HinesSight

Maui overdevelopment makes for sad sights

We love to visit Maui. Just as we love Oregon, our home. So it's sad to see overdevelopment trashing the livability of both beautiful places.

Measure 37, which seriously watered down Oregon's land use laws, is causing subdivisions to sprout on irreplaceable farm and forest land. I don't know what Maui's problem is--basic greed and complacency, I suppose.

Maybe when you live here, it's like the old "boiling a frog alive" metaphor. Development occurs so slowly and steadily, you get used to it, not noticing how hot the overdevelopment water is becoming.

My wife and I notice, since we only come here for a short time once a year. And at least some locals do. I read a letter to the editor in the Maui News a few days ago. The guy had counted the number of large construction cranes between Lahaina and Kapalua.

It was about a dozen, I recall. Here's a couple of them, towering over the few palm trees that remain at Kapalua Bay.

We're staying at the nearby Napili Kai Beach Resort. Sitting on Napili Beach you can hear the incessant noise of construction equipment back-up beeps coming from Kapalua.

This couple was getting married on the Kapalua Bay beach when I walked by. The minister's conch shell and singing was beautifully Hawaiian. The back-up beeps that marred the ceremony weren't.

That's how Maui is becoming: an increasingly uncomfortable blend of natural beauty and manmade ugliness.

A parking lot at the Kapalua shopping area used to be shaded by these magnificent trees, whose name I don't know. This tree is near where we park at Napili Kai. The front desk person didn't know the name of the tree either.

Whatever kind of tree it is, the developers at Kapalua chopped the tops of them off. Sad sight. Maybe they'll survive. But not as they were. Which pretty much sums up Maui.

In three lines this web page did its own summing up of the island:

Pros: "There's something for everyone on Beautiful Maui"
Cons: "Growing too fast."
In A Nutshell: "Get there before the developers do any more damage."

What's most striking is the growing gap between the wealthy folks who buy the oceanfront developments, and the regular folk who already live here.

Again, a lot like Oregon, where rich out-of-staters drive up the price of properties in desirable places like Bend and Ashland, making it tough for locals to afford a home.

The Kapalua construction is discreetly walled off from the view of drivers-by. This poster shows who will be living here, now that the trees have been cut down and much of the oceanfront condo'ed over. She doesn't look like a native Hawaiian, does she?

I feel entitled today to criticize the crushing of Maui's once pristine environment. A plastic bag blew off the beach this morning while we were ensconced on our mats.

It dropped into the ocean. Laurel said, "Somebody needs to get it." I said, "It looks like that man is." But he wasn't. He made a few desultory strokes toward it, but it already was being blown by the wind out to sea.

"A sea turtle could eat it!" Laurel exclaimed. "I don't have my fins, or I'd retrieve it." "I'll do it," I told her confidently. I was about ready to go for my daily 20-30 minute swim back and forth across Napili Bay anyway.

What I didn't realize, though, was that swimming straight out past the reef (finless) against some fairly large waves was a lot tougher than swimming sideways across the bay. Plus, the bag kept being blown further out.

I began to have my doubts that I'd ever reach it. But my admiration for the Wonder Pets helped keep me going. I kept hearing their voices in my head: "There's an animal in distress…We've got to help it!...This is serious."

I reached the plastic bag. Stuck it in my swimming trunks. Used some large waves to propel me back toward shore. A minor environmental crisis averted.

Hopefully there are lots of people who live on Maui who're willing to similarly expend some energy saving the livability of their island. Don't take it for granted, my friends.

We're seeing Oregon become a different (and worse) place because of overdevelopment. Learn from our bad example. Don't let it happen here anymore than it already has.

Democrats fail Oregon with Measure 37 meltdown

So close. Yet so far. Word is that a single Democratic House member, who will remain nameless because so many would like to strangle him right now, refused to vote for a genuine Measure 37 fix.

[Update: He's no longer nameless, thanks to Peter Bray's post. It was an open secret, anyway.]

Thus yesterday, as I predicted, Republicans and Oregonians in Action were handed a major victory without having to fire a shot. At the very least, the Joint Land Use Fairness Committee should have passed the proposed Measure 37 reform bill so every legislator would have to vote up or down on it.

But no, the committee weenied out and added a ballot referral to the bill. Voters now will decide whether to fix the horribly evident flaws in Measure 37.

Why didn't the Democratic leadership force Republicans to vote against preserving farmland and preventing large subdivisions in groundwater limited areas? Beats me. Political incompetence is the best guess, according to more knowledgeable observers of the legislative scene than me.

It's deeply frustrating. 1000 Friends of Oregon and other defenders of this state's livability did a bad job of campaigning against Measure 37 in the first place. Now the best opportunity to reform Measure 37 has been lost.

Let's see: Democratic House of Representatives. Democratic Senate. Democratic Governor. You'd think this would have made passing a fix, an action favored by two-thirds of voters, pretty easy.

But no, the Democrat-dominated Land Use Fairness Committee spun its wheels for almost four months, trying to appease the unappeasable Republicans on the committee.

Eventually it became obvious that when Oregonians in Action and the Republican leadership (can you say "Wayne Scott"?) cracked the whip, all the Republicans on the committee were going to jump through the Keep Measure 37 Unchanged hoop.

When a House Democrat defected, the game was over. Typical. Democrats try to be collaborative nice guys who don't enforce party unity and get clobbered by a Republican united front. I don't like much about the Oregon Republican party, but at least they know how to play the legislative game.

The NW Republican blog is up at arms about this supposed attempt to repeal Measure 37. And I'm sure there will be plenty of outrage at the ballot referral expressed by property rights zealots in the state, such as Oregonians in Action.

However, I can virtually guarantee that they're breathing a sigh of relief right now. By a whisker they escaped having a Measure 37 reform bill passed into law next month.

Now claimants have eight months to acquire building permits and fire up bulldozers. Once their Measure 37 claims are vested, there's no turning them back, no matter whether the fix passes in November.

This morning I found Eric Stachon's (of 1000 Friends) quote in the Oregonian via Peter Bray's like-thinking "Oregon Democrats Fail at Measure 37 Reform!" post:

Measure 37 opponents, including planning and environmental groups, wanted legislators to resolve the issue themselves. Now, they say, claimants could rush to develop before the fall. If so, said Eric Stachon of 1000 Friends of Oregon, "it's going to prove our point — albeit at the expense of the land."

I respect and like Eric, but that's a galling comment. My wife and I, along with several dozen neighbors, have been fighting a 137 acre/43 home Measure 37 subdivision on nearby groundwater limited farmland.

If Leroy Laack gets final approval from Marion County to proceed with his plans, I can envision this subdivision being used as a "poster child" in campaign efforts to get the ballot referral passed. In my darker moments, I can even envision this being part of the game plan by Democrats on the Land Use Fairness Committee.

Let things get worse, then the voters will want to make things better. Well, Senators Prozanski and Macpherson, among others, that's a crappy way to play politics.

You had a chance to protect Oregon, and you blew it. There's a good chance your ballot referral will fail. Which means then you really will have blown it.

I believe I'm speaking for an awful lot of people who love this state and don't want to see it trashed by Measure 37 when I say:

Thanks for nothing.

[Update P.S.: If House Bill 3540 is amended somewhere along the remainder of the legislative process to remove the referral to voters, I will gladly put back all of the Legislature's Democratic members on my Christmas card list.

I hereby also promise to walk five times around the capitol (heck, maybe even 37 times) carrying a sign that says, "I was unfair to the Land Use Fairness Committee about their Measure 37 fix."

A photo of my repentance will be included with the aforementioned Christmas card. And I'll post it prominently on my blog.

Hey, isn't that motivation enough for a legislator or two (or more!) to change your mind(s) and endorse a Measure 37 fix that doesn't require voter approval?

Consider: if voters were confused about the impact of Measure 37, what makes anyone think they'll be able to understand a bill as complicated as HB 3540? The campaign for and against this fall will come down to simplistic buzz words again. Oregon doesn't need another divisive battle like that.

So legislators, do the right thing and take out the voter referral. You'll gain the respect of most Oregonians. Plus a most interesting Christmas card.]

Dems poised to fail on Measure 37 fix. I’m bummed.

This is serious. We're on a Hawaii vacation and Measure 37 is meddling with my Maui mellow.

It looks like back home in Oregon the Land Use Fairness Committee (six Democrats, four Republicans) is about to bail out on fixing this environmental, social, and economic land use disaster.

In fact, given the three hour time difference between Napili Bay and Salem, they may already have done the gutless deed.

If not, I'm pleased to offer in advance an outrage retraction—but given all the signs to the contrary, I'm going to vent my current frustration so I can move my psyche on to more pleasant subjects, like a late afternoon beach stroll.

We were just emailed proposed amendments to HB 3540. It looks like this bill contains all of the positive elements of the Measure 37 fix that the committee has been holding hearings on, such as limiting large subdivisions on high value farmland and groundwater limited areas.

That's pretty damn uncontroversial. We've sat through several of the Land Use Fairness Committee hearings. We've read all there is to read about Measure 37, pretty near.

And we've never heard anyone, other than the claimants who want to build those large subdivisions, defending the trashing of Oregon's agriculture industry and groundwater supply.

So it's astonishing, beyond belief, that the Democratic leadership is considering a bill that describes desperately needed fixes to Measure 37, yet ends with:

This 2007 Act shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state.

Great, just great. The election apparently would be held in November. If the fix was approved by voters, it would go into effect in December, we've been told.

That's seven months of Full Speed Ahead! on Measure 37 subdivision claims, many of which would be vested (since building permits would have been issued and construction started), leaving them immune to the limits imposed by the fix.

Useless. I've written the Dems on the Land Use Fairness Committee, telling them it'd be better for them to admit that they've failed Oregon and do nothing, than put this half-assed measure on the ballot.

Correction: quarter-assed. Because the proposed Measure 37 fix already gives away a lot to claimants. And now the legislature is poised to give away more—eight months of free rein to rape Oregon's farmland and aquifers in groundwater limited areas.

If you care about Oregon, and you're not depressed enough already, check out the reports here and here about the impending Democratic surrender to Oregonians in Action.

It's a sad day, even on beautiful Maui.

Senators Prozanski and Schrader, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Read and weep.

Prozanski had favored voter referral all along, but the Legislature had come under great pressure to craft a fix of its own. Schrader endorsed the move back to voter referral, saying that was the most democratic solution. "Voters tend to do the right thing," he said.

No, not always. Remember Measure 37, Sen. Schrader? Voters were conned into voting for this travesty. You were supposed to fix it. And didn't.

Struggling through our Maui vacation

Just because we're on Maui doesn't mean we're not having troubles. So those of you still back in moist, cool Oregon (or anywhere else other than Napili Bay), don't be envious of us. Consider what we're putting up with.

--Sweating through the Hawaiian Airlines luggage weigh in. Well, this applied to Laurel, not me. She always pushes the 50 pound limit, both coming and going.

I have to travel lighter, because I know that when it comes time to pack for our trip home I'm going to be handed a bunch of women's t-shirts, sweatshirts, and other assorted clothing items with a "Could you fit these into your suitcase? I don't have any room."

When we got to the Portland airport, put Laurel's suitcase on the scale and the readout showed exactly 50 pounds, I had to whip out my camera. Not sure what the other people in line behind us thought as I excitedly zoomed in on the display. First photo of our Maui trip, honey!

--Enduring the trek down to the beach from our Napili Kai Beach Club condo. This is the first time we've gone to Maui and stayed somewhere other than Napili Shores, which is centered on where the light triangle shape on the upper far right of the photo is (that's the Gazebo snack bar).

You can see how close Napili Shores is to Napili Beach. And you also can see from the photo, which was taken from the deck of our room, how unbelievably distant our Puna Point condo is from the beach.

This morning I timed our first walk to the beach. Laden down with grass mats, beach bags, snorkel stuff, and my boogie board, it took us five minutes to finally touch the sand. That's a heck of a daily commute, compared to the two minutes or so it used to take us from Napili Shores.

Weep for us.

--But save some tears, for there's more. Though jet-lagged, yesterday afternoon I excitedly unpacked my laptop and hooked it up to the cable that supposedly provided me Free High-Speed Internet Available in Your Room, according to a card prominently displayed on a table.

Next to a cable. Which I plugged in. After dutifully following the start-up instructions, nothing. I was crushed. What a way to start a vacation on Maui—no high-speed Internet!

I phoned Oceanic Time Warner Cable and pleaded for help. Though it was only 4:30 pm, a whole half hour before most employee's quitting time, I was told that a repair wouldn't be forthcoming until the next day.

I had to wait until 1:00 pm today for a service guy to get the modem up and running. More Maui suffering. Which won't end soon, because this cable connection is so much faster than the satellite broadband we've got back in Oregon, it'll be tough to go back to the usual speed.

--Lastly, we always enjoyed people watching from the room we usually got at Napili Shores. It overlooked a path to the beach, and some of the beach itself (trees and shrubs obscured much of the sand, a fact I was frequently reminded of after trying to follow a shapely young thing through my binoculars and having my ogling interrupted by a palm frond).

Where we are now, there's not much opportunity for that. I saw a couple of snorkelers go by while we were eating lunch a little while ago (the two dots on the right). Other than that, the people-watching from our room has amounted to zilch.

Not that the beach was a whole lot better. We seem to be in a visitor lull between spring break and summer. Napili Bay is as uncrowded as we've ever seen it. Young people and children are in short supply. Mostly we laid on our mats and watched middle-agers and older walk on by.

Not exactly like Waikiki (from what I've heard—have only seen the beach briefly once).

Anyway, we're managing to soldier on through our vacation even with all of these difficulties. Your prayers and wishes for the alleviation of our sufferings are welcome, but we're confident that these hard times will make us stronger in the end.

Now, it's time for a nap. Then back to the beach before shopping and dinner in Lahaina. Who knows what fresh travails await us?

Will we find a choice parking spot in the Prison Street lot? Will they be out of our favorite dish at our favorite restaurant?

Maui vacations—only for the strong.

Are Dems going to bail on Measure 37 fix?

Come on, Democrats in the Oregon legislature, this is the time to show you've got some big cojones. (Yes, you too, female legislators.)

There are disturbing signs that the ten-member joint Committee on Land Use Fairness, which has six Democrats, may wuss out on the sort of Measure 37 fix that Oregonians are calling for.

A recent poll found that more than two-thirds of voters either want to fix what they see as significant flaws in Measure 37 or believe that it should be repealed entirely.

Today the state's largest newspaper, the Oregonian, ran a lead editorial titled "Find the guts to fix Measure 37." I couldn't find the editorial online for some reason, so scanned it—double click on the image to enlarge. The editorial board said:

"If legislators don't act, they will tip the state forever to developers and private interests. Legislators would tell farmers to forget it, to abandon the quintessentially Oregon notion of enlightened self-interest coinciding with the community's. It would be replaced by each individual pursuing his own private Oregon.

There won't be a second chance. Right now, Measure 37 developers are rushing for building permits to put a shovel in the ground to finalize their property rights. This takes a claim past the point of no return, past the point where legislators can actually intervene and stop development gone wild.

By 2009, it will be too late to reverse the damage.

Everyone would have preferred a consensus fix for Measure 37, but now there's not much time left. Now Oregon just needs a fix."

Amen to that. My wife and I have testified at several of the Land Use Fairness committee hearings. Aside from the Measure 37 claimants themselves, there is precious little sympathy for those who want to build large subdivisions on farmland. Even many of the claimants say, "I just want to be able to put a house on my property. I'm opposed to Measure 37 subdivisions."

So why is it that the committee has scheduled a hearing on HB 3546, which would extend the deadline for counties to process Measure 37 claims? 1000 Friends of Oregon is concerned about this. They say:

It extends government review of claims and is being introduced at a very late date. Measure 37 supporters have been lobbying the legislature for just such an extension while demanding "hands off" Measure 37. HB 3546 does nothing to fix the damage that Measure 37 has brought to Oregonians. We must encourage the Land Use Fairness Committee to fix Measure 37, not extend it.

Yesterday I sent an email to the members of the Land Use Fairness committee expressing my own concern, on behalf of our neighborhood's Keep Our Water Safe committee. We live in a groundwater limited area in south Salem, adjacent to a proposed 43-lot (and wells) Measure 37 subdivision. Download email_to_land_use_fairness_committee.doc

We can't afford for legislators to take their own sweet time fussing around with a Measure 37 fix. Once the wells are dug and our aquifer starts going dry, it's too late. The time to act is now.

If Oregonians in Action and other die-hard proponents of Measure 37 don't like the fix, they can try to get another measure on the 2008 ballot. Let's see if the state's voters would fall for Oregonians in Action untruths again. I doubt it.

Here's the truth, according to a land use expert who describes himself as a "crass, unrepentant, real estate capitalist Republican type." Yet says:

So let's begin with the most commonly heard argument: It's my property and I have the right to do with it as I please. Well is there a right to own property? Absolutely. Is there a right to use property? Absolutely. Is either the right to own or the right to use absolute? Absolutely not!

… It amazes me that elected officials who go home at night and tell their kids "just say no" to drugs can't muster the political responsibility to "just say no" to any developer who happens to come down the pike.

Land use controls are, in fact, a capitalist plot to optimize the property values of the majority of owners, not some communist conspiracy to deprive individuals of some imaginary "property rights".

I met John Christensen at one of the Land Use Fairness committee hearings. He's a Corbett resident and a Democratic activist. Like me, he's worried that Democrats are going to cave in to Republican pressure. To its credit, the Multnomah Democrats web site has posted John's letter to "fellow Democrats."

He points out that Rep. Patti Smith, a Republican, represents his district. She also is on the Land Use Fairness committee. Rep. Smith's family has filed a Measure 37 claim for over $29 million in an effort to get a waiver for over 200 buildable lots.

That's almost a laughable (if it weren't deadly serious) conflict of interest. What chance is there of Rep. Smith voting against her own financial self-interest? Just about zero.

As the Eugene Register-Guard reported, "Measure 37 is paying off for big donors." Some of those who helped finance the campaign to pass Measure 37 have filed claims that would give them a huge return on their political investment. Just as Rep. Smith's family stands to gain a lot from her efforts to leave Measure 37 as it is.

That's outrageous. Democrats have both the moral and political high ground on this issue. They need to move boldly. Soon.

With as much urging as possible. You can contact members of the Land Use Fairness committee individually by email via this web page. Or if you want to make your concern known at one swoop, use Onward Oregon.

The Oregonian editorial lays out what is at stake for this state.

The battle over property-rights Measure 37 has turned into a tug of war over who inherits Oregon. In the future, will it be "mine" or "ours"?

On one side are 7,500 property owners who have filed private claims under Measure 37 seeking more than $12.6 billion in compensation. They know there's no money, but they want houses, subdivisions, strip malls and other developments on hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farmland and forestland. Many claimants would tell you it's not for themselves, of course, but for "my grandchildren."

On the other side are their neighbors and the rest of us, a group that could be loosely described as the Oregon public. This includes thousands of farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by Measure 37-spawned developments, along with millions of other Oregonians who depend on the state's $4.3 billion ag industry.

None of us is really a disinterested party either. We have our own economic claim, only it's public, not private. We want to protect the long-term health and wealth of our communities, our state, and, yes, our grandchildren. The Legislature must pick between these competing heirs.

Measure 37 claimants, read this

I hope some of those who've applied for waivers of Oregon's land use laws under Measure 37 will read this post.

I've listened to many of you testify at the legislature's Land Use Fairness Committee hearings. We've passed each other in the hall, you with your white and red "I (heart) Measure 37" sticker, me with my green "Fix Measure 37."

You probably feel misunderstood and put upon. Well, so do I.

You can't understand why people like me don't want you to be able to develop your property in the way that was allowed when you acquired it. I can't understand why people like you don't realize that those of us already living next to a Measure 37 claim also have rights—to use our property in the way we could when we bought it.

If you'll read my blog post, I'll read yours. Just point me to it. So here's how a Fix Measure 37 proponent sees things.

At the moment. For the whole history of my involvement with Measure 37, click on that category in the column to the left. Then scroll past this post, which will be on top, and go back into time with my land use writings.

Kind of like your claim, if approved, lets you go back in time to when you bought your property, waiving laws and regulations passed after that. That seems fair to you, but put yourself in the place of a neighbor I talked with yesterday.

Here he is, right after he'd pounded in some signs provided by the "Fix It or Nix It" man. My wife and I met Mr. Fix It or Nix It after last Tuesday's Land Use Fairness Committee hearing ended. He'd heard us testify at previous hearings and wondered if we'd like to put up some of his signs.

Sure we would. So we pulled our hybrid Toyota Highlander up next to his so-cool (and rarely seen) classic Volkswagen "pickup," and threw in 20 signs.

Yesterday I used some of them for a photo-op in front of the fence that divides a proposed 137 acre Measure 37 subdivision from south Salem's Liberty Road. For the seventeen years we've lived here, nearly every day I've looked at the rolling vineyard-friendly hills that the claimant wants to put 43 homes on.

Our neighbor has been looking at them for quite a bit longer, since 1976. That's just five years after Leroy Laack, the Measure 37 claimant, bought the property. They each have a history with it. Except the neighbor has been living across the street from the 217 acres (only a portion of which is being subdivided, so far).

Laack is an absentee owner. Neither he nor any of his co-owners have any intention of living on the land. They just want to make money from it.

If neighboring wells go dry—and there already has been a lot of that happening in this groundwater limited area—the Measure 37 claimants won't be around to deal with the consequences. They'll have pocketed their profits and run, leaving the buyers of the lots facing angry residents who don't appreciate what the newcomers have done to the aquifer that everyone depends on.

Do you see why we're against Measure 37 as it stands?

Many people in our area voted for it, but now they want it fixed. They, like me, are sympathetic to people who bought property to build a house on, where they planned to live, then were prevented from doing so by a newly minted land use law.

But that's a far cry from a 43 lot subdivision on farmland that's designated "groundwater limited." Many neighbors have well problems. The man in the photo has to use a drip system on his garden because his well puts out so little water. He figures that he's got some rights too, having lived there for 31 years.

This has been his view. Which, if the Measure 37 claimant has his way, would be filled with 43 homes, and 43 wells, sucking up the water that he and other neighbors depend on.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who bought Oregon property for investment purposes, then saw their development options reduced by a land use regulation.

Check out my "Measure 37 shouldn't be a guarantee to get rich." I bet you'll agree with what I say.

Even one of Laack's co-owners agreed with my thesis when I shared it with him before one of the Land Use Fairness Committee hearings. Investing is risky business. There are no guarantees. If you want a no-risk investment, keep your money in a bank account.

Well, thanks for listening, any Measure 37 claimants who have found your way to this Fix Measure 37-leaning blog. I appreciate your being open to another view.

That's what we need more of in Oregon: openness and respect for differing perspectives. Common ground can be found when both sides are willing to give a little.

I'm encouraged by the reform package the Land Use Fairness Committee has put together. I wish it was tougher on Measure 37; others wish it was easier, or left the law alone. So probably it's close to being just right, using the "if both sides are unhappy, it's a good compromise" standard.

Peter Bray over at Land Use Watch has been doing a great job reporting on, and analyzing, the just-released and still-being-amended legislation.

Thanks, Peter. And thanks to the Land Use Fairness Committee for coming up with a Measure 37 fix that makes pretty good sense. Especially to neighbors who are worried about their wells going dry.

Measure 37 die-hards lack sense of irony

Yesterday Laurel and I sat through the entire three hour Land Use Fairness Committee hearing at the capitol. Though we got there 70 minutes early, and dutifully wound our way through the airport-screening-like line to sign up to testify, about seventy people got there before us.

Only the first 50 or so were granted entry to Hearing Room B, where the committee held forth. We found our way to one of the auxiliary rooms, where a large screen projected the proceedings in sort of a Big Brotherish fashion.

No doubt most of the Measure 37 faithful, distinguished by "I (heart) Measure 37" stickers, thought that co-chair Sen. Prozanski indeed was a malevolent agent of the Liberal Conspiracy to Destroy Citizen's Property Rights.

There was much speechifying from the true believers, a vanishing breed according to a recent poll of Oregonians, about the supposed All-American right to do whatever you want with your land, no matter how it affects your neighbors. There even was talk of the Measure 37 reform legislation being equivalent to the communist takeover of private property in East Germany.

Ironies, and a lack of ability to recognize them, abounded among the "I (heart)" crowd. Sen. Prozanski tried to get the public testimony underway quickly, so more people would have a chance to testify, but Republican members of the committee demanded to make some obviously scripted remarks.

"The Senate Republicans on the committee haven't been heard." "We were shut out of the negotiations that produced the reform framework." "The process hasn't been inclusive of all sides."

Unbelievable. These sentiments came from members of a party that unapologetically ignored Democratic legislators during the years they were in power. Last session, House Speaker Karen Minnis and her cronies refused to even bring up bills for a vote that had passed the Senate with bipartisan support.

And now Republicans are complaining about being left out of the process? Ridiculous. They should be thankful they're at the Measure 37 reform table at all. Sen. Prozanski and other Democrats on the committee have been more than fair in giving Republicans air time in both open committee hearings and the closed-door work group sessions.

Another irony was how the citizens who testified that Measure 37 should be left alone were adamant that the committee should respect the "will of the people" who voted for the initiative.

For one thing, I'm sure that most of these folks have no problem with the proposal to allow private hunters to use dogs to kill cougars under the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife "cougar management" (a.k.a., needless killing) plan. This clearly subverts the will of the voters who banned the use of dogs in cougar hunting.

Just as efforts to undermine Oregon's death with dignity laws undermine the majority of voters who wanted to allow someone to take his or her own life with death is near and all hope is gone. So the degree to which someone is offended by meddling with the will of the people obviously depends on whether that will is viewed favorably or unfavorably.

Also, the Measure 37 supporters said over and over that private property rights trump the rights of neighbors. They see people as isolated islands of free agency, able to do whatever they want without needing to consider how that affects the surrounding area. If I drill fifty wells for my subdivision and your well goes dry, tough.

Yet at even a hint that the Democratic majority on the committee might exercise their own right to do what they think is best, outrage! How could the committee members dare to construct their vision of a fair and balanced land use system on the foundation of a reformed Measure 37??!!

Horror of horrors—that'd be acting independently. Which is just what the Measure 37 claimants want to do on their own property. But in the strange world of "I (heart) Measure 37" (as in Animal Farm), all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Measure 37 introduced a huge element of unfairness into Oregon's land use system. Some people get to roll back the clock on regulations they don't like, while their neighbors don't.

Yet when the public tries to get the train wreck of Measure 37 back on track, as happened last night (I counted 28 people in favor of fixing the measure, and 22 in favor of letting it be), the favored claimant class cries, "You can't roll back the clock on Measure 37! Only we get to roll back the clock!"

Wrong. U-turns can be made by anybody. And they should, as I argued recently on my other blog (see "U-turns often lead to a better direction." Oregonians in Action flim-flammed voters into turning Oregon's pioneering land use laws into a laughing stock. Measure 37 now is used as a model of what not to do by other states.

So it's time to change course again. Which the Land Use Fairness Committee is poised to do, thank god. We and our neighbors have spent $20,000 fighting a 137 acre Measure 37 subdivision that the claimant wants to put on groundwater limited farmland.

The proposed legislation would limit this development to three homes. That's three too many, from the point of view of our hydrogeologist, but a heck of a lot better than the 43 the Measure 37 claimant wants. We submitted written testimony last night to this effect: Download testimony_to_legislature.doc

Check out Land Use Watch and Ridenbaugh Press for some other views of the hearing yesterday. Peter Bray has some interesting photos on his Land Use Watch blog.

Here's my favorite photographic memory of the lengthy proceedings. A Nature Conservancy speaker, whose name I didn't get, brought a stuffed animal to testify with him. I recall it uttered an eloquent birdsong.

I'm no ornithologist, but I'm pretty sure the bird was saying, "Fix Measure 37, Fix Measure 37. I love trees and earthworms, not concrete and asphalt."

Virginia Tech shootings highlight nation’s self-absorption

Yes, it's a tragedy. Thirty-three people dead, including the gunman. But in Iraq, this number of killings would be a good day. And in Darfur, a miracle to have only that many lives lost on a Monday in April.

Listening to the radio in my car this afternoon, I heard a reporter say that decades from now, the Virginia Tech tragedy would still be on the minds of Americans.

I doubt it. And also, I hope not. There are many more important things to be focusing on than a massacre by one crazed man. Like the thousands of people being needlessly killed in Iraq. And the hundreds of thousands in Darfur.

The United States is prone to unseemly fits of self-absorption. Whether it is 9/11 or Virginia Tech's 4/16, American deaths get blown way out of proportion in comparison to the suffering occurring in other parts of the world.

The whole nation jumps to attention when a few Americans are killed. Hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of deaths in another country elicit a yawn.

I couldn't believe it when I saw that Alberto Gonzales' appearance before the panel investigating the firing of federal prosecutors had been postponed until Thursday. That's absurd.

In 2004 over 11,000 people were murdered by guns in the United States (about 70% of the 16, 137 total murders were by firearms). Thirty-two, not counting the killer—that's a drop in the murder bucket.

Around thirty people every day are murdered in the United States by someone using a gun. Why don't we have a continuous day of mourning for them?

Answer: because they usually don't happen in highly visible bunches, as at Virginia Tech. And the NRA wouldn't like the attention put on the relation between the availability of guns and the murder rate.

England has a strict handgun ban. Not coincidentally, England has a murder rate only 1/6 of ours. The Virginia Tech shootings point to an obvious fact: this nation's NRA-fueled obsession with the Second Amendment leads to a lot of unnecessary deaths.

It's way past time to look at how other countries are handling guns in a much wiser fashion than the United States is. But that'll require us to recognize that we aren't the "greatest nation on Earth" in many, many respects.

Less self-absorption and more honest self-analysis of our shortcomings—that's what this country needs.

I become a grandfather. And dig up a septic tank.

Grandpa Brian. A new aspect of my persona, thanks to Evelyn Elizabeth Vos. She was born Thursday to my daughter Celeste and her hubby, Patrick.

And their first "child," who looks like a feline plot is in the making. I'd keep the cat away from the baby for a while, Celeste and Patrick, until you know what's going on in that furry head (as if you ever will).

Speaking of furry heads, Evelyn looks a lot like Celeste did when she was born: hirsute. People said Celeste looked like an Eskimo, though I'm pretty sure nobody who said that had ever seen an Eskimo baby.

Patrick was kind enough to email Evelyn's vital statistics to family and friends, facts I forgot to ask when I talked with the new mother: 6 pounds, 1 ½ ounces; 20 inches.

Seems about right to me. Celeste was in that ballpark, but then remained on the skinny side for several years of babyhood. We raised her from birth as a vegetarian. Her pediatrician was dubious about this.

That's how it was back in the early '70s—vegetarian unfriendly. Evelyn will be raised in 21^st century Hollywood, a much more receptive environment for an alternative infant foodstyle. (Patrick, keep her away from those McDonald's burgers you love to sneak out and eat!)

Patrick already has the sensitive doting father look down. Though he's in Hollywood, I know it's no act.

Baby carriers sure have come a long way from how I remember them. You could make it through an earthquake in this model. Didn't think of that, though, when I chose to give these southern Californians one after perusing their online baby gift registry.

I haven't yet adjusted to my grandfather status. It'll probably take Evelyn Elizabeth saying "grampa," or whatever, for it to really sink in. At the moment, I don't feel as old as my new title implies.

This morning we were just about to head for a Fix Measure 37 rally at the state capitol when I noticed that dark smelly water was overflowing our laundry room floor drain, plus the downstairs toilet and shower. Not good.

A little over an hour later I was out in the dog yard, uncovering the access hatch to our septic tank at the behest of the Roto Rooter guy. For a grandfather, my digging in the wet clay soil was pretty darn impressive, if I have to pat me on the back myself.

The Roto Rooter team saved our bacon tofu. But not in time for us to make the rally. Laurel's sign-making went for naught. Might as well get some use of it via this post.

(She was uncharacteristically photo-shy, not having had an opportunity to prettify herself today what with all the clogged drain excitement).

Oregonians in Action wants to hijack “Fix Measure 37” rally

Geez, Oregonians in Action, can't you organize your own pro Measure 37 "Pave over Oregon!" rally?

Not only do you want to trample on the rights of citizens to enjoy a sprawl-free, water-plentiful, farm-friendly state, you also want to disrupt the Rally for Oregon that's been organized by Jim Gilbert and his Fix Measure 37 crew.

It'll be held on the steps of the capitol in Salem next Saturday, April 14, from 10-2. Here's a rally flyer: Download measure_37_rally_poster.pdf

Oregonians in Action, which brought us the disaster of Measure 37, is calling on their supporters to hijack the rally.

We are hoping to surround this rally with pro-measure 37 supporters and hold our own rally! We're asking supporters to bring signs that read 'Hands off my property", "Voters Have Spoken", "Tom McCall stole my Pension"; "I Love Measure 37" along with any others you can think of that will help show these people what you really think.

Trying to take over someone else's rally is tacky. But then, so is the asphalted, concreted, subdivided vision of Oregon that Oregonians in Action dreams about.

Notwithstanding our fervent distaste for Measure 37 and the trashing of our state's pioneering land use policies, we get frequent phone calls from Oregonians in Action volunteers. They have us confused with a Larry Hines.

I usually say "wrong number" and hang up when I hear "I'm calling from Oregonians in Action. Is this Larry Hines?" But Laurel stayed on the phone recently.

She got a pitch to attend the Fix Measure 37 rally and help outnumber those who want much-needed changes made to the law. At the end of the conversation, though, Laurel couldn't resist making her true feelings known. I suspect that will be the last phone call we get from Oregonians in Action.

Come to the rally on Saturday. According to a newspaper report, speakers will include:

--Rep. Greg Macpherson of the joint Land Use Fairness Committee
--Mike Carrier, the governor's natural resource policy director
--Rep. Brian Clem, another member of the joint committee
--Bob Stacey, executive director of 1,000 Friends of Oregon
--several farmers

I'm looking forward to mingling with Measure 37 supporters. Oregonians in Action wants to make this rally a smack down. We progressive Greenies are much more into hugging trees. And our fellow citizens.

Update: Laurel just got back from a Land Use Fairness Committee work session. She's encouraged by what she heard. It sounds like the Measure 37 reform framework is still in play, pretty much as it was revealed several weeks ago.

There's been rumors that the framework was dead, but apparently the Democrats have enough cojones to move ahead with changes that Oregonians in Action won't like. Excellent news, if it comes to pass.

It seems that subdivisions in groundwater limited areas, like the one we and our neighbors have been fighting, would be limited to three homes. More good news. We've been worried both that more homes would be allowed, and that an "opt out of transferability" clause would allow a well-heeled developer to build homes with his own money, then sell them to buyers.

The buyers wouldn't get development rights, but the lots already would have been developed. However, in talking with people at the hearing Laurel learned that a bank wouldn't give a mortgage for a home on a "nonconforming" lot. So the Measure 37 claimant would have to be his own developer, and also his own financier for buyers (offering contracts, for example).

That's an awful lot of risk to take on. So at the moment we're feeling good about Measure 37 reform efforts. There's a long road left ahead, though, so the Fix Measure 37 rally is as important as ever.

Salem developer trashes large trees. Again.

George Suniga, a Salem (Oregon) developer, has this thing about beautiful large trees. He loves to cut them down. With or without a permit.

Here's his latest piece of work. Until a few days ago these marvelous oaks were some of the few trees left on Suniga's Waln Creek Estates subdivision.

My wife and I drive past the property just about every day. And for many years we had the Oregonian delivered to a paper box on the corner of Holder Lane and Liberty Road (we live too far out in the country for home delivery).

So I got to know the trees along Liberty pretty darn well. Every time I got out of the car to grab the newspaper, I'd be aware of the presence of these old massive denizens of Oregon—who were here long before I (or George Suniga) was, and deserved to live on well after us.

Now they're gone. When I saw them laying on the ground, I was suspicious as well as sad. Suniga's history with trees isn't going to win him any Arbor Day awards, to put it mildly.

Back in August of 2006, Suniga was fined $10,000 for illegally removing trees on the Waln Creek Estates property. His city –approved development plan required that he leave a maple, a spruce, and three fir trees. Suniga's excuse was lame.

A contractor removed the trees by mistake after their roots were damaged during the demolition of a house on the property, he said. "We cautioned them, but heck, you get those young guys bulldozing and they don't pay much attention," Suniga said.

Yeah, right. An opinion piece in the Salem Statesman Journal got it right: "Protection of trees was responsibility of home builder."

Suniga has been in the business for 45 years. It took me about one Google minute to learn how to protect trees from construction damage. It's hard to believe that the trees weren't removed on purpose.

As someone said on a Statesman Journal forum, $10,000 is pocket money to a developer. Until a fine is large enough to really hurt, some environmentally unconscious builders are going to continue to cut down trees without a permit in order to pad their bottom line.

Which is what Suniga did again just a few months later, on a different development.

This time he got fined $47,250 for removing 58 trees, three of which were larger than 24 inches around, without waiting for city approval. (Here's the newspaper story; couldn't find it online, but Beth Casper, the reporter, was kind enough to email me a copy). Download salem_developer_gets_second_fine_for_tree_removal.doc

And now, the oaks. I phoned the City of Salem and reached Brandi Dalton, a tree permit staffer. She told me that Suniga had permission to remove 11-12 trees along Liberty Road, adjacent to a right of way. The supposed reason? Sidewalks.

Hmmmm. I wasn't mollified. Some of the sidewalk along Liberty had been put in before the trees were cut down. The rest of the right of way had been graveled in preparation for the remaining sidewalk construction.

I took this photo today, two days after the photo above. The downed oaks already had been removed. I wanted to confirm that the sidewalk was quite a ways from the oak trunks.

It is. Much farther than the three feet that should separate a sidewalk and the trunk of a tree. A little web research also revealed that if a tree is close to a sidewalk, "deep-root trees such as oaks and maples are preferable to shallow-rooted trees like spruces and poplars."

So we have large oaks well away from a sidewalk right of way. Why cut them down? I phoned Ms. Dalton back, saying that I needed to know more about the reason a permit was given to remove the trees.

The message she left on our voice mail said that the contractor wasn't required to remove the trees. But improvements, which I gather meant the sidewalk, would affect the health of the trees. And some supposedly needed to be removed to build the sidewalk.

Well, the large oaks certainly didn't need to be removed, because they were still standing after the leveling and graveling for the sidewalk had been completed.

However, Ms. Dalton was right about the health of the trees being affected by the construction. Needlessly, in the opinion of my wife and me.

As we drove past the subdivision a week or two ago, we noticed that earthmoving equipment was working right around the base of the oak trees. Laurel said, "They're not going to survive."

It sure looks like the trees were damaged purposely, so there'd be more justification for a removal permit. Dirt was mounded up around the trunks to a depth of several feet.

You can see in this photo that the dirt had to be excavated before the oaks were cut down. In effect, the burial took place before the killing happened.

Experts say, "If you move large amounts of soil within a tree's root zone, you will likely kill the tree. Generally, any tree covered by more than 24" or more of fill should be removed."

Which is what happened. But Suniga is responsible for moving the dirt around the oaks, compacting the soil, and covering the trunks with several feet of fill.

He trashed the oaks. Then he got a permit to remove the damaged trees. What a _____. (I've filled in the blank in my own mind. I invite you to do the same.)

If you're thinking of buying a lot at Waln Creek Estates, consider what you're buying into. This is a subdivision that hasn't respected either the surrounding neighborhood or the trees on the property.

I've talked with some people who live in the area. They don't like Suniga's style: "He's irritated the majority of us," I was told.

This afternoon I phoned George Suniga's office. Most politely, I told the woman who answered the phone that my wife and I frequently drive past Waln Creek Estates and we noticed that the oaks along Liberty had been cut down.

I said that saddened us. But if there was a good reason for their removal, that'd make us feel better. Could she tell me what the reason was?

She laughed in a brittle "ha, ha" fashion. "I can't help you," she said. Click.

That told me a lot. You'd think that a builder would want to stay on the good side of the public, especially since it looks like lots are beginning to be sold at Waln Creek Estates. But all I got was an "I can't help you."

Well, I'm pleased to be able to help prospective lot buyers by providing some of the tree-unfriendly history of the subdivision.

You get what you pay for. In this case, part of what your purchase price would buy is the unnecessary destruction of some majestic old oaks and other trees.

Like they say, buyer beware.

Here's a cynical, yet accurate, observation that I heard an architect make: "Most developments are named after the property's attractive natural feature that got bulldozed away." You can bet a subdivision named "Tall Firs" won't have many, if any, left.

Similarly, there's no sign of a creek in Suniga's scorched earth development. But I didn't look in every culvert.

Lastly, just to show that I'm not completely negative toward real estate developers, here's some Internet-related advice:

If you think that some prospective buyers might search for information about your subdivision by typing the development's name as a URL, WalnCreekEstates.com, for example, early on you should spend $8.95 and reserve that domain name. Otherwise, someone else could.

Why have a public hearing if you don’t want to hear the public?

Memo to Oregon legislators: if you invite the public to testify at a hearing, be willing to hear them. Especially if they've driven several hours to attend an 8:00 am session on SB 30, a bill that would protect the fragile Metolius River basin from two large destination resorts.

That's what happened last Thursday. The public got stiffed, while government officials and real estate developers got to talk…and talk…and talk some more.

I was there, one of the non-testifiers. Like several dozen other people who wanted a couple of minutes in front of the Education and General Government Committee, chaired by Sen. Vicki Walker, to voice their support of SB 30.

As the Bend Bulletin reported, the Committee hearing was horribly unbalanced:

The lion's share of the microphone time Thursday in front of the Senate Education and General Government Committee was devoted to critics of the Senate bill. These included Jefferson County and Madras officials - who said the legislation would trample on a legal land use process - and the developers of the two proposed resorts that could be in jeopardy.

Here's how the "public hearing" (what a joke of a name) went down. First, Sen. Ben Westlund and Sen. Betsy Johnson talked about why SB 30 was so important. Both were eloquent.

Westlund said, "The only question is, 'Do you want to protect this very special place?'" And, "This is Oregon, and if there is one place that defines us, it is the Metolius."

Johnson, whose family has had close ties with the river since 1904—and donated for public access the land around the head of the Metolius—started to cry as soon as she began speaking. She said she was thinking of her deceased mother and the profound connection they both had with the river.

"I plead guilty to an emotional response to the bill," Johnson said. Me too. I was almost in tears by the time she finished. My wife and I love the Metolius also, being part owners of a forest service cabin on the river.

That 10-minute or so part of the hearing was fine. But then began the parade of the "suits."

Staff from the state Water Resources Department talked at length about the hydrology of central Oregon. Rep. John Dallum talked at length about why he'd removed his name as a sponsor of SB 30. Jefferson County officials talked at length about how the proposed destination resorts would bring gobs of much-needed property tax revenue to their strapped budget.

The developers of the Colson and Dutch Pacific parcels talked at length about how utterly peachy-keen it would be to have 10,000 + acres devoted to homes, golf courses, and other destination resort amenities in or near the fragile Metolius basin, officially designated as a Wild and Scenic River.

Then a rancher talked at length about why SB 30 didn't make sense. All of the testimony so far had been invited. No one who had signed up to speak as a member of the public had gotten to say a single word, even though those in favor of SB 30 had (correctly) sent out notices urging people to come and testify, since this was a public hearing on the bill.

Except, oops, Chairwoman Walker looks at the clock on the wall and says, "We have to leave for a floor session at 10:15. We won't be able to hear those of you who signed up to testify, aside from one group."

So at 10:07, two hours and seven minutes into the two hour and fifteen minute hearing (about twenty minutes of which was devoted to an unrelated bill), three guys from Friends of the Metolius and Central Oregon Landwatch rush to sit down at the microphone table. The first two quickly say that they're yielding their time to the third, Gregory McClaren, who gets a whole five minutes to express support for SB 30 and opposition to the destination resorts.

And that's it. Walker had said that it was committee policy to let people who'd driven over 100 miles testify first. However, that seemed to only apply to opponents of SB 30. A man sitting across the aisle from me raised his hand and said, "I've come over 100 miles. Will I get a chance to say anything?"

No, Walker told him, you won't. But she said there would be another hearing on the bill, so everybody who drove several hours or more to have a couple of minutes in front of the committee microphone could do it again another time.

I was frosted. And I only came from south Salem, twenty-five minutes away. The day before, Laurel and I had spent seven hours in a Marion County Board of Commissioners appeal hearing on a Measure 37 subdivision that we and our neighbors are fighting.

The four days previous we'd spent countless additional hours preparing for the hearing. There were lots of other things I would have preferred to do than sit in a legislative hearing room for another two hours, waiting to testify in favor of SB 30, only to find out that the Education and General Government Committee clearly never intended to allow the public to have the opportunity to do that.

Sen. Walker is a sharp legislator. I liked her style, and I like her politics, by and large. But I sure didn't like how she allocated almost all of the hearing time to opponents of SB 30. Per usual in hearings of this sort, those who got by far the most microphone access were being paid to attend the session (public officials and destination resort consultants).

The members of the public who took a day off (or at least, a morning) at their own expense to testify in support of SB 30 were ignored, aside from the one representative of Central Oregon Landwatch. That's a crappy way to run a public hearing.

Legislators, how would you feel if you got an invitation to a dinner party, drove several hours to get there, and then were told by the hostess, "Oh, I'm sorry. We don't have enough room at the table and have decided that it's more important to let other people eat. Come back next week."

That's exactly what happened at the state capitol on Thursday. Sen. Walker and her committee treated the invited public shabbily.

Why have a public hearing if you don't intend to hear the public? I'm going to send a link to this blog post to every member of the committee. I've asked a good question. I'll share any answers I receive in the "comments" section.

[SB 30 is much-needed. Click on this Save the Metolius web page and use the email links to express your support for the legislation.]

Easter infringes on my religious freedom

Class-action attorneys, I'm waiting for your emails. I'm a representative of a significant Easter-oppressed group: non-Christians who worship Sunday gadget shopping and latte sipping.

My "religion," though which I derive deep meaning and satisfaction, may be non-traditional. But I should be free to practice it without interference. And today, I can't.

Thumbing through the Sunday paper ads, I just realized that Best Buy is closed today. Outrageous!

I woke up this morning filled with a gloriously uplifting thought: "In a few hours I'll rejoice in the buying of a new high-tech wall phone that we need for our soon-to-be-remodeled kitchen."

Now I'm morose, in a spiritual funk, because I won't be able to worship in the high temple of technological goodies.

It's ridiculous that national religious holidays are still allowed in the 21^st century. Haven't we, as Americans, reached a consensus on a fundamental cultural tenet: "In shopping we trust"?

Well, I'm about to head off for my habitual Sunday morning coffee house latte. I'll drown my Easter-provoked despair in a double (or maybe triple) shot of caffeine.

If the coffee house is closed, though, I'll just have to bear my cross as best I can.

"Oh god of consumption, both electronic and liquid, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Air America needs to dump Randi Rhodes

I've already argued persuasively that Randi Rhodes is an embarrassment to progressives. Now I'm running out of adjectives. What's worse than "embarrassment"? Words fail me.

Yesterday I opted to test my teeth-gritting ability and tuned to Portland's Air America station, KPOJ, while she was on. I heard some amazing news: Dick Cheney said they have lawyers looking into whether the 22^nd Amendment is inoperative, and George Bush could run for a third term.

Wow! What a scoop. That was the first I'd heard about this astounding revelation. Rhodes went on to express her outrage about how the administration was set on making the country into a never-ending Bush monarchy.

I took her seriously, because she was talking that way. So did other listeners, naturally, some of whom posted excited comments on the Randi Rhodes message board.

The top of the hour came. Time for Air America news. "Wonder what they'll say about the Cheney story?" I thought.

Answer: nothing. Because this was an April Fool's Day joke, a hoax that the perpetrator observed keeps on hoaxing. A fact that Randi Rhodes belatedly recognized on her show.

How did she deal with the ridiculous misinformation she spouted over the public airwaves? Not by apologizing, but by saying, "The fact that this is something we could have believed about Cheney shows how little credibility he has." (words to that effect, at least; I'm going by memory here).

Randi, as difficult as it is to surpass Dick Cheney in the lack of credibility department, you did that yesterday. Like you do most days I listen to you. You shoot from the lip in a seriously misinformed fashion just as badly as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and other right-wing wacko talk show hosts do.

Get off Air America, please.

All you're doing is preaching to the faithful who excuse your misstatements because they like your passionate style. I respect your passion also, but not your propensity to say whatever pops into your head, regardless of its truth content.

That's just what George Bush and Dick Cheney do. You're not helping the progressive cause by acting just like them.

Measure 37 reform proposal is looking shaky

It appears the "Framework for a Better Measure 37" prepared by a sub-group of the Oregon legislature's Land Use Fairness Committee is starting to fall apart.

Over at Land Use Watch, Peter Bray says he's gotten confidential information that the framework is dead. Peter hates the reform proposal, so his reaction is "Thank God!"

The Oregonian, though, is reporting that the committee members are clashing over details. A meeting was disbanded yesterday over what Sen. Floyd Prozankski called an "impasse."

Well, death also is an impasse, so Bray might have it right after all.

(As an aside, Laura Oppenheimer's Oregonian report is called "Legislators tangle - not tango - over Measure 37." For the moment I will hold off on a plagiarism suit against the newspaper, even though over a year ago I posted a "We tango, and also get tangled" blog post.)

Holding ground with our Measure 37 land use activism

We didn't know what to expect when we walked into today's hearing before the Marion County Commissioners. On behalf of our neighborhood's Keep Our Water Safe Committee, we'd appealed a Planning Commission decision that granted Leroy Laack 27 lots for his proposed 137 acre Measure 37 subdivision near us.

Laack also had appealed, since he wants 43 lots. So there we were at 9:30 in the morning, standing around in the hearing room lobby, waiting for a seemingly endless series of Measure 37 claims to be decided by the County Commissioners, not knowing whether we'd end the day as losers or winners.

By 4:15 in the afternoon, we still didn't know. Our case didn't come up on the agenda until about 11:00. With just a brief snack break and a slightly longer lunch break, testimony from both sides ran hot and heavy for about five hours. We heard that this was the longest meeting of the Marion County Commissioners ever.

We all should have gotten a medal, or something. It was grueling.

I'd had the foresight to bring along a bottle of water, two granola bars, and a bag of Kettle Chips' sort-of-pretzel sort-of-chip thingies. Wise decision. Being one set of appellants, Laurel and I couldn't take the chance that we'd miss something important if we went to get a decent meal.

Which doesn't exactly describe the large cookie and cup of coffee our consulting hydrogeologist, Walt Burt of GSI Water Solutions, brought back for what loosely could be called "lunch." Nonetheless, Walt had enough sustenance in him to do a good job with his critique of a report prepared by Laack's hired geologist gun, Malia Kupillas.

In her testimony Laurel made mention of the "dueling hydrologists" syndrome. That's when two water experts lock horns and come to diametrically opposed conclusions about the same geologic situation. The one with the thickest stack of paper in his or her report often is considered to be the winner by naïve observers.

Naïve, because often "we don't know" is the wisest, truest, and most scientific statement that can be made. The basic stance of the Keep Our Water Safe Committee is that not enough is known about how much water is available to support the proposed subdivision, nor whether adding 27 (or 43) more homes to a groundwater limited area is going to further stress existing wells and the creek that feeds our neighborhood lake.

I was all set to start out my testimony with a Greek philosophy quote. I'd copied a page from Plato's Apology, carefully highlighted it, and was ready to speak about how Socrates compared himself with a know-it-all who really wasn't. Socrates said that the other guy thought that he knew what he was talking about, but didn't, while Socrates knew that he didn't know—so that gave him the advantage.

However, just before Laurel and I went up to testify, our attorney told us to keep our remarks as brief as possible, because the hearing had gone on so long. Hey, I thought, you told a "Rocky and Bullwinkle" story in your own legal testimony. Isn't Socrates as deserving to be heard as two cartoon characters?

But I dutifully cut out as much fluff as possible when my turn to speak came. I'd labored for a couple of days on preparing three critiques of Kupillas' report. They were darn well done, I have to say, works of land use activism art. A lot like class assignments, except I didn't get any credits for them. Or a lot like a company project, except I didn't get any money for them.

That's the thing about hearings like today's. You look around the room and realize that almost everybody is either being paid to be there—the commissioners, consultants, county staff—or hopes to make a buck from the project (the owners of the proposed subdivision property).

We and our neighbors were the only ones without an obvious monetary fish to fry. Sure, the value of our homes would drop, a lot, if wells go dry. But that's secondary to our desire to protect the livability of our neighborhood. We want to learn what's really going on with the declining aquifers in our neck of the south Salem hills woods.

Truth: that's what we're asking for. Socrates would love us. And Walt too. He's a paid consultant, but has a scientist's appreciation for digging out the facts (a fitting trait for a geologist). Walt just sent me these thoughts about the proper practice of his profession:

Hydrogeology is an inexact science, and thus hydrogeologists often have to develop conclusions and make significant decisions based on information involving varying degrees of uncertainty.

It is incumbent on us to understand the uncertainties, and based on the types of decisions and potential ramifications, to determine whether additional information is warranted to be able to make a decision with more confidence in a positive outcome.

If we push decisions that the information about key aspects of the hydrogeologic system cannot support, we run the very real risk of an unintended consequence that can have long-term impacts. Also, because we are dealing with a geologic system, the real extent of the impacts can take years to develop.

We're asking that Marion County require that the developers conduct extensive tests of area groundwater before the subdivision is approved. Not just a review of existing data, but drilling test wells and monitoring their effect on surrounding wells and surface water.

We made a strong case. And held our ground. No decision was reached. The County Commissioners gave us two weeks to respond to the information presented by Laack's consultants. Then they get a week to respond to our response. No winner or loser yet.

Except for the coffee house next door to the hearing room. They made out just fine with the seven hour meeting. After quite a few years, we've learned the first rule of land use activism: empty your bladder and fill your stomach before setting out for the appeal wars.

Pregnancy can be cute

My daughter, Celeste, finally has shared some pregnancy photos. She's due April 10, so she's really pregnant.

We talked by phone this evening. Celeste said, "There's nothing cute about being pregnant."

Hey, this grandfather-to-be begs to differ. Patrick, her hubby, and she are Hollywoodish cute here (which fits, since that's where they live).

And this shows more than the belly of the demure mother-to be. Who, I'm told, is eminently ready for Baby Girl ______ to make her appearance.

They're down to three potential names, but won't choose the winner until they see their child and know that the name fits.

At the moment, according to Celeste, "Kicker" would win out. I suspect this won't be their ultimate choice.

Google offers free broadband access! Sign up now!

Oh, my god, Google, it sounds too good to be true. Free in-home wireless broadband service.

But Gmail is free. So is Page Creator. So is lots of Google stuff. Got to read more.

Hmmm. The installation instructions make sense. I'm no do-it-yourselfer. But I could handle the set-up.

On to the FAQs.

Damn! We live in the country.

Can I use TiSP if my home uses a septic system?
Sorry, but no -- TiSP requires the use of a central sewer system to connect your home to the Internet.

Oh, well. I'll hope for a v. 2.0.