chance. E-mail him. Call him. Invite him to a meeting. Ask him the hard questions-- some of us over at Democracy for Oregon did exactly that this past weekend (details will be forthcoming over at Blog for Oregon). I think if you give him a chance to speak with him you'll feel the same way I do-- that as of this moment he's my #1 choice in the primary. Gov K lost my support many, many months ago.

    It's easy to say you're for something if you never actually fight for it. Gov K could easily use his power to make sure the civil unions bill received a vote in the house. He hasn't participated in the budget process, doesn't use his power to make sure things get voted on, etc.

    So what the hell has he done? Given some lip service to a few bills he knows the majority of Oregonians support. Go to the funerals of fallen soldiers (the one thing he gets my respect for).

    Maybe someone ought to check the back of his neck for a band-aid, as this isn't the man we voted into office.

  • Patrick Allen (unverified)

    18 No votes included Avakian, Barnhart, Beyer, Buckley, Dingfelder, Greenlick, Hansen, Hass, Holvey, Macpherson, March, Merkley, Nolan, Rosenbaum, Shields, Tomei, Wirth, Witt.

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    This is great news that it appears to be dead in the Senate.

    Those in the know-- is it really dead? Could there be some last minute effort by developers lobbyists or OIA to revive it? I get nervous with all the last minute bill stuffing and such. In other words, is the Senate leadership firm on their opposition or should we call again just to make sure they got the message?

    I did not take kindly to the O. reporter's framing of this issue (today's metro, p. B9): "the R-controlled House has aimed to maximize property owners' rights. The Democrat-controlled Senate hoped to limit development."

    I think some LTEs would be in order, and/or polite notes to the reporter. [email protected] , [email protected]

    Also, the story says that lawmakers have been "flooded with pleas both for and against SB1037." Was the other side mobilizing citizen calls, and if so which group(s), anyone know? Does OIA do a lot of grassroots action? Just curious to understand the enemy as obviously this fight is long from over.

  • Dan Eisenbeis (unverified)

    The Senate is likely to vote today or Thursday whether to concur with SB 1037-D as passed by the House. Meanwhile, the Governor's office and some special interests continue to work the capitol halls in an effort to pass this bill.

    If you are concerned about allowing corporations and developers to purchase special rights to bypass land use protections, please continue to ask people to urge their Senator "not to concur" on SB 1037.

guest column

connect with blueoregon