My best Democratic night

T.A. Barnhart

This is easily the best night of my life as a Democrat.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, proud to have voted twice for Jimmy Carter, for Jesse Jackson in the primaries, for all kinds of terrific Democrats (and one Republican, years ago; a friend, so that barely counts). But I've only been an active Democrat for a few years, beginning in March 2003 when I attended my first "Dean for America" Meetup at the Old World Deli in downtown Corvallis.

That, of course, was followed by the disappointment of the end of Dean's candidacy and, even worse, Kerry's pathetic loss. Those were the dark days. The two victories by Reagan and Bush the Elder's wins were sad days, but I was a non-participant in party politics then (although very active in community issues).

Tonight, however, almost everything is coming up roses. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and Harry Reid may be Senate Majority Leader (thanks in no small part to Billings, MT, where I grew up and which apparently went strong for Tester). Peter DeFazio and his colleagues will get to issue subpoenas to expose the wrong-doings of Halliburton and the other thieves in Iraq. Hooley's made her seat safe. Kulo was re-elected decisively, a larger margin than his first election. The House Dems will now run the show, and perhaps without Minnis in the building. But in the House will be Brian Clem, Jean Cowen, Chris Edwards and, of course, my State Representative, Sara Gelser! And on ballot measures, I don't think things could have gone better. No one 41, 43, 45, 46 & 48 (and 47, phht, nothing without 46).

What this means is that for the first time since 1990, we'll have a state government run by people who actually care about Oregon, not about their crazed version of Jesus or the orders of their out-of-state corporate masters. Don McIntyre is toast; the Legislature can finally fix both Measures 5 and 37. As we saw from last sessions work in the Senate, Democratic leadership will actually allow Republicans to have a working voice in forming legislation -- something Minnis blocked from her own party (except perhaps Wayne Scott; he may spend 2007 sitting in the corner).

Not every race went well. Paul Evans' loss is tragic; it's even more astounding to me that Fred Girod could be Dan Thackaberry who more accurately represents the people of the district. Or not, I guess; they voted based on the "R" by Girod's name and nothing more. O well; I hope then — and the voters in HD15 — enjoy having a State Representative in the minority. Don't expect Andy Olson to pad his legislative resume very much in 2007. And how voters can pick Donna "Empty Hat" Nelson over Sal Peralta... sigh.

When I walked home from Dems HQ tonight, the sky was partly cloudy, the near-full moon jumping in and out of view. The air was cool; trees, still wet from days of rain, glistened in the lamplight. I walked past the house down the street with a huge Saxton sign, and signs for Robin Brown, Feldkamp, Hiner and Wright. Yes, I gloated. The guy took an 0-fer, and I gloated. For just a few moments. Then I continued on home, enjoying the clean, cool air and the most beautiful night I have known as a Democrat.

For a change, I feel optimistic about the future of our democracy.

  • luke (unverified)

    I can't say I'm too disappointed either. Republicans needed a beating for not getting much done on key issues and the usual pork. Since congressional republicans haven't been all that different then democrats, you guys can have at it. Loosing Congress will make it easier for a republican to win the White House in '08. Nothing quite like split government.

  • mike (unverified)

    Minnis-Brading matchup still too close to call, but the good news is the evil bitch of the east doesn't have enough money to sue or ask for a recount. Her GOTV doorhangers were cheap-ass paper, black and white, (oops, spent all my $$$$$$$$ on broadcast) and I'm so confident Brading wins this race. Given the INCREDIBLE amount of GOTV that we did, I am going to bed comforted by the fact that her career is over...unless she maybe wants to manage a pizza joint where she can allow 17 year old girls to be sexually assaulted...but wait, there are repercussions for that, if not the $20 grand, the loss of the speakership years later.

    Night, beyotch. Your reign is OVER.

  • K (unverified)

    After having (somehow) lived through so many horrible election night, this feels pretty damn good.

    What a great night to be a Democrat. What a great night to know that your country isn't as screwed up as you thought it was.

  • Joe12Pack (unverified)

    Voting for Jesse Jackson. Wow, that's gotta be one of those "What the hell was I on?" moments...I hope.

    But seriously, congrats to the Democrats. Many a Republican ass is all the redder from todays voter administered ass whoopin.

  • Fred Heutte (unverified)

    The biggest winner of all tonight was Howard Dean and the idea that the Democratic Party can actually be a party again in all 50 states.

    It's about time.

  • BOHICA (unverified)

    The biggest winner was control of Supreme Court nominees with a Dem Senate majority.

  • Becky (unverified)

    I couldn't be happier that the Democrats took the House (in DC) - we needed that desperately to be able to put an end to the madness.

    But I am very concerned about the total Democratic control of the Legislature and Governorship here in Oregon. I urge you all to remember that Oregonians have clearly spoken on property rights three times now. If you want to hold on to your power, don't abuse it by making changes that will trample the rights of ordinary people to use their land. That isn't even close to the reason voters have put Democrats in charge. They've put you in charge to stop the corruption and to put the people first. You stick to that and you'll be in there for a long time.

  • Don Smith (unverified)

    Word, Becky.

  • (Show?)

    Hey T.A., Senior, West, or Central? (BCCHS '84 myself.)

    A margin-triggered recount is on the way, but Billings ended up cutting to Burns, overall, though by only 1,222 votes:

    Yellowstone County Results, 6:46am

    And that - Billings being Billings - is the story in itself. For those not raised under the Big Sky, between the Rimrocks and the Yellowstone, Billings is both Montana's largest and most conservative city (um, "town" ... 92,179 registered voters ... smaller than Grehsam).

    While I've got 23 years on me as an Oregonian, I was just back in Billings a few weeks ago (taking care of my Mom), and talked politics with friends and family. Burns effectively lost Billings, compared to the 60/40 split he should have taken (why else did Bush whistle-stop there) because in more recent years he'd taken to wearing expensive navy-blue suits (visual symbol for the Abramoff scandal and general Washington taint). And, because Tester looks like such a dork (check the hair) a lot of hard-core Montana farm'n'ranchers identified with him, and took offense at the endless attack ads clearly being paid for by "outta Staters".

    The Republicans lost Montana because of nativist tendencies, not as a result of them, as has happened elsewhere in the past. And, the Dems need to notice this. We are winning in Montana (e.g., Gov. Schweitzer) because we're running as plain folk, not power-suits.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    Ran into a former student and very young woman who works for SIEU outside the Benson last night ans she said, "This is the best election I've had in a long time." I responded just as T.A. did, "It's my best election ever." And I've been working for Democrats since the days of Morse and McGovern.

    Did the Republicans turn out? With all these conservative ballot measures going down in flames, I'd think the GOP turnout must have been way down. But I haven't looked at numbers. All I have been doing is saying, "Yay."

    Really happy that Sal Peralta won in my old stomping grounds. Looks like Mike Caudle made it pretty close, setting himself up for 2008.

  • Curt (unverified)

    Was that Oregonion thing supposed to be funny or just dumb?


  • jami (unverified)

    the best thing in my adult political life had been... bill clinton. a good man overall, but the last six years had me losing faith in the system and our country. but it appears that the system really can work, and people really do care about their country.

    thank goodness. best wishes to all our elected officials to make our country strong again.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)

    I urge you all to remember that Oregonians have clearly spoken on property rights three times now.

    M39 being one of the few successful measures passed should send the new majority in Salem a clear signal that Oregonians hold property rights a high priority. Any futzing with Measure 37 would not be viewed well by voters.

    Nationally, divided government in Washington is always a good thing. Less chance of one party screwing the taxpayer too badly that way. Plus the fireworks in the House between the more conservative Democrats and those wanting investigations and impeachment hearings will make for an interesting two years.

    Should be lots to talk about.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)

    It was a great night for Democrats and the nation. T.A. is not quite right abou the effect of Measure 47, which will go into effect as Oregon law. Here are the details from Fair Elections Oregon:

    November 7, 2006



    Many Provisions Will Take Effect and Do Not Depend on Measure 46

    Some Other Provisions Will No Doubt be Challenged

    Note to the Press: This press release assumes that Measure 47 is enacted. With 52% of the vote counted, it leads by a 54-46% margin, and various services have projected it will win.

    Oregon voters today enacted Measure 47, a comprehensive campaign finance reform measure that includes both limits on political contributions and additional anti-coercion, disclosure and reporting requirements.

    "The Measure 47 limits on contributions will no doubt be attacked in court by the opponents," said volunteer lawyer Dan Meek. This will give the Oregon Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit its 1997 decision, striking down the limits that were enacted by Measure 9 of 1994. In addition, all of the important campaign finance disclosure and reporting and anti-coercion provisions in Measure 47 will take effect and do not in any way depend upon enactment of Measure 46."

    "Oregon voters have shown they know that the current political system is broken and corrupt," said supporter Ken Lewis (former President of the Port of Portland). "If necessary, I will ask the Legislature to refer an amendment to voters so that all of Measure 47 can take effect."

    If Measure 46, a constitutional amendment, had passed, then the contribution limits in Measure 47 would have been protected against attack by opponents who claim that any limits on political contributions violates Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. Since Measure 46 did not pass, the Oregon Supreme Court will have to decide whether the contribution limits in Measure 47 are consistent with the existing Oregon Constitution.

    "This will give the Oregon Supreme Court an opportunity to decide whether Oregon has the only state constitution in America that does not allow limits on political contributions, even though the language of Oregon's analog to the First Amendment is similar to the language of the corresponding amendments in many states," said Meek. “We fully expect these limits to be attacked by the corporations and unions and political parties and everyone else who depends on the existing big money political system in Oregon, one of only 2 states with no limits on political contributions.

    45 states have systems of limits on political contributions. 3 other states have limits on contributions from certain types of corporations or in judicial races only. Only Oregon and New Mexico have no limits on political campaign contributions.

    In any event, the following are the more important provisions of Measure 47 that will go into effect in 30 days, even without Measure 46.

    1 Every campaign advertisement funded by "independent expenditures" must prominently disclose the top 5 contributors to the "independent" campaign, the businesses they are engaged in, and the amounts contributed by each of them. These disclosures must appear in all advertisements, including TV, radio, newspaper, direct mail, billboards, etc. They need not appear on small campaign items, like buttons or bumper stickers.

    2 Anyone making independent expenditures during any 2-year election cycle in excess of $200 must publicly report the expenditures in the same manner and schedule as a political committee in Oregon must report to the Secretary of State or local election officer.

    3 Every candidate who spends more than $5,000 of personal money on a campaign for public office must disclose in every subsequent campaign ad the amount of personal money being spent on the campaign.

    4 Every contributor of more than $500 per year must obtain a "handle" from the Secretary of State, so that his future contributions can be more accurately recorded. [Note: Every registered voter in Oregon already has a handle, consisting of his or her voter registration number. This provision will, however, include also all out-of-state contributors].

    5 "Within five (5) business days of receipt, the Secretary of State shall report and make available on the Internet in an interactive database format all contribution and expenditure reports and all handle registrations. The format shall enable the user to determine the sources and amounts of reported contributions:

               1     For each candidate committee, political committee, political party, and independent expenditure campaign; and
                2     From each contributor who has contributed at least five hundred dollars ($500) during the election cycle."

    6 No employer can, directly or indirectly, "require any employee or contractor to make any contribution or independent expenditure to support or oppose any candidate; or provide or promise any benefit or impose or threaten any detriment due to the fact that an employee or contractor did or did not make such contributions or expenditures. Any person subjected to a violation of this "shall have a civil cause of action against the violator and shall, upon proof of violation, recover a civil penalty of not less than $50,000 per incident of violation."

  • gobytrain (unverified)

    Howard Dean is the <insert word="" of="" bravado="" here=""> hero of the day!

    After a long hiatus of wound licking, I too was brought back into the political fray by his exciting, issue focused, grassroots Presidential campaign (and I loved politics enough at one point to get a degree in it).

    Happy dance!!

  • (Show?)

    Leo, BSHS '75, but many friends from West. my brother was Senior '84 (i think; i was gone from Billings by then and my old memory just doesn't work so good no more). i'm thrilled to see the direction Montana is going, but i'm even more thrilled to be a native Oregonian living in my home state. i am happy to visit Montana, and even Billings (beautiful places, you have to drive the Beartooth Pass once in your life); but i could never live there. it's a foreign country to this left coaster.

  • gobytrain (unverified)


    Please educate yourself on the so called "property rights" issues. It's not a party affiliated cause, it's a non-issue trumped up by out of state benefactors who have no regard for our quality of life here in Oregon. It's funded by developers and business interests.

    I'm going to continue asking why we're allowing these shill property owners begging for compensation to pay lower taxes and then ask for their property to be over valued, or developed. Sounds like these owners want to screw over their neighbors every way they can, so they can retire high on the hog.

    Now that I think about it, selfishness and greed are republican values... Perhaps that's where you see the correlation?

  • Dale Thompson (unverified)

    Not since Nov of 92 have I felt so good after an election. Only one sad part, nobody worked harder and had a more uphill fight than Jim Gilbertson. Too bad he didn't have more help from the state party. When are they going to learn that good Democratic candidates can win on this side of the mountains, but just like the ones on the other side they can't do it by themselves.

    John Dallum may win the election but he will still be a loser. When are so many of the folks in this part of the state going to discover that this isn't your grandpa's Republican party?

  • (Show?)

    M47 has about as much life as Dubya, what with the challenges that will come (many of which will succeed). not to mention the end-runs big money will find around these.

    the real need is for progressives and liberals to join together with moderates to find common ground on electoral reform. a Normandy-style assault on the problem wasn't the greatest idea, but working from the ground up to educate Oregonians on how we can fix the entire system. finance reform without other changes, like instant runoff voting, is simply a bandaid.

    and we can approach this without having gutted free speech. that's something to celebrate.

  • Becky (unverified)

    Gobytrain, forgive my laughing out loud, but I am more than a little bit more familiar with the property rights issue in Oregon than most Oregonians and have demonstrated a willingness to listen to both sides on the matter. You have a very warped view of it and I would suggest that perhaps it is you who ought to be a bit more educated. Might I suggest you begin by talking to real people who have been impacted by property rights restrictions and by reading materials from the other side, rather than limiting your information exposure to extremist viewpoints? You could perhaps start by reading my analysis of the ballot measure results here.

  • (Show?)

    YEEE-HAAAAAA!! Tester wins!

    New results in the past hour took Tester's lead to near 3,000, which is out of the "by request, at State expense" recount zone, and into the "clear evidence of fraud, to a judge, and you foot the bill" recount zone. And there's been no reported hint of fraud.

    It's over in Montana, though Burns is declining to comment. Given multiple comments he made against Gore during the 2000 recount, hypocrisy will be the storyline if he makes a stink now.

  • t.a. barnhart (unverified)

    Becky, Oregonians did the math on M48 and said "Hell no." they're starting to do the math on M37, now that it's reality and not "Don't let Grandma lose her farm". when the Legislature does begin work on mediating M37 (that sounds better than "fix" which the family cat doesn't much care for), they'll find a fair amount of support around the state. the cost of M37 is starting to come home as local govts are having to either pony up big bucks or kowtow to developers. neither is something Oregonians care much for, and they won't tolerate too much of it. this one is likely to be one of the big battles of 2007 -- and maybe 2008.

  • Garlynn (unverified)

    Re: Oregonians & property rights. Though Oregonians don't want their property taken for an unjust cause (making money for somebody else), they have fully realized that Measure 37 was a bunch of crap, and now oppose it by a 2 to 1 margin. I think that, with a new Democratic majority leading Oregon, it's time to repeal Measure 37.

  • Becky (unverified)

    Well, that's downright depressing to think Oregon Democrats are going to waste this opportunity they have to do some good things for the state by pissing everyone off and repealing Measure 37. All I can say is, get ready for the next swing of the pendulum if that's the route you're going to go.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with the rest of you that now that they better understand the consequences measure 37, Oregon voters like it less than they did when they passed it.

    On the other hand, Becky is right--measure 37 passed because people thought there was a real problem that needed to be solved. For a lot of people I don't think it's even a matter of property rights per se so much as it is a matter of fairness. Americans have a thing about fairness and Oregonians maybe even more than average. We seem to be pretty amenable to restrictions on our property rights when we think they promote a greater good and are fair to everyone. When it looks like some people benefit while Grandma gets screwed, that's a whole 'nother deal.

    Merely reversing 37 and going back to the previous status quo is unlikely to get us where we want to be. We need to be thoughtful about how we deal with those issues.

  • (Show?)

    Becky, don't pull a Tom C and let your enthusiasm for a p.o.v. prevent you from hearing what people are actually saying.

    no one is saying "reverse" M37. clearly there is widespread support for creating a means to allow people use their family lands for family purposes. what people are now objecting to -- as Garlynn pointed out, by a 2-1 margin -- is a) developers holding local govt hostage for big bucks and b) the loss of local control over lands vital to protecting the common good (environment, public scenery). there will be no return to pre-M37; no one is advocating that. but M37 as it now stands is untenable; it is broken, and it will get fixed. and it will get done in a way that proves Oregon Democrats still have the ability to work broadly, as was done to create the Oregon Health Plan.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    Here's a summary of a proposed ballot measure for 2008:

    "Prevents state or local government from taking any action that will diminish protection of Oregon's farm land, forests and rivers, or contrtibutes to urban sprawl."

    When such a measure passes, by probably 75% in favor, the legislature will have to confront the contradictions between private property rights and the public good.

  • Larry K (unverified)

    Becky and Doretta, your last two comments here are right on the money. And TA, Garlynn did in fact mention repealing M37, which is why Becky made her comment. Gobytrain, your comment that the "so called" property rights issues are 100% manufactured out-of-state is awfully insulting to the thousands of Oregon voters who have sure made their positions clear on these matters.

  • Becky (unverified)

    T.A., if that's how it is, then that's better than I've been hearing so I'm willing to see what's proposed - I just really hope there is an honest ear for the concerns about government abuse. As for the "Tom C" move, consider me duly admonished.

  • Gary Duell (unverified)

    Well, fellow Dem T.A. Barnhart keeps being wrong, over and over and over. He's wrong to criticize the intelligence or motives of Dan Meek as display by T.A.'s seemingly bottomless & perpetual ignorance about campaign finance and M46 & M47. He's wrong to criticize Tom Civiletti in any way. He was wrong about M46 getting on the ballot. He was wrong about M46 or M47 passing. He is wrong about the odds of successful court challenges to M47 provisions because there are now legal precedents for every provision in M47. But other than that, I love ya T.A.!

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)


    There's a difference between hearing what people say and pretending that what they say makes sense.

  • (Show?)

    Becky, just to clarify: a move to reverse M37 entirely would be stupid. i agree. i'm one of the most progressive people you're going to meet (hell, i was celebrating Bernie Sanders' election because we now have an avowed Socialist in the Senate), but democracies work best when we respect the views of people we know are wrong! M37 was a big mistake, but a lot of Oregonians don't agree. so we find a way to keep it from destroying our communities while meeting the legitimate needs of families and (small) landowners. and i do believe our new Legislature can do that.

  • (Show?)

    So three times Oregonians have made clear their position on property rights--will it be three for three cases where they get buyer's remorse and realize they were sold a bill of goods? Probably, once people begin to realize that public-private cooperation is now dead.

  • (Show?)

    I'd guess not torrid. You're being way overdramatic with the "public-private cooperation is dead" stuff.

    The Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal District is operating under an agreement not to use emminent domain and public-private cooperation seems to be alive and well here.

    I voted against measure 39 but it's hard to make a case that it is anything like measure 37 in the scope of its effects.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)

    If M 47 is immune to challenge in court why did they need the overreaching M 46?

  • Nicolo (unverified)

    The unions and many progressive groups opposed 46 and 47. Now that the Democrats control Oregon's legislature, they should show their loyalty and repeal measure 47 on a voice vote.

    That'd show the whacko reformers.

  • (Show?)

    If M 47 is immune to challenge in court why did they need the overreaching M 46?

    Give it a rest, Ed.

    Whatever measures passed --or didn't-- I think the message is loud and clear that people want their government back. Exit polls showed that even more than Iraq, Republican corruption was on voter's minds.

    Let's show that Democrats can do --and be-- better. Please?

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)

    Democrats can do better than that, Frank. You can quit trying to suppress debate, now.

    It was Gary Duell who took a cheap shot at T. A.; the point of view that M 46 was over-reaching, which T. A. and I share, was vindicated when M 46 lost and lost in every county. Where campaign finance reform goes from here is still up for debate, and I should think it were rightly debated here.

  • gobytrain (unverified)

    I'll be happy to read your blog re Property Rights Becky...

    In the mean time, I'm curious as to why you think super wealthy ideologs like Howard Rich are pouring money into other state's so-called "Property Rights" campaigns (including Oregon's)? By the way, he's under investigation by several states for the duplicitous way he funds these initiatives (as discussed on NPR this very AM).

    I'll be back after I read your view. I'm afraid many highly intelligent folks were duped by the oxymoronic way the term Property Rights is being used. I know I have very clever friends who didn't understand how their own sense of right was being manipulated (until, of course, I enlightened them, for which they are forever grateful).

    By the way, by far the most eloquent analysis of the passing of Measure 37 was done by renowned author ("the Tipping Point") Malcomlm Gladwell in a New Yorker article reviewing the book "Collapse" (the super-selling book on how civilizations ensure their own demise) and during an interview at Powells Books.

    Here's just a quote from the interview:

    "You can't apply the language of property rights if you're trying to make rational decisions about the ecological future of a geographical region. You can't use that language. It doesn't work, for the same reason the standards of proof used by lawyers are different than the standards of proof used by scientists."

    Or from the article (which I highly recommend you read):

    "To call Measure 37—and similar referendums that have been passed recently in other states—intellectually incoherent is to put it mildly. It might be that the reason your hundred-acre farm on a pristine hillside is worth millions to a developer is that it’s on a pristine hillside: if everyone on that hillside could subdivide, and sell out to Target and Wal-Mart, then no body's plot would be worth millions anymore. Will the voters of Oregon then pass Measure 38, allowing them to sue the state for compensation over damage to property values caused by Measure 37?"

  • gobytrain (unverified)

    Ok Becky, I read your spot.

    However, it was a simple reiteration of your assertion that if Oregonians vote for the measure that (in your words) was done by "taking money from a wealthy asshole and hiring a shady bunch of ne'er-do-wells to collect the signatures to do it." then regardless of the ramifications, it should be above discussion. There were no additional facts defending the benefit of such measures to our citizenry.

    In addition, I'm afraid your logic is flawed. If the voters of Oregon passed a law to reenact slavery, or any number of other repugnant laws even 20 times over, would you feel as defensive of the voters eruditeness, or as you say "independent streak"? I doubt it.

    The reason we have three branches of government, and more than one way to enact a law, is EXACTLY for this purpose. So we have a forum for discussion, and sometimes for overriding the ignorance, meanness or selfishness of a mobacracy.

    Two words "Jim Crow". These laws were enacted with the blessings of their voting populace. It took a long time for the Judicial branch to overstep the ignorance of the voting populace because of the very argument you are proposing. I call it the "ignorance is bliss" argument.

    I should get into the demonstrable ramifications of Measure 37, but I'm a working gal and my break is over...

  • (Show?)

    doretta, I didn't say the scope of 39 was as great as 37, so don't put words in my mouth. I said there will be buyer's remorse when it's seen what it will cost. Localities will now have to overpay for land so as not to be liable for later payments if it's determined their offer was too low. The lack of a condemnation threat will end up stalling projects where E.D. wasn't ever used, but was a device of encouragement to reach a settlement.

    As for the Interstate Corridor, it's true that they've pledged no E.D.--but they did reserve the right to change that principle if they saw fit. And it's a bit of a red herring to suggest that there's a lot of substantial private investment going on with it. The Killingsworth Station improvements are on public land. New Columbia was on public land. Vanport Square is public land. The Vancouver/Williams and Killingsworth improvements are street-based, also on public land. Really the only serious invitation to private development I see is the Kenton project. That basically invites private landholders to apply for URA funds to assist in their redevelopment. Which is great--but so far I'm not sure anyone's stepping up. Point being: you can have a project that pledges public-private cooperation, but if it doesn't lead to any notable redevelopment it becomes a pyhrric victory.

    On the other side of the equation, look at Orenco Station--and then realize that under M39, I'm not sure how that award-winning project would have been possible.

  • Becky (unverified)

    Gobytrain -

    If I may, let me encourage you to read Why the Public Plundering of Private Property Rights is Still a Very Bad Idea. It's 29 pages but is very informative. Then, if you want to continue this discussion, feel free to email me with your views. Meanwhile, I think I will soon write a post of my own on this over at Preemptive Karma. Your input there would be great. This is a discussion I think Oregon should have.

  • gobytrain (unverified)

    Thank you Becky.

    I appreciate any additional resources of information and will read the article you've referenced.

    However, I will be keeping in mind that in addition to being a Professor at BYU, the author, David Thomas is a litigation attorney and expert witness representing developers and owners of commercial real estate whose firm "has had major involvement with comprehensive planning, zoning and subdivision, formation of special assessment districts and environmental compliance of large residential plats and shopping centers."

    I'm afraid the fox might be in the hen house.

    But I greatly appreciate a forum for discussion on this matter as you promise, where an intelligent debate can take place so we can understand each other.

connect with blueoregon