It's going to cost my wife and me $500 to put a "Vote YES" argument in the Measure 49 section of the Oregon voter's pamphlet. So please read the 323 words that I crafted this afternoon (see continuation to this post).
Every additional person who peruses this electoral work of literary art makes me feel better about the check I'll soon be writing to the Elections Division.
If you want to follow in my politically active footsteps, click on this page and find the link to SEL 405, the cryptically numbered PDF form for filing a measure argument for the November 2007 special election.
(For some reason the form still refers to "2006 Voter's Pamphlet Filing Fees and Deadlines, but I was told by the Elections Division to use it anyway).
We've never paid for a voter's pamphlet argument before. But then we've never cared so much about a ballot measure before.
Our neighborhood's wells and commonly owned lake are threatened by a Measure 37 subdivision. That's made a whole lot of people around here into land use activists and Measure 49 supporters – even many who voted for Measure 37 and have come to see what a mistake that was.
It's nice to see that a poll of Oregon voters by Riley Research found that 58% said they were likely to vote "Yes" on Measure 49, while just 12% opposed it.
Hopefully this will put a sock in the mouth of Oregonians in Action and other die-hard Measure 37 supporters who keep blathering about how voters shouldn't be asked to express their opinion on Measure 37 again.
It sure looks like their opinion has changed, now that Oregonians have learned that large subdivisions on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land are the true face of Measure 37, not sweet old Dorothy English.
Here's our argument in favor of Measure 49. It might change some before I submit it along with our check. The truth of which we speak is unalterable though: Our groundwater is threatened by the proposed 42-lot Measure 37 subdivision. And Measure 49 is our best hope for keeping our wells and lake from drying up.
SAVE OUR WELLS – VOTE “YES” ON MEASURE 49
A Measure 37 subdivision threatens our wells. Forty-two homes would be built on 125 acres of groundwater limited farmland in the south Salem hills.
Property owners in our area already are having water problems. Wells have had to be deepened or replaced. Marion County has officially designated the Measure 37 acreage as a “Sensitive Groundwater Overlay” zone.
Because of that designation, the Measure 37 claimant (Leroy Laack) had to prepare a Hydro Review of groundwater adequacy. He needed to prove that the subdivision’s 42 wells wouldn’t harm existing wells.
The Hydro Review was failed by an independent water expert hired by Marion County. Failed!
Ordinarily this would have meant that the Measure 37 subdivision would be put on hold until Mr. Laack could prove there was enough water to supply the development without drying up neighboring wells.
But two members of the Marion County Board of Commissioners ignored the conclusion of the county’s own water expert. Sam Brentano and Patti Milne voted to let the subdivision go forward.
This is a big reason why Measure 49 is needed: elected officials can’t be counted on to protect the property rights of people already living near a Measure 37 claim.
Measure 49 would limit this subdivision to three home sites, because it is on groundwater limited farmland. This still could harm neighboring wells, but it’s a lot better than the 42 wells the Measure 37 claimant wants to drill.
We represent more than thirty homeowners who support the Keep Our Water Safe Committee. They’ve contributed $29,000 to fight this serious threat to our groundwater.
Quite a few of our neighbors voted for Measure 37. Now they strongly support Measure 49. They’ve seen how Measure 37 takes away the rights of existing property owners.
Like, the right to not have our wells go dry.
(This information furnished by Brian and Laurel Hines, Keep Our Water Safe Committee)
Here's my cut at it -- don't know how many words it is. In general, avoid the passive voice to shorten things like this.
===========
SAVE OUR WELLS – VOTE “YES” ON MEASURE 49
A subdivision on 42 homes on 125 acres--only possible in this region of limited groundwater through Measure 37--threatens our wells.
Excess draw is already creating water problems in this area, with established residents having to dig new and deeper wells required. The county designates the target area for this Measure 37 development as a “Sensitive Groundwater Overlay” zone, meaning that it cannot support new development.
That designation led the Measure 37 claimant (Leroy Laack) to prepare a hydrological review to try to show that 42 new wells wouldn’t harm existing property owners nearby.
The independent water expert hired to prepare the Hydro Review said the proposed development failed: the neighbors' water supplies would be threatened.
Before Measure 37, that would have been the end, unless the claimant could prove (despite the independent study) there was enough water to supply the development without drying up neighboring wells.
Nonetheless, two Marion County Commissioners ignored the conclusion of the independent water expert. Sam Brentano and Patti Milne voted to let the subdivision proceed.
This case shows why Measure 49 is essential: we cannot rely on elected politicians to protect the neighbors' property rights near Measure 37 claims.
If Measure 49 passes, Mr. Laack could still build three home sites on this groundwater limited farmland, which might still harm nearby wells---but 3 is a lot better than 42!
We represent more than thirty homeowners who support the Keep Our Water Safe Committee. We've come together and raised more than $29,000 to fight this battle.
Many of our neighbors voted for Measure 37--but now they strongly support Measure 49. They’ve seen, up close, how Measure 37 takes away important rights of Oregon property owners, like the right to not have established wells go dry.
(This information furnished by Brian and Laurel Hines, Keep Our Water Safe Committee)
Posted by: George Seldes | August 21, 2007 at 01:18 AM
"The Hydro Review was failed by an independent water expert hired by Marion County. Failed!"
Knowing how common it is for a government agency to hire an "independent expert" to provide exactly the "review" they want I don't buy it.
"officially designated"?
I'm not impressed.
In fact I have witnessed the State doing the exact opposite when a government project's well use threatened local neighboring wells. Of course that official review anticipated little or no effect on neighboring wells.
Although I can appreciate you and your neighbor's concerns for your water source I suspect your current and anticipated problems may be more related to aquafir depth and your current wells and not so much this new subdivision.
As aquafirs go and 42 wells on 145 acres I am not buying your prediction of dried up wells.
I suspect your two Marion County Commissioners did more than just "ignore the conclusion of the independent water expert", too.
Posted by: Wendy | August 21, 2007 at 07:57 AM
George, thanks for the suggestions. I got another rewrite emailed to me, so will revise the measure argument after taking these editing ideas into consideration.
I agree: active voice is better. I often write excessively passively.
Wendy, the independent reviewer truly was just that -- independent. If Marion County has a bias (and it does), it's in favor of development. But the peer reviewers who assess water studies do a good job, by and large.
You're right: the county commissioners had other reasons for approving the Laack subdivision. None reasonable.
Brentano and Milne were worried about whether Laack could get "vested" before Measure 49 goes into effect if additional study of the groundwater situation was required, as the county ordinance calls for.
So they approved the subdivision for purely political reasons. They support Measure 37 and tilt toward Measure 37 claimants in every appeal. That's outrageous, of course, because Brentano and Milne took an oath to uphold the law, not their own personal political views.
Posted by: Brian | August 21, 2007 at 11:33 AM
What about doing this as one of the great satire pieces and have it published in the no on 49 section? I always love reading those in the voters pamphlet. I think they can make a greater impact on people, granted that is just a gut reaction.
Posted by: Matthew | August 28, 2007 at 03:12 AM
Matthew, good idea. But the measure argument (somewhat revised) has been submitted to the Elections Division, and our $500 paid.
I agree that satire is an effective tool in the voter's pamphlet. In looking for examples of measure arguments I ran across some great satirical "pro Measure 36" (which banned gay marriage) statements.
For example:
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.html
It ended with:
"Freedom of religion and equal treatment under law is simply the special right to sin, because our tradition is the one and only truth! And our tradition (that is, our personal moral opinions) should become law.
AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Traditional Prejudices Coalition.)"
Posted by: Brian | August 28, 2007 at 09:58 AM