Archive for May, 2007
Jeez:
Ross Island Sand and Gravel CEO Robert Pamplin has unequivocally rescinded his offer to donate a portion of the Willamette River island chain to the city — and he blames The Oregonian.
I thought one of the comments was particularly interesting:
The city is justifiably reluctant to accept a gift that might carry enormous environmental clean-up costs. The nation’s landscape is rife with examples of highly toxic waste left behind for others to clean up or suffer the consequences. This is particularly true in the mining and resource extraction industries. Ross Island Sand and Gravel has dredged great riches from Ross Island and the Willamette River. Now they want relief from any residual responsibility for possible damages they may have inflicted. Their only problem is a mayor who won’t play the role of a gullible sucker.
May 31st, 2007
That’s what the GOP says. Even Prozanski says as much:
Prozanski confirmed that he had met with a wide array of groups over the last several weeks, including representatives from the timber industry. “They were receptive but they weren’t willing to sign off before seeing everything in final form,” he said
You know, this whole process of Measure 37 reform is becoming more and more depressing.
Instead of lobbying the timber industry not to oppose their referral to the voters, why can’t Democrats meet with Schrader, or whoever the odd one out is on their side, and find out what HE will agree to vote for so that we can avoid an expensive and irritating campaign this fall?
As it is, we now have over a dozen new amendments to HB 3540 that even Dave Hunnicutt refers to as “lipstick” (i.e., a positive improvement from his perspective).
So the Democrats bow to pressures from big timber. And what are they giving up? Doubtlessly some really ugly stuff, and not just “tweaking”, as Prozanski says.
But I don’t know. It’s not on any Web site yet. As OIA rightly complain, the amendments were (and continue to be) pretty much hidden from public view. And I am out of the country, so I couldn’t go to Salem. If anyone wants to listen to the Oregon Channel’s audio archive of the Work Group, please report back!
All I know is from the AP article:
One amendment, for example, eliminates a requirement for future claimants that would have forced them to show a 25 percent reduction in land value due to property use laws enacted after they bought the property.
Another change makes it easier for some surviving spouses to develop property.
Great…
P.S., You can listen to the audio of today’s work session here.
May 31st, 2007
Are we talking about a park or a subdivision? It’s difficult to tell…
The full plan for the park calls for 78 camping sites with water, sewer and electric hookups; 12 walk-in tent sites; 22 hike-in sites; 22 horse camp sites, each with water, sewer and electric hookups and a four-stall corral; and 25 cabins with central restrooms and showers.
In addition, four group-tent camp areas could each hold about 25 people. Three day-use areas include one for equestrians. Crews also have built 17 miles of multiuse trails, many of them on old logging roads.
Want to make a bet that those “multiuse trails” are pretty much all asphalted?
There’s nothing more American, and utterly offensive, than a “park” that paves over its resources to make way for massive RVs with their DirecTV, sewage hookups, and other crap.
If you build it, they will come. And the corollary: if you DON’T build it, they WON’T come! Why cater to subdivisions-on-wheels?
May 29th, 2007
Finally some movement:
05/25 (S) Assigned to Subcommittee On Natural Resources.
05/30 (S) Work Session scheduled.
OIA is breathless about this new activity, because multiple new amendments are apparently being considered.
Ways and Means Subcommittee On Natural Resources
Date: Wednesday-May 30
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Room: H-174
Could this thing pass, with amendments, without being referred to the voters? The answer is YES! (That’s my belief anyway.)
May 28th, 2007
What’s the latest with the transfer of (part of) Ross Island to the City of Portland? Take a look:
[Bob Pamplin's] “donation agreement” sent to the city in January 2007 was a take-it-or-leave it proposition, Pamplin said in a recent letter. Potter questioned parts of the deal that seemed to grant Pamplin or his company broad powers over the donated island even after the city took over.
In response, Pamplin sent a stern letter Thursday: “It is also obvious from your letter that a decision by the city to accept the donation agreement is not possible. [...]“
He’s proposing what appear to be pretty ludicrous terms for the donation of Ross Island to the city… like he gets an easement for use of the property, and that they receive a waiver for any problems they may cause in the future, and that there can be no inspections, that the donation is accepted “as is”, and so on.
Is Mr. Pamplin taking all his toys and storming off? Isn’t the city acting grateful enough?
Perhaps we could arrange a Caesarian triumph: Mr. Pamplin could ride up and down SW Broadway in a fleet of Ross Island Sand and Gravel dump trucks. We’d stand and cheer, and Tom Potter would hold a laurel over his head, whispering in Mr. Pamplin’s ear about how thankful the city is for his magnanimity.
This also just goes to show you… get everything in writing as soon as possible!
Meanwhile, Brian Hines has some of the latest activity on the Measure 37 front.
May 27th, 2007
Jeez:
Any lingering illusions that Democratic control of the House would automatically lead to more enlightened agriculture policy crumbled last Thursday, when Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, released the conservation section of his 2007 Farm Bill proposal.
Peterson kicked off the 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization process — and in the process, kicked the legs out from under one of the country’s best agri-environmental programs.
By cutting funding for the Conservation Security Program in his proposal and freezing any new sign-ups until 2012, Chairman Peterson would essentially kill an innovative, green, and forward-looking program that has been lauded by many environmental, family farm, and sustainable food advocates.
Read the rest of the article. It’s a sad day when Democrats favor CAFOs and idiotic ethanol incentives over actual conservation initiatives.
May 24th, 2007
Wow:
A leaked document reveals an imminent plan by the British Columbia government to capture at least half and perhaps all of Canada’s most endangered bird, the northern spotted owl, and put them in zoos while their last habitat is logged.
Just 16 spotted owls remain in the Canadian wilderness, all of which are found in southwestern British Columbia. Government scientists have identified the loss and fragmentation of habitat due to logging as the primary threat to the owl. The logging is approved under a B.C. government management plan for owls that prioritizes logging over spotted owl protection. The B.C. government is also the largest logger of owl habitat through their Timber Sales Program.
News of the secret plan comes as the Wilderness Committee confirmed active and planned logging in several areas that are key owl habitat including Lillooet Lake, Fire Mountain in the Lillooet River Valley and Blackwater Creek near Birkenhead Provincial Park.
That’s incredibly depressing. I always thought of Canada as our big brother when it came to many environmental issues. But it’s extremely sad to hear, first, that there are only 16 spotted owls left in Canada. And, second, that the BC government explicitly removed habitat consideration from review.
I suppose at least we should be thankful that they are doing some studies in Canada… in much of Asia, they just go ahead and destroy 200,000 acres of wetlands with nary a second thought:
Migratory shore birds are starving and at least two species face extinction as a result of a huge South Korean land reclamation project, two environmental studies said.
The Saemangeum land reclamation, completed on the west coast last year and covering about 400 square kms (155 sq miles), has removed one of the largest feeding grounds on the Yellow Sea for 400,000 migratory birds who pass by a year, Birds Korea and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSBP) said.
You can go to Birds Korea for more information. Oh, and you can use Google Maps to see the actual sea wall quite clearly.
But back to the spotted owls. In US, here’s the plan for the spotted owl:
A few hundred aggressive cousins of the threatened northern spotted owl may be killed by government agents with shotguns under a proposed federal plan.
Just as sea lions are being blamed for salmon deaths, barred owls are being blamed for spotted owl population woes. That damn nature! Always causing problems! Of course, it’s far easier to blame some other creature rather than, say, massive hydroelectric dams (in the case of salmon), habitat loss, clear cutting, and other human activities…
Meanwhile, I note that the Nature Conservancy raised 1 billion last year. 1 billion! Good for them, I suppose.
May 24th, 2007
Hmm…
One key lawmaker said closed-door talks could result in a revamped draft of the rewrite of Measure 37 that satisfies the Legislature, eliminating the need to take the issue to voters.
“Could we see something done within the building? Anything is possible,” said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, co-chairman of a panel trying to craft a compromise version of Measure 37.
I’ve been curious why HB 3540 hasn’t yet passed the Senate. We now know why.
May 19th, 2007
Laura Oppenheimer reports:
Peter Bray, a software engineer who writes a land-use blog, contends in letters to the Internal Revenue Service and the Oregon Department of Justice that the group’s “Looking Forward” newsletter favors some political candidates.
Bray cites examples such as a column by Ron Saxton, the Republicans’ 2006 gubernatorial nominee. “It is a little upsetting to see all our candidates may not be on a level playing field,” Bray said.
David Hunnicutt of Oregonians in Action said Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, would be given space in the newsletter if he requested it. Hunnicutt said other newsletter items also meet IRS guidelines, which allow voter education but ban candidate endorsements.
(read the rest here)
Credit to Ms Oppenheimer for writing, albeit sparingly, this important story. Her ability to dispassionately report is notable, especially given that the number 1 listing for a Google search for “Laura Oppenheimer” is my junior high-like critique of her reporting from an earlier blog posting!
That said, it would have been nice if the article noted my concern about OIA’s apparent “win at any cost” mentality, especially as we enter another campaign cycle (or two). They’re willing to push little old ladies front and center stage to obscure the out-of-state timber companies waiting in the wings. And, if the IRS determines that OIAEC indeed has run afoul of electioneering prohibitions, then they’re apparently willing to abuse their non-profit status in service to candidates who share their goals. As it is, the article comes off as a bit of “sour grapes” on my part.
Anyone who wishes more information should read this pretty self-explanatory IRS document on non-profit prohibitions on electioneering. It will help you understand why, say, an article by Ron Saxton (that explicitly mentions his candidacy) appears to be a major no-no.
On that subject, note this from the IRS:
For example, an organization that invites one candidate to speak at its well attended annual banquet, but invites the opposing candidate to speak at a sparsely attended general meeting, will likely have violated the political campaign prohibition, even if the manner of presentation for both speakers is otherwise neutral.
Do you think that Mr. Hunnicutt’s invitation to Governor Kulongoski to write for their publication today (and apparently only after an Oregonian reporter calls him up) is comparable to their inclusion of Mr. Saxton’s article immediately BEFORE the general election?
(And, by the way, the “article” we are talking about appears to be little more than a campaign speech.)
We already know, from Governor Kulongoski’s campaign manager and staffs’ recollections, that he was not invited to write a piece.
Is it fair when non-profits invite only some candidates to speak or write at their events or in their publications, but not others? To the IRS, it appears, the answer is No.
It should be pointed out that Mr. Saxton’s letter is only a single instance of a slate of concerns.
Indeed, here’s the first letter to the IRS:
(Note: you can find any of the referenced “Looking Forward” publications here.)
IRS — EO classification
4910 DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75242-1198
May 9th, 2007
Re: Oregonians In Action Education Center, EID: 93-0846850
Internal Revenue Service:
I request a review of “Oregonians In Action Education Center’s” (OIAEC) IRS 501(c)(3) status (EID: 93-0846850). OIAEC appears to have engaged in significant electioneering ahead of elections in, at least, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
If the IRS determines this to be the case, I request that OIAEC’s 501(c)(3) status is revoked; that appropriate back taxes are recovered; and that appropriate penalties are levied against OIAEC.
As evidence, I include several print copies of OIAEC’s publication, “Looking Forward”. At the time of this writing, all of these publications are available from OIAEC’s Web site at http://www.oia.org/ec.html
In virtually every publication of “Looking Forward” available before a primary or general election that I have examined, there are articles and statements that appear to be outright electioneering.
While each issue is labeled with a particular month and year, it is unclear when the publication is actually made available or for how long. Indeed, the September-October 2006 issue refers to election results for November 2006. Therefore, one can assume that the month designation on each issue is inaccurate or significantly backdated. As well, each issue of “Looking Forward” remains, as of May 9, 2007, on OIAEC’s Web site and therefore continued and continues to spread its messages well beyond the publication date.
Moreover, it should be remembered that Oregon offers only vote-by-mail elections. Ballots can be voted on and delivered weeks before the November deadline; to this end, publication of partisan articles in the summer is within significant striking distance of ballot delivery.
In each issue of “Looking Forward”, a prominent subtitle reads: “A publication of Oregonians In Action Education Center on land use and property rights”. As well, in a sidebar, the publication notes: “Oregonians In Action Education Center is a non-profit, non-partisan, IRS 501 (c)(3) corporation wholly funded by voluntary contributions.” [Exhibit I]
Item 1
In the May-June 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit II], before that November’s general election, the lead article is titled “Landowners win on election night” and discusses results of recent primary elections. They note, for instance:
One of the biggest wins came in the Portland metropolitan area, where Kate Schiele came from nowhere to finish second in a three-way runoff for the Metro Council President position. Schiele’s second place finish means that she will be in November’s election. […]
Schiele now looks forward to November, with the goal of raising enough money to deliver her popular message to the rest of the Metro area.
A photograph of Ms Schiele accompanies this article. Additionally, this article highlights several other candidate races. The article closes by stating that “all in all, it was a good election night for property rights advocates.”
The article identifies Ms Schiele as a candidate for the general election. Given the apparently lengthy availability of each newsletter, the article appears timed to coincide with the general election. Phrases used to describe Ms Schiele’s positions express approval of her candidacy, including “powerful message”, “struck a chord with landowners”, and “success of Schiele’s message.” Moreover, the issues highlighted in reference to Ms Schiele were distinguishing aspects of the general election campaign.
Item 2
In the September-October 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit III], before that November’s general election, the final article is titled “Governor’s Race: Sharp Differences On Property Rights”. There, the author writes:
What is shocking is that although it is clear that Governor Kitzhaber’s combative style on land use regulations and private property rights has been terribly divisive, candidate Ted Kulongoski wants to follow in Governor Kitzhaber’s footsteps.
This newsletter was available immediately before the general election. The article references both candidates for Governor, Ted Kulongoski and Kevin Mannix. The article expresses disapproval, if not outright contempt, for Mr. Kulongoski with phrases such as “openly hostile”, “hostilities”, “unwillingness to listen”, “combative”, and “divisive”. The issue of property rights, particularly “Measure 7”, was a defining aspect of the general election campaign between Mr. Mannix and Mr. Kulongoski.
Item 3
In the March-April 2004 “Looking Forward publication [Exhibit IV], before the primary election, an article entitled “Candidate Candor” reports the following:
It’s so refreshing to see a candidate for public office respond with candor, clarity and courage to a special interest group questionnaire. James Buchal, candidate for state representative (District 8), did just that when he answered questions from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, a collection of groups he knew are anti-property rights, pro-preservationist.
By duplicating only a single page from another organization’s Voter’s Guide, OIAEC gives preferential treatment to Mr. Buchal at the expense of the opposing campaigns. Their use of phrases such as “candor, clarity and courage” appears to implicitly endorse Mr. Buchal, who they identify as a candidate for State representative. The primary election occurred on May 18th, 2004, presumably within days of release of this March-April 2004 publication. [Note: Mr. Buchal was actually a candidate in Oregon’s District 18, not District 8.]
Item 4
In the March-April 2006 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit V], before the May 16th primary election, an article, titled “Ross Day Is A Candidate For Circuit Judge”, reads:
Ross Day, Director of Legal Affairs for Oregonians In Action, is a candidate for Marion County Circuit Court judge, District 3, Position 2.
“I am humbled by the opportunity that has presented itself,” Day said, “the change to serve the citizens of Marion County has been a goal of mine for many years.”
There are six incumbent judges in Marion County facing re-election. Ross is the only lawyer in the state to challenge an incumbent. “Given the events of the last six years in the Marion County courthouse, I believe the voters of Marion County should be given the opportunity to make a change. My candidacy gives the voters the opportunity to make that change.”
Because there are only two candidates for judge in this election, the race will be decided at the May 16th primary election. For more information about Ross’ campaign, you can go to his website at www.rossdayforjudge.com or call his campaign at 503-999-1892.
This item appears to be quite bold in its blatant electioneering. OIAEC essentially offers Mr. Day free publication of a “press release”-like statement. A Web link and phone number direct people to his Web site. The election date is specifically mentioned. There are no similar “advertisements” for any of his opposing candidates.
Item 5
In the May-June 2006 “Looking Forward” publication, before that November’s general election, an article by Ron Saxton is published that includes a prominent byline noting that he is “The Republican Nominee For Governor Of The State Of Oregon”. [Exhibit VI]
I attach email from Jim Ross, 2006 campaign manager for Mr. Saxton’s general election challenger Ted Kulongoski; in this email, Mr. Ross indicates that, to the best of his and others’ recollections, Governor Kulongoski was not offered comparable publication in “Looking Forward”. [Exhibit VII]
The large subtitle below Mr. Saxton’s article that identifies his candidacy and political affiliation appears to define his text as political. As well, particular passages of the text – where he discusses the role of the Governorship and his similarities and differences with Governor Kulongoski – further appear to identify this article as political.
Item 6
In the July-August 2006 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit VIII], before that November’s general election, the “View From Sherwood” article notes:
Very soon, you will be receiving your mail-in ballot for the general election. While most elections are important to land use issues, this one is especially so.
We will decide who will be Governor of Oregon for the next four years. We will decide between an incumbent who opposes Measure 37 and opposes any change to the land use system and Ron Saxton who support Measure 37 and has made it clear that he would like to make the system much less restrictive.
This article makes specific reference to voting in the upcoming election: it tells readers that their ballots will soon arrive, it uses terms like “we will decide”, and it closes by reminding readers that “if you are not registered to vote, you must do that at least 20 days before the election.”
The article explicitly references Mr. Saxton, the Republican candidate for Governor, and implicitly refers to Governor Kulongoski (“the incumbent”). The article makes note of Governor Kulongoski’s opposition to, and Mr. Saxton’s support for, Measure 37; the issue of Measure 37, and private property rights generally, figured prominently in the general election.
I have provided examples of what appears to be significant electioneering by Oregonians In Action Education Center. However, in most other issues of “Looking Forward”, I have found similarly questionable activities. I have not had the chance to analyze any of their other communications.
I request that the Internal Revenue Service fully determine if Oregonians In Action Education Center is in compliance with their 501(c)(3) election.
Sincerely,
Peter Bray
And here is the second letter sent the day after the one above:
IRS — EO classification
4910 DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75242-1198
May 11th, 2007
Re: Oregonians In Action Education Center, EID: 93-0846850
Internal Revenue Service:
This letter is a follow-up to a letter of complaint I sent to you on May 9th, 2007. This letter also concerns what appears to be significant, repetitive, and egregious electioneering by Oregonians In Action Education Center (OIAEC), an IRS 501(c)(3) organization. Please ensure that any case number assigned to this letter of complaint references, or is included with, the original May 9th complaint which contains a larger number of items of concern.
After I sent my original letter of complaint, I had a chance to inspect one additional copy of an OIAEC newsletter. There, I found what appears to be additional electioneering communications.
Before I present these items, I wish to comment more generally on OIAEC’s activities.
I am a private citizen. I do not work for any “opposition group” to OIAEC. As such, I have only been able to make time to inspect a few of the communications by OIAEC. For example, OIAEC only maintains their newsletters dating back to 2002 on their Web site. As well, OIAEC makes reference, in their Form 990, to expenditures on “public meetings and forums” and “advertising”. I have not inspected any of these referenced communications.
However, as I have documented to you, in newsletters appearing before primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006, I have found what appears to be a sustained pattern of electioneering activity by OIAEC. I reported 6 items of concern in my May 9th complaint, and I document 3 additional items of concern in this letter. I am led to believe, therefore, that newsletters unavailable to me (pre-2002), or other communications, may contain additional electioneering content.
To this end, I request that the Internal Revenue Service use its investigative authority to examine all communications by OIAEC dating back to their inception. As well, given the repetitive nature of the allegations set forth in this and my previous letter, I request that you expedite the examination of OIAEC and categorize this referral as “Type C”.
Additionally, it seems that a large part of their newsletter activity is dedicated to lobbying for either particular candidates or ballot measures. I have not done a detailed breakdown or analysis of percentage content dedicated to such activities, but I am concerned that they may violate 501(c)(3) lobbying limitations. I request that the IRS comprehensively examine OIAEC for such violations.
Item 1
In the March-April 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit I], before the primary election, OIAEC includes an article entitled “Metro’s May Ballot Loaded with Reform Measure and Reform Candidates”.
They then include the names and photographs of 3 Metro candidates (each for separate districts). The biographies for each candidate are glowing, with references to their positions on issues of concern to OIAEC, and issues of significance for each race. Only passing reference is made to opposition candidates.
I am concerned that OIAEC has explicitly highlighted “their slate” of candidate preferences. They do this through reference to the upcoming election, to the implication that their candidates are “reform” (in the title), and with the inclusion of their photographs and bolded names and candidacies.
Item 2
In the same March-April 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit II], before the primary election, OIAEC publishes an article explicitly about the upcoming primary election. There, they note that “the race for Governor is of special importance” and further note that “we have a real opportunity to elect a Governor who is likely to approve legislative bills to bring fairness to the land use system and recognize private property rights”.
Additionally, this article notes that for “the three county Portland Metro Area, the primary election is of special importance.” OIAEC then goes on to note that recipients can “vote for candidates for Metro.” This appears just a few pages after their highlight of selected Metro candidates (see Item 1).
This article appears to implicitly endorse specific candidates. The date of the primary is mentioned (May 21). And mention of voting for Metro candidates appears just a few pages after what appears to be a rather explicit endorsement of a slate of Metro candidates.
Item 3
Finally, in the same March-April 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit III], before the primary election, OIAEC publishes an article entitled “Hunnicutt, OIA Director of Legal Affairs, Seeks Election to Court of Appeals”. This title appears to be an implicit endorsement of Mr. Hunnicutt.
Further, the body of the article glowingly describes the biography of Mr. Hunnicutt. And, when briefly mentioning the opposition candidate, it is noted that “many attorneys believe Schuman presented a very weak and inadequate defense of Measure 7 [an issue of particular concern to OIAEC]”.
In this letter I have included what appear to be 3 instances of electioneering by OIAEC. And in my prior letter of complaint, I included 6 instances. Collectively, these instances span across primary and general election cycles in 2002, 2004, and 2006. As such, it appears that OIAEC is engaged in a repetitive pattern of electioneering. Furthermore, I would like to note that at least 3 members of OIAEC staff are attorneys. I believe, therefore, that this is not a simple “error”, but a careful plan to push IRS prohibitions “to the limit”.
I request that you expedite examination proceedings for OIAEC activities.
Sincerely,
Peter Bray
Please make sure to read the above letters while carefully reading the IRS document. This will help explain why some of the aforementioned items are of such concern.
(And for any readers who might find this blog from the article — not sure how that would happen since the URL wasn’t mentioned — please see previous entries about OIAEC apparent electioneering in other blog entries.)
May 19th, 2007
One of the perverse things about armed conflict is that it has a curious benefit to the environment and local species. I don’t mean to suggest that “war is good”. Just to note that, time and again, conflict areas prevent resource extraction, development, and other normal commercial operations that often harm the environment.
Take a look at Google Maps of, say, the Congo… vast tracts of undisturbed primary forest. Anyway, here’s another example:
One of the world’s largest turtles, said to be on the brink of extinction, has been found in abundance in a former Khmer Rouge stronghold in Cambodia.
And…
The region where the species were found had been closed to scientific exploration for many years because it was one of the last places under the control of the Khmer Rouge.
Mark Bezuijen of the WWF, who led the team, said the area was “a near pristine region of tall riverine forest, waterways and island archipelagos where further exciting biological discoveries will almost certainly be made.”
I’ve been to Cambodia a few times. It was a remarkably interesting country… totally corrupt, but bursting at the seams with the desire for commercial activity. Let’s hope that protection of pristine areas is afforded due attention.
I boated for several hundred miles through the Tonle Sap and Mekong river generally. I couldn’t believe how many people relied on this river… and not necessarily in a sustainable manner. Every few feet, bamboo fish trap contraptions lined the shores. And I saw hundreds of turtles and frogs in local markets… ready for export to China.
May 16th, 2007
Reader Sal provides these great responses to the usual Measure 37 talking points:
OIA TALKING POINT:
Oregon occupies about 61 million acres of land. Just less than 60 percent of that (34 million acres) is owned by the state, federal or local governments and is , therefore, exempt from development. Only about 1.2 percent of Oregon is currently developed. Yes, that.s right. Only 1.2 percent or 730,000 acres aredeveloped.
RESPONSE:
It’s important to put those statistics into context:
Oregon’s land-use laws were intended primarily to protect the Willamette Valley, which is home to more than 70 percent of the state’s population and is one of the most fertile agricultural regions in the world.
The valley is roughly 3.4 million acres, or 5.5 percent of the total acreage in the state of Oregon.
Claims made in the Willamette Valley account for 60% of the total acreage of all Measure 37 claims.
The total acreage of the claims as of January in the Willamette Valley is roughly 281,000 — 8% of the total area of the valley. Bear in mind, in 1990, the valley had 444,000 acres inside of the UGB where 85 percent of the people in the valley live.
So we’re really talking about an area that will be 20% urbanized if all of these claims go forward.
Some people may not have any problem with that, but it will affect farming in the valley, which currently accounts for more than 90 percent of the total value of Oregon agricultural exports.
TALKING POINT:
“A number of gentleman have stood up for me and helped me pass measure 7 and 37 … yet when these men try to protect our rights, they are labelled as “Big Timber Companies”.
RESPONSE:
The “Gentlemen” who financed Measure 37 have currently made more than $500 million in claims and are now preparing to cash in on it while pretending that this debate is really about protecting Dorothy English.
In 2006, timber companies contributed $355,000 to Oregonians in Action and related political advocacy pacs in 2006. Employees of Timber companies gave those same pac’s an additional $50,000.
“According to the nonpartisan Portland research group, which tracks campaign finance and spending by lobbyists, Eugene-based Seneca Jones Timber Co. contributed $319,000 to support the measure and its owner has filed a Measure 37 claim for $6.75 million.” - Eugene Register Guard
Here are the 2006 political contributions by these “gentlemen”.
| Seneca Jones Timber Company | 50000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company |
| 25000.00 | FRERES LUMBER CO.,INC. | 21875.00 | Lone Rock Timber Co., |
| 20000.00 | Timber Products Company | 15000.00 | Plum Creek Timber
| Company | 15000.00 | Plum Creek Timber Company | 10000.00 | Seneca
| Jones Timber Company | 10000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company |
| 10000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 10000.00 | Seneca Jones
| Timber Co | 10000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 10000.00 | Lone
| Rock Timber Co., | 10000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 10000.00 |
| Lone Rock Timber Company | 8500.00 | Lone Rock Timber | 7500.00 | LONE
| ROCK TIMBER MANAGEMENT CO. | 7500.00 | Lone Rock Timber Company |
| 7500.00 | FRERES LUMBER CO.,INC. | 7000.00 | Giustina Land & Timber
| Company | 6250.00 | Giustina Land & Timber Company | 6250.00 | Seneca
| Jones Timber Company | 5000.00 | Timber Products Company | 5000.00 |
| Seneca Jones Timber Company | 5000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Co |
| 5000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 5000.00 | Lone Rock Timber
| Management Co. | 5000.00 | Lone Rock Timber Management Co. | 5000.00 |
| FRERES LUMBER CO.,INC. | 3550.00 | Lone Rock Timber Management Co. |
| 3500.00 | Pacific West Timber Co | 3000.00 | SILVER BUTTE TIMBER CO. |
| 2500.00 | Silver Butte Timber Company | 2500.00 | Lone Rock Timber
| Company | 2500.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 2000.00 | Seneca
| Jones Timber Co | 2000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Co. | 1500.00 | TIMBER
| PRODUCTS COMPANY | 1000.00 | Lone Rock Timber Company | 1000.00 | Lone
| Rock Timber Management Co. | 1000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company |
| 1000.00 | Lone Rock Timber Company | 1000.00 | Evenson Timberland
| Agency | 1000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 1000.00 | Seneca
| Jones Timber Company | 1000.00 | Seneca Jones Timber Company | 1000.00
| | Cadore Timber Company | 1000.00 |
May 15th, 2007
This is from May 14th issue of The Oregonian. I couldn’t find an online link to it…
If you want to watch a collision of competing rights, values and visions, keep your eyes on a Measure 37 claim filed in Washington County that would allow expanded services on an old, privately owned landfill on prime farmland.
In one corner, you have Howard Grabhorn, who owns Lakeside Reclamation and has run a 43-acre landfill northwest of Sherwood since 1957. Grabhorn contends that Measure 37, an initiative passed by Oregon voters in 2004, gives him the right to waive land-use restrictions put in place after he bought three parcels totaling 133 acres on the banks of the Tualatin River.
In the other corner — or corners — you have neighbors who have complained over the years about noise, odor, traffic and groundwater pollution and visual blight. Their complaints have triggered concern, at various times, by the county, Metro and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
You also have Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, which points out that the uncapped, unlined landfill is right across the river from land Congress targeted for the refuge’s future borders.
And you have Ponzi Vineyards, directly east of the landfill and one of the main features economic-development planners want to highlight for a proposed scenic tourism corridor.
You might say this squabble is a peek at Oregon’s past wrestling with its future — and it’s likely to be bloody.
The county commissioners heard arguments on the claim in April. They are scheduled to take it up again May 22.
Grabhorn actually conducts several activities on his property, which is off Southwest Vandermost Road. He has a house, farm buildings, composting facilities, a grain field and a stand of Christmas trees. The landfill, considered a nonconforming use under statewide land-use laws passed in the 1970s, has been “grandfathered” in.
But over the years, the landfill has become huge. One of the debris piles there is more than 250 feet tall — as high as a 20-story building.
His Measure 37 claim seeks permission to maintain and expand services at the landfill, which is on land zoned for “exclusive farm use” after he bought it. The application also seeks permission to redraw the parcel lines on three tax lots.
Voters approved Measure 37 after growing frustrated with arbitrary land-use rules intended to implement state land- and resource-conservation laws. The emotionally charged campaign for the measure featured the plight of an elderly Multnomah County widow unable to subdivide and develop her property.
I have enormous sympathy for those who have suffered genuine financial hardships after running into a legal brick wall.
But claims like Grabhorn’s are exactly why the Legislature is trying to rewrite Measure 37: The measure didn’t just help “little old grannies.” It also seemed to open the door to subdivisions and shopping centers on timberland and farms, where it will be expensive to provide services, while promoting more driving and gas consumption.
It probably was a bad idea in 1957 to allow a landfill on the banks of a river that flows into an urban area. It’s hard for me to see why that makes any more sense today.
But just last week, county staff sent out a letter saying they were satisfied with the way the state has monitored the landfill, concluding that the operation “does not appear to be a serious threat to human health or the environment.”
I hope they didn’t mean a little threat would be OK.
May 15th, 2007
I’m certainly no expert, but when you include photographs of select candidates for Metro (all of the “property rights” ones), include pretty glowing bios, and only make passing reference to their opposition… is that electioneering? What about when you include in the title the phrase “loaded with reform candidates”? Is it electioneering when you implicitly identify select candidates as “reform”?
(click on any of the images below for a larger view)
And when you accompany that highlight of select candidates a few pages later with what appears to be a “call to action” to vote in the election… does that at least constitute electioneering?
Or what about if you reproduce only a single page from another organization’s Voter’s Guide and thereby highlight a single candidate without any comparable mention of the opposition candidate? And what if you use words such as “candor, clarity and courage” to describe that candidate? And what if this article appears immediately before that candidate’s primary election? Is that an endorsement? Is that electioneering?
Oregonians In Action’s Education Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. What does that mean? Well, it means people can make tax deductible contributions to them. And because of that benefit, the IRS has specific regulations on 501(c)(3) activities:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
In almost every issue of Oregonian In Action’s Education Center’s “Looking Forward” available before either a primary or general election, I found communications that were particularly concerning. Of course, I could only look at the issues going back to 2002.
What about this?
Am I mistaken or is that an endorsement for Saxton?
Look, this is an issue beyond Measure 37 or land use activities generally. Candidates need to be able to operate on as level a playing field as possible. When tax-exempt charitable organizations abuse their IRS status to implicitly or explicitly endorse certain candidates, and oppose others, that is patently unfair.
I have no idea if OIAEC’s communications are in violation of IRS prohibitions. That’s ultimately the decision of the IRS, and possibly the Oregon Department of Justice. I am not a lawyer, nor an accountant. And OIAEC has at least two lawyers running that organization. But to my eye, at least, the above examples, and others pretty evident in their other newsletters, seem to be very questionable.
May 10th, 2007
The following appeared in Oregonian In Action Education Center’s newsletter. They are a nonprofit.
The IRS says:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
And later:
Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity.
In almost every issue of “Looking Forward” I find more and more…
At this point it’s just getting quite, quite funny.
May 9th, 2007
Oregonians In Action Education Center is a 501(c)(3) “non-profit, non-partisan” organization. They publish “Looking Forward”. As the IRS itself notes:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
Now then, take a look at the final article in Oregonian In Action Education Center’s July-August 2006 “Looking Forward” publication:
Very soon, you will be receiving your mail-in ballot for the general election. While most elections are important to land use issues, this one is especially so.
We will decide who will be Governor of Oregon for the next four years. We will decide between an incumbent who opposes Measure 37 and opposes any change to the land use system and Ron Saxton who support Measure 37 and has made it clear that he would like to make the system much less restrictive.
And now take a look at the 8 point test that the IRS uses, in part, to determine whether a communication is partisan:
Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election;
- Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;
- Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and
- Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.
Let’s consider the article and each point:
Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
Yes; Ron Saxton is explicitly mentioned, and Governor Kulongoski is implicitly referred to (”an incumbent”).
Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions
Given that “Looking Forward” is pro-Measure 37, when they label Saxton as similarly pro-37, and Kulongoski as anti-37, it appears that they are indeed expressing approval for one and opposition to the other.
Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
Yes.
Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
Yes.
Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office
Yes.
Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election
Not necessarily, as the primary issue is identified in the first sentence of that paragraph as the Governor’s race: “We will decide who will be Governor of Oregon for the next four years.”.
Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office
No.
And consider this warning from the IRS:
A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.
Take a look at the other examples that I documented in the letter to the Oregon Department of Justice. How do they fair on the 8 point test?
May 9th, 2007
The following letter was hand-delivered to the Oregon Department of Justice today:
I request a review of “Oregonians In Action Education Center” (OIAEC) tax exempt status. OIAEC is an IRS 501(c)(3) organization. I am concerned that they may have engaged in electioneering.
As evidence, I include several print copies of OIAEC’s publication, “Looking Forward”. At the time of this writing, all of these publications are available from OIAEC’s Web site at http://www.oia.org/ec.html
Below the publication title of “Looking Forward”, the following appears: “A publication of Oregonians In Action Education Center on land use and property rights”. As well, in a sidebar, the publication notes: “Oregonians In Action Education Center is a non-profit, non-partisan, IRS 501 (c)(3) corporation wholly funded by voluntary contributions.” [Exhibit I]
In the May-June 2006 “Looking Forward” publication, before that November’s general election, an article by Ron Saxton is published that includes a large byline noting that he is “The Republican Nominee For Governor Of The State Of Oregon”. [Exhibit II]
I attach email from Jim Ross, 2006 campaign manager for Mr. Saxton’s general election challenger Ted Kulongoski; in this email, Mr. Ross indicates that, to the best of his and others’ recollections, Governor Kulongoski was not offered comparable publication in “Looking Forward”. [Exhibit III]
I attach and highlight sections of IRS publication FS-2006-17 entitled “Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations” [Exhibit IV]. In that publication, the IRS notes that for events at which candidates appear, the organization needs to ensure that:
- It provides an equal opportunity to political candidates seeking the same office;
- It does not indicate any support for or opposition to the candidate (this should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate’s attendance)
Moreover, the IRS publication further notes that at events where a candidate participates because he is “considered an expert in a non political field”, the event organizers must ensure that:
- The individual is chosen to speak solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office;
- The individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity;
- Neither the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election
Additionally, the IRS publication also notes:
Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography.
One can assume that the IRS views participation in an organization’s event or publication as comparable activities. The large subtitle below Mr. Saxton’s article that identifies his candidacy and political affiliation appears to define his text as political. As well, particular passages of the text – where he discusses the role of the Governor and his similarities and differences with Governor Kulongoski – further appear to identify this article as political.
Even if the argument is made that Mr. Saxton was writing purely as an “expert”, and not as a candidate, the inclusion of the large byline identifying his candidacy appears to question the supposed non-partisan nature of this publication.
In the May-June 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit V], before that November’s general election, the lead article is titled “Landowners win on election night” and discusses results of recent primary elections. They note, for instance:
One of the biggest wins came in the Portland metropolitan area, where Kate Schiele came from nowhere to finish second in a three-way runoff for the Metro Council President position. Schiele’s second place finish means that she will be in November’s election.
[…]
Schiele now looks forward to November, with the goal of raising enough money to deliver her popular message to the rest of the Metro area.
A photograph of Ms Schiele accompanies this article. Additionally, this article highlights several other candidate races. The article closes by stating that “all in all, it was a good election night for property rights advocates.”
Taken together, “Looking Forward” appears to implicitly endorse Ms Schiele’s general election candidacy. Indeed, they define her victory as “one of the biggest wins”, include her photograph, and refer to her upcoming election.
In the September-October 2002 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit VI], before that November’s general election, the final article is titled “Governor’s Race: Sharp Differences On Property Rights”. There, the author writes:
What is shocking is that although it is clear that Governor Kitzhaber’s combative style on land use regulations and private property rights has been terribly divisive, candidate Ted Kulongoski wants to follow in Governor Kitzhaber’s footsteps.
This passage appears to be partisan.
Finally, in the July-August 2006 “Looking Forward” publication [Exhibit VII], before that November’s general election, the “View From Sherwood” article notes:
Very soon, you will be receiving your mail-in ballot for the general election. While most elections are important to land use issues, this one is especially so.
We will decide who will be Governor of Oregon for the next four years. We will decide between an incumbent who opposes Measure 37 and opposes any change to the land use system and Ron Saxton who support Measure 37 and has made it clear that he would like to make the system much less restrictive.
The mention of the upcoming election, the mention of Mr. Saxton by name, and the negative way in which Governor Kulongoski is presented appears to be an implicit endorsement of Mr. Saxton.
I have not had time to do more thorough analysis of OIAEC’s other newsletters and communications. However, based on the examples that I found, I wished to bring this case to your attention for review.
exhibit-i-and-ii.pdf
exhibit-iii.doc
exhibit-iv.doc
exhibit-v.pdf
exhibit-vi.pdf
exhibit-vii.pdf
May 9th, 2007
Oregonians In Action Education Center is a IRS 501(c)(3) corporation. It describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan organization”. It’s primary activity appears to be publication of “Looking Forward”.
One has to wonder, however, how disinterested in candidates this organization really is.
In the May/June 2002 issue, they discuss primary election results. They include a photograph of Kate Schiele and describe her victory as “[o]ne of the biggest wins came in the Portland metropolitan area”. There is no photograph of Schiele’s general election challenger, David Bragdon. This appears to be an endorsement of her candidacy.
The IRS is pretty clear:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
And specifically:
Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.
Is it electioneering when OIAEC includes a photograph of Schiele and calls her primary victory one of the “biggest wins”?
In the Sept/Oct 2002 issue, Oregonians In Action Education Center includes an article titled “Governor’s Race: Sharp Differences On Property Rights”. In that article they note the following:
Landowners have been faced with nearly 15 years of anti-property rights governors in Oregon. And of those, Governor Kitzhaber has been the most openly hostile to landowners and private property rights.
This was printed just weeks before the general election. Is this “electioneering”?
As I have already documented, “Looking Forward” also included an article by Ron Saxton before last year’s election.
I hope to have some answers for you soon.
May 7th, 2007
When it is defined as such!
Check it out… in HB 3540, a “land use regulation” suddenly takes on far more than just “land use” issues:
Here’s the pertinent part in the “definitions” section:
(14) “Land use regulation” means: [...]
(e) An administrative rule of the State Board of Forestry that regulates a forest practice and that implements the Oregon Forest Practices Act;
(f) An administrative rule of the State Department of Agriculture that implements ORS 561.191 or 568.900 or 568.933.
Wow.
If passed, Measure 37 will expand to essentially nullify any future administrative rules by the State Board of Forestry. So what sort of things do administrative rules by the State Board of Forestry cover? Here are some examples:
Reforestation:
629-610-0010
(1) Any forestland which is capable of annual wood production of at least 20 cubic feet per acre at culmination of mean annual increment (Cubic Foot Site Class VI or better) shall be subject to the requirements of the reforestation rules.
Stream water protection:
629-620-0400
(1) When applying chemicals aerially or from the ground, operators shall protect waters of the state and other forest resources by following the requirements of the chemical product label and by meeting the additional protection measures listed in this rule.
Treatment of Waste Materials:
629-630-0400
(1) Operators shall leave or place all debris, slash, sidecast and other waste material associated with harvesting in such a manner to prevent their entry into waters of the state.
Plant protections:
629-640-0000
(8) For streamside areas where the native tree community would be hardwood dominated stands, mature streamside conditions are achieved by retaining sufficient hardwood trees.
Protection of Great Blue Herons:
629-665-0120
(b) Retain a vegetative buffer not less than 300 feet around the outermost nest trees as key components that includes perching and fledging trees, and replacement trees.
If HB 3540 passes, any of these rules not already on the books would essentially not be applicable to current foresters. These rules aren’t designed to meet Federal mandates nor are they about human health and safety. Nor, for that matter, are they really about “land use”. They are about actual activity that takes place in and on the forests. And browsing through the rules you will find a host of environmental rules.
If you think the current set of rules is “perfect” and never needs to be amended, then HB 3540 is probably for you. But if you want Oregon to retain its ability to, for instance, limit forest practices that damage a future endangered species, then HB 3540 is of significant concern.
As we gain greater understanding of logging impacts to our forests, it’s essential that we retain the ability to prudently regulate activities that occur in those forests. HB 3540 expands Measure 37 to include forest activities generally, even if they have little to do with any “land use regulation”. HB 3540 is unacceptable.
Update: Measure 37 itself actually expanded “land use regulations” to include farm and forest practices:
(B) “Land use regulation” shall include:
(i) Any statute regulating the use of land or any interest therein;
(ii) Administrative rules and goals of the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
(iii) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation ordinances;
(iv) Metropolitan service district regional framework plans, functional plans, planning goals and objectives; and
(v) Statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and forest practices.
I hereby apologize to HB 3540 for any insult I may have caused him (her?).
May 7th, 2007
It’s difficult to decide whether to vote Yes or No on this crap. Right now, I am leaning towards NO!
As a reader highlighted, a lot of very bad amendments were essentially added under cover of darkness by the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. This means that for all of us who attended the Land Use Fairness hearings, well, another committee simply snuck in some other amendments. And they are NOT good.
The Democrats have tacked on massive giveaways to loggers and corporate farmers that go far beyond Measure 37 in scope. They make it so that claims can no longer be rejected due to health/safety issues or federal mandates (i.e., clean water), unless they meet extremely stringent requirements. They make it so that there are NO minimum thresholds for loss for farm/forest practices.
Take a look for yourself. Below are the amendments added by Ways and Means (and you have to take a look at the Bill before these amendments were added to see what they do):
74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY–2007 Regular Session
HA to A-Eng. HB 3540
LC 3823/HB 3540-A24
HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO
A-ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 3540
By JOINT COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
May 1
On page 1 of the printed A-engrossed bill, line 3, delete ‘
limiting’.
In line 4, delete ‘expenditures;’.
Delete lines 20 and 21 and insert:
‘ (4) ‘Fair market value’ means the value of property as
determined under section 21b of this 2007 Act.’.
On page 2, line 29, after the semicolon insert ‘or’.
In line 30, delete the semicolon and insert a period.
Delete lines 31 through 41 and insert:
‘ (f) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that is no
more than 3,000 feet above mean sea level, with an aspect between
67.5 and 292.5 degrees and a slope between zero and 15 percent,
and that is located within:
‘ (A) The portion of the Columbia Gorge viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.178 that is within the State of Oregon;
‘ (B) The Rogue Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.132;
‘ (C) The portion of the Columbia Valley viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.74 that is within the State of Oregon;
‘ (D) The portion of the Walla Walla Valley viticultural area
as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.91 that is within the State of
Oregon; or
‘ (E) The portion of the Snake River Valley viticultural area
as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.208 that is within the State of
Oregon.’.
On page 3, line 17, delete ‘residentially zoned’ and after ‘
property’ insert ‘zoned for residential use’.
On page 5, line 25, after ‘(4)’ insert ‘(a)’.
The above stuff seems to be largely administrative. But take a look at the next part:
After line 27, insert:
‘ (b) Subsection (3)(b) of this section does not apply to any
farming or forest practice regulation that is enacted after May
15, 2007, unless the primary purpose of the regulation is the
protection of public health and safety.
Boom! This is WORSE than under Measure 37. Measure 37 had a special carve-out allowing it so that M37 “shall not apply” when regulations “restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety.”
This new addition above makes it so that those health/safety restrictions DO NOT APPLY, UNLESS the primary purpose of the regulation is the protection of public health and safety. In other words, if a regulation is passed that does not explicitly mention health or safety, then it can not be used to restrict M37 claims.
Up until this point, for example, you might have been able to restrict M37 claims by arguing that forest practices regulations that require stream setbacks are for necessary for the protection of public health to ensure clean water. If this bill passes, then any future regulation won’t be able to be used to restrict claims unless health/safety is the primary purpose of that regulation. That’s a very tiny, tiny window.
‘ (c) Subsection (3)(c) of this section does not apply to any
farming or forest practice regulation that is enacted after May
15, 2007, unless the public entity enacting the regulation has no
discretion under federal law to decline to enact the
regulation.’.
Okay, this is more of the same. Subsection 3c states that waiver/compensation shall NOT be available for claims where “the land use regulation is required to comply with federal law”. This new addition changes everything. It makes it so that only absolute federal mandates must be followed. If the local government has any discretion in enforcement of federal mandates (and they almost always do), then claims can move forward.
This is worse than under Measure 37!
On page 16, delete lines 34 through 37 and insert:
‘ (a) Any reduction in the fair market value of the property by
reason of the enactment of a farming or forest practice
regulation;
‘ (b) A reduction of 10 percent or more in the fair market
value of the property by reason of the enactment of one land use
regulation, other than a farming or forest practice regulation;
or
‘ (c) A reduction of 25 percent or more in the fair market
value of the property by reason of the enactment of two or more
land use regulations that are not farming or forest practice
regulations during any five-year period.’.
This is another huge giveaway to corporate agriculture and logging. HB 3540 makes it so that loss of value thresholds are nil for farm/forest practices.
On page 17, line 18, delete ‘was not residential use’ and after
‘enacted’ insert ‘was not the use that was restricted by the land
use regulation’.
On page 20, line 6, after the period insert ‘A determination by
a public entity under sections 5 to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007
Act is not a land use decision.’.
Delete lines 44 and 45 and insert:
‘ { + SECTION 20. + } An appraiser certified under ORS
674.310 or a person registered under ORS chapter 308 may carry
out the appraisals required by sections 5 to 22 of this 2007
Act.’.
On page 21, after line 20, insert:
‘ { + SECTION 21b. + } { + For the purposes of sections 5 to
22 of this 2007 Act, the fair market value of property is the
amount of money, in cash, that the property would bring if the
property was offered for sale by a person who desires to sell the
property but is not obligated to sell the property, and if the
property was bought by a person who was willing to buy the
property but not obligated to buy the property. The fair market
value is the actual value of property, with all of the property’s
adaptations to general and special purposes. The fair market
value of property does not include any prospective value,
speculative value or possible value based upon future
expenditures and improvements. + } ‘ .
Delete lines 31 through 37.
In line 41, delete ‘24′ and insert ‘23′.
On page 22, line 39, delete ‘25′ and insert ‘24′.
In line 42, delete ‘26′ and insert ‘25′.
In line 44, delete ‘ ___ Bill ___ ‘ and insert ‘House Bill
2083′.
This is what happens when the primary lobbying agent on “our” side is 1000 Friends of Oregon. They may have successfully limited subdivision and houses, but things are made far worse when it comes to our forests and farms. The environmental lobby was far too absent on M37 reform.
May 6th, 2007
A commenter has some very interesting details about the M37 bill referred to voters:
My source at the capital told me the following: The final amendments were big policy changes made in co-Way and Means. This is very odd because rarely do they amend policy bills in co-Ways and Means.
The reason they did not amend it in Joint Land Use is because the public and media were there watching and would have caught this terrible set of amendments.
They did two huge things that helped corporate timber and agriculture and should be a reason for all progressives to vote NO on this framework.
First they removed the “threshold” of proving 25% loss before you can make a M37 claim. But the removal ONLY APPLIES TO TIMBER AND AGRICULTURE! This means that all other environmental regulations that can pass to protect air, water and our forest will be forced through M37!
Second, they submitted language to make future forest regulations from the federal government also subject to M37. This is a huge win over current law for the forest industry.
The rational, according to my source, is to try to take the funding of big corporate timber and agriculture from any effort to support the smaller claimants under M37. So we defund the campaign against this measure. But now the new law will be worse for the environment than the current M37 on timber agriculture, water, and air protections — but tougher on people trying to build houses in rural areas. Terrible public policy decision from my perspective.
This is the problem when we have Democrats who get huge contributions from construction, development, timber and agriculture!!!!
May 6th, 2007
It was a dark and stormy day…
Well, the Spring Chinook numbers this year aren’t so good. But there’re still fish to be caught. Eight hours on the water bagged one 17 pound female… hatchery reared of course. We trolled herring and prawn on the Willamette right at the beginning of the Multnomah channel.
Warning: Bloody fish picture coming up…
May 4th, 2007
[Please see my earlier blog entry on this subject, too.]
Oregonians in Action Education Center is a 501©(3) charitable organization “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
They publish a newsletter called “Looking Forward”. This newsletter contains what appears to be partisan commentary:
Please do not take the recent Democrat-empowerment by the voters as a signal to run roughshod over the people who elected you. Do not consider this coverage in the House, Senate, and Governor’s office to be other than the peoples’ effort to allow “Dems” to show their responsible side.
While this letter appears after the election, it seems to me that OIAEC is skating on thin ice by selecting and publishing letters that appear to be partisan. (Just a page or two beyond this letter is a contact list of every State Senator/Representative.)
And take a look at a message in the newsletter right before the last election:
Very soon, you will be receiving your mail-in ballot for the general election in November. [...] We will decide between an incumbent who opposes Measure 37 and opposes any change to the land use system and Ron Saxton who supports Measure 37 and has made it clear that he would like to make the system much less restrictive.
This appears to be quite partisan. Nims, the chairman of OIA, identifies only Saxton by name, and indicates that he supports Measure 37, as opposed to the unnamed incumbent who opposes it. This is in a publication by Oregonians in Action Education Center, a nonpartisan charitable organization.
And in the penultimate issue before the last election, they even include an actual article by Ron Saxton, “The Republican Nominee for Governor of the State of Oregon” (as they so helpfully remind us): It appears to be not much more than a campaign speech. There’s no counterpoint or counter-argument from Kulongoski.
May 4th, 2007
I don’t know!
But, yesterday, Oregonians in Action sent an email to its supporters. Let’s take a look at part of the email header:
From: “Oregonians In Action” oiaec@oia.org
To: oiamail@oia.org
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:46:21 -0700
Subject: [OIA Alert] ACTION ALERT - MEASURE 37 REPEAL EFFORT GOING TO HOUSE FLOOR TOMORROW!
Okay, so the email was sent from “oiaec@oia.org”. What is OIAEC? Well, almost certainly it is “Oregonians in Action Education Center”. (A search for that email address on Google reveals that that email address is indeed tied to “Oregonians in Action Education Center”.) And, as their Web site points out:
Both the OIA Legal Center and the OIA Education Center are 501©(3) charitable organizations so generally the full amount of a contribution to either of these organizations may be deducted as a charitable contribution from your taxable income.
Okay, so far so good. So what can a 501(3) charitable organization do and not do? Well, check it out:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
And…
Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography.
Okay, so let’s take a look at part of the email message they sent out yesterday:
Many of you live in rural areas with a Republican representative who
supports Measure 37 and property rights. If you live in one of these
areas, call your representative and thank him or her for standing up
for your civil rights. THEY NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
If your representative is a Democrat, let them know that you are
strongly opposed to HB 3540B, and that you will remember their actions
when the next election occurs.
Is it just me, or do these last two paragraphs strike you as “electioneering”? While they might not name specific names, and while the election may be some months off, they appear to support Republicans, and oppose Democrats.
Indeed, Oregonians in Action Education Center, a 501(3) charitable organization, appears to setup a stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats. It instructs recipients of its email to contact only Democrats and tell them that their actions will be remembered “when the next election occurs”; at the same time, it directs recipients to contact Republicans and thank them for their support.
Update: Please see additional possible electioneering by OIAEC in another blog entry.
May 3rd, 2007
Here is what Oregonians in Action is sending out to their supporters. My comments on their inaccuracies forthcoming…
> IMMEDIATE ACTION ALERT!!!!
Yesterday, the Joint Ways and Means Committee approved House Bill
3540B on a straight party line vote (all Democrats in support, all
Republicans opposed).
There is no way to put a pretty face on HB 3540B.
If passed, HB 3540B will send a new ballot measure to
voters that will (if the ballot measure is approved)
effectively repeal Measure 37!!
HB 3540B makes the following changes to Measure 37:
1. Every claimant who filed a claim will have to refile it, even if the
claim has been approved! No matter how much time and money
you’ve spent to follow all the laws and jump through all the Measure 37
hoops, you will have to refile.
2. All existing claims for commercial and industrial uses and in
commercial and industrial zones will be automatically rejected!
3. A complicated scheme is used to replace Measure 37. Under this scheme,
some Measure 37 claimants who refile their claims may qualify for up to
three homes. But LCDC will decide what the claimant will get (if you get
anything), not the local government.
4. There is a 25% threshold for new land use regulations. That means that
for all new land use laws, state and local governments will be allowed to
steal 25% of your property and you can’t do anything about it! If you own
commercial or industrial property, like a small business, state and local
governments can pass new land use regulations that steal your entire
property!
5. Metro land use regulations are exempted. That means that if you live
in the Portland Metropolitan area, Metro, the area’s regional government,
can pass new land use laws that steal all of your property and you’ll
have no claim!
6. There is no time limit for LCDC
to resolve refiled claims. It may take a year, two years, or ten years.
LCDC says that you shouldn’t worry about it, that they’ll get claims resolved
quickly. I would worry.
7. Anyone with an axe to grind can
challenge the LCDC decision to approve your claim, for whatever reason they
choose, and you have no right to attorney fees if you win. This complicated law
will be a full employment act for environmental lawyers and the
“friends” groups that have used the courts for years to steal your
property!
I’ve just scratched the surface on how bad this bill is. Suffice it
to say, if this bill passes, the land use wars will start up all over
again.
That’s why we need your help right now!
House Bill 3540B is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow (Thursday, May
3) in the House of Representatives. If you want to try and stop HB
3540B, you must call your state representative today!
Right now, it appears that the vote on HB 3540B will be on straight
party lines, with all Democrat legislators voting for the bill and all
Republicans voting against it. It is truly sad that such a
fundamental American issue as the right to own and use your property
has become a partisan issue, but it has.
Many of you live in rural areas with a Republican representative who
supports Measure 37 and property rights. If you live in one of these
areas, call your representative and thank him or her for standing up
for your civil rights. THEY NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
If your representative is a Democrat, let them know that you are
strongly opposed to HB 3540B, and that you will remember their actions
when the next election occurs.
I am no expert in non-profits, but don’t the above lines that I’ve highlighted, um… well, doesn’t a non-profit violate certain anti-electioneering provisions when they ask their donors to tell only Democrats that their actions will be remembered “when the next election occurs”?
And make sure when you call that you let your representative know that
you live in their district, and that you vote!
If you don’t know who your state representative is or what their
telephone number is, you can find out by going to the Oregon
legislature’s website and typing in your address. Just click on this
link to go to the legislature’s website:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY!!!
May 3rd, 2007
