Here’s two YouTubed videos of the Channel 2 news stories yesterday that featured our fight against a nearby subdivision. The first, aired at 4:30, was a brief one minute. The second was on the 5 o’clock news and ran 2:22.
For the benefit of our broadband impaired rural south Salem neighbors, who mostly struggle by with internet dial-up, I reduced the size of the videos considerably (to about 1.2 MB and 2.7 MB). This had the pleasant effect of blurring the picture, thereby taking years off of my visage.
Take a look. Our dog did indeed make it into a shot, just as I hoped for yesterday. You can watch the clips by clicking below, or via YouTube. Shorter story is here and longer story is here.
Brian, I observed, thankfully, that Laurel did not stare at you with the Nancy Reagan copyrighted look- of-adoration. Rather, she appeared to wish you would stop talking so she could tell it like it is. It's kind of fun to get in the news. The last time we did it was ten years ago in the aftermath of the Ashland flood. Linda was featured coming out of a Sani-can. You guys did better!
Posted by: R Blog | January 06, 2007 at 04:11 PM
The clips look good. Good luck with this. I really hope the legislature cleans up this mess because your story is being repeated around the state. I did sign that petition for them to do just that. Ballot measures from the people only work when the people take the time to get educated. A lot of the time they are not thought through.
Posted by: Rain | January 07, 2007 at 08:42 AM
Very interesting. I suspect this will become a more common issue as Oregon becomes more crowded. Geez, I think I rode my horse throughout your area years ago.
Now, I had thought that Oregon had really good laws on water rights. It seemed they were spelled out.
Posted by: Dickey45 | January 07, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Only one nit. Reporter says its a one of a kind situation. Not true . Richard Van Pelt (FoMC claims-tracker) reports:
"OF the 437 claims filed, we have that data only for less than half the claims (205/473).
As of mid-September, we have almost no information on which to make reasoned comments.
Using the data the county DID provide, I came up with the following:
Total acreage of the 205 claims: 9692 acres
SGO-affected acreage: 3241 acres.
That means that 3241/9692 or 33% of the acreage is subject to groundwater limitations of one sort or another. One third of the claims are on land for which water will be a risky proposition.
Posted by: sid | January 08, 2007 at 11:18 AM
sid, good points. We ourselves wondered what the reporter meant when she said "one of a kind." Unfortunately, there are quite a few other Measure 37 claims that threaten groundwater.
I wonder if reporters say this sort of thing in an attempt to make sure their story gets on the air. The more unusual a situation appears to be, the more likely sensationalistic TV news will report it, I believe.
Posted by: Brian | January 08, 2007 at 01:11 PM