Pro-49 “enviro” mailers are in mailboxes…
July 18th, 2007
Oregon environmentalists probably got something in their mail today. Sierra Club, 1000 Friends, OLCV, etc etc, opened up their mailing lists and blasted forth a reasonably effective pro Measure 49 mailer. Click on the images above to see larger versions.
The headline:
Measure 37 is shredding Oregon’s farmland, forests, water and coast.
Despite the lack of an Oxford comma, this is good.
The image is less effective, simply because it takes a moment to understand what exactly it is… it isn’t totally apparent that a shredder is, well, shredding scenic photos of Oregon landscapes.
The reverse side headlines with:
Ballot Measure 37 is a mess.
This isn’t particularly good copy, not least because it simply draws attention to Measure 37, rather than on Measure 49. There is already a huge highlight of “Measure 37″ on the front… why repeat it again? (Also, where was Occam’s razor when it came to including the unnecessary word “ballot”?)
Why not offer the payload of Measure 49 immediately… The front of the mailer does a reasonable job of setting up “the problem” of M37 shredding Oregon. The reverse should immediately offer a “solution” in the headline about how Measure 49 can FIX the problem. Why simply repeat the same thing as the front except with a different metaphor. This mailer mixes metaphors; and, worse, it actually is internally inconsistent insofar as the front of the mailer has a shredder, and the back has a “solution” from Governor Kulongoski imposed on a measly piece of paper. It leaves one to wonder: won’t that big bad shredder take care of that little letter lickedy-split?
The payload is delivered in the depths of the body and via the logo. There is a pretty good call to action at the very bottom with the phone and Web address. And the text body is by and large pretty good.
But the body text still has the problem of telling Oregonians what is happening — rock quarries, Wal-Marts, landfills — without telling them what it actually means to them (pollution, traffic, sprawl, etc). The 49ers may assume that most Oregonians (or at least environmentalists) have a knee-jerk opposition to Wal-Marts, quaries, mines, and landfills… and they may be right! But let’s hope that they are more expansive in their messaging to the general public, and clearly identify WHY these things are bad.
P.S., If you have any other communications from 1000 Friends, the 49ers, OIA, or any other group about Measure 49 please contact me at peter (at) landusewatch.com and let me know!
Related posts: Measure 37 increases risk to property and life, Dave Hunnicutt admits Measure 37 went too far?, What is OIA doing against Measure 49?
6 Comments Add your own
1. Taoiseach | July 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
You know what Peter, you’re actually pretty smart. I for one do appreciate your grammatical dissection of the lit. Honestly, I do!
Thanks from one stickler to another. Though, with the increased readership, maybe we could hide these posts a little better to keep it more insider.
2. Steve Monroe | July 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Hi Peter,
I find myself in a weird position with this issue. I love the environment, respect it and take a lot of steps to help protect it. I believe in protecting Oregon farmland and fighting urban sprawl and preserving this paradise for our children. I recycle, I shop locally and I support the community. I also encourage all my employees to do the same thing, and from what I can tell they all love this land the same way I do.
On the other hand, I (and my family) have worked in the aggregate industry my whole life. On average, every single person in Oregon uses about one dump truck load of (aggregate) rocks each year. That material goes into maintaining roads & bridges to providing raw materials for farming and even making toothpaste. I know from experience about the permits and hoops we have to jump through to secure places to mine this rock and there are tough laws to make sure we don’t pollute the environment. We put up shields to keep down dust, there are special fences we buy to stop noise pollution and we even cover our trucks so that we don’t accidentally drop a rock on the roadway and crack someone’s windshield. Even then, when we are done mining a site, we are required to reclaim the land which has created some of Oregon’s best parks, lakes and recreation areas.
The demand for the gravel I provide has only gone up. Just like water, it’s a raw material that our society requires and so it is going to come from somewhere. The statistics/pollution ratio to drive material in from California or Washington or Canada are so staggering that it won’t happen in our lifetime and they also have the same rules and regulations in effect.
I work hard at what I do and our company supports families and communities. Yet, when I open the paper, or see advertisements in my mail from the Governor that lump us in with deforestation, or garbage dumps or even Wal-Mart(!) I am completely taken aback. I want to work with you guys on this issue and I want to help our industry. It’s a hard, tough choice and I don’t want to vote for some of these jerks, but what’s the option? Finding a new line of work is out of the question b/c if I don’t do this job there are people who will illegally take this material without regard to the environment.
I happen to think we are on the same side fighting for the same thing, so how do I resolve this dilemma? I’m going to send this around to a few people I’ve noticed on your websites to see if there is a solution.
Take care! - Steve
3. Jim Labbe | July 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Mr. Monroe.
The land use planning system does a lot for the aggregate mining industry. Many would argue too much but Measure 37 is not a solution to that problem if any problem.
Far from estabilshing unreasonable burdens on aggregate operators, the land-use planning system actually serves to greatly insolate them from citizens’ complaints about noise, dust, etc. In fact, it does this by limiting development on land adjacent to aggregate mines. The system also favors “certainty” for aggregate producers over the consideration of new scientific information that could avoid, minimize or mitigate environmental impacts to fish and wildlife habtiat and water resources.
The land-use planning system allows local governments to designate aggregate resource zoning under Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goals 3 and 4 protecting farm and forest land also prevents conflicts with encroaching residential uses outside urban growth boundaries. Also, the aggregate resource zoning can include impact zones which actually limit surrounding development near aggregate resources deemed critical to me longterm supplies. This is to prevent conflicts from encroaching residential development. The local government must consider conflicting uses and environmental impacts but in reality most local governments do not have the funding and expertise to evaluate environmental impacts associated with siting a mine on a particular property.
After the zoning is designated it is then left up to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) to permit how mining is done and what is required for reclamation based the secondary beneficial use identified by the local comp plan. There is no formal process for public input in the DOGAMI permitting process. DOGAMI basically consults with state agencies such as DEQ and ODFW who also have limited staff resources and local knowledge important to DOGAMI’s determinations and reclamation planning. Once those permits and plans are adopted, state statute limits the ability for them to be revised with new information. Permits and plans get grandfathered in place… as many are around the state.
If anything the current system does too much to favor large, established, and often oligopolistic aggregate operaters who mainly supply municipal and state governments with paving materials. But again Measure 37 will only result in more encroachment on aggregate mines and create more conflicts with aggregate operations.
Jim Labbe
4. Steve Monroe | July 20th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Jim,
Thank you for your well thought out reply and acknowledgement of the multiple State agencies and impact studies involved in every mining permit process. I appreciate the facts and perceptions you put forth without the “any business is bad business” mentality. Being constantly compared to a logging company or garbage dump bothers me, so having an honest open discussion, like you presented, really helps me understand the perception of our industry in Oregon. We may have owned our land for generations and we may have gotten official permits for mining through all the available channels, but we still want to do what is best for Oregon and that includes involving people in the process. I’m glad you understand that.
To summarize, what I hear you saying is that the aggregate industry is not a bad thing, but we could be better when it comes to minimizing environmental impact. I believe you are saying the original permits my grandfather secured, even if I am required to have them updated and re-approved, may not take new scientific information into account. The main fault being with the multiple under funded or under-resourced State (and Federal) agencies we are required to utilize when going through the permitting process including DOGAMI, DEQ, MSHA ODFW and the Bureau of Land Management.
Beyond that, you have indicated people want to have input on whether a mining operation is going to open or how an existing business should be allowed to operate as an area becomes more populated. Especially if it operates in someone’s particular community or “backyard” as I often hear. From my experience, nobody wants a mining operation near them and so it’s been hard to balance a thoughtful debate or set official policy with such strong negative emotions leading the charge. When “not operating at all” is the only choice, then most businesses will find it easier to legally maneuver around that type of situation. As I said in my first e-mail, I don’t want to have to vote for some of these “jerks”, but somehow this digging rocks out of the ground has become a polarized issue and it doesn’t need to be.
Honestly, I didn’t know how Measure 49 would affect my business until Governor Kulongoski sent out these mailers telling everyone how “bad” we are. Honestly, I just want to know how my business, which respects Oregon’s people and environment, can fit into a solution so that we can work together to do the right thing. Thanks again for the well thought out discussion.
Best, -Steve
5. Jim Labbe | July 21st, 2007 at 7:02 am
Thanks Steve,
If Kulingoski was demonizing miners, he was probably referring to a landowner in Jackson County who is using Measure 37 to pursue a mining operation and run roughshod over his neighbors… not something that is likely to be good for the public image of the mining industry in the long-run.
Oregonians in Action radically simplifies land-use planning in Oregon as “government vs. landowners.” They are incapable to see land use planning is our means, as a community, of balancing our sometimes competing interests (as landowners or as members of a civil society) in the land use and protecting the interests of future generations.
So the Measure 49 campaign, including Kulingoski, are going to have to fight fire with fire. I can understand if you feel some collatoral damage to mining but I encourage you too look what is really at stake for your industry and Oregon.
When I worked for Applegate Partnership from 1996 to 1998, I participated in a stakeholder-driven Goal 5 planning process in Josephine County on aggregate issues. It was funded by the Oregon’s Regional Problem Solving program that allows local communities to develop solutions that depart from state rules but honor the spirit of state goals. So I go to see the issues aggregate operaters face in dealing with sometimes NIMBY neighbors who use environmental destruction as a foil for more parochial concerns. Nevertheless I think that many in the aggregate industry remain blind to the long-term environmental impacts of aggregate mining to our rivers and watersheds. So I found that they could be as inflexible as some of those NIMBY neighbors when it came to environmental reforms.
The Regional Problem Solving process I participated in came up with some fairly innovative solutions that had support from neighbors, the aggregate industry, and conservationists. Unfortunately one Josephine COunty Commissioners, Harold Hogan, was also a board member of OIA. He could not stand the thought of anything innovative coming from land-use planning that could be supported by most stakeholders. So he actively opposed the reforms even though we had the support of most of the County’s aggregate operators and many neighbors.
OIA is not interested in solutions. They want to funnel any and all fustration with land-use planning into support for their extreme and reactionary private property ideology.
Jim
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed