The controversy over Measure 37, and now Measure 49, which is M37’s intended fix, illustrates both why we have an Initiative process and some of its very serious shortcomings.

The initiative process was designed to supplement our Legislative process by letting the public propose and bring to a public vote changes or additions to our state laws and Constitution. Frustration with our Legislature’s inability to grapple with difficult and divisive issues was one of the reasons Oregon’s citizens adopted the initiative process.

This frustration was almost certainly the impetus behind Measure 37, which was designed to give landowners recourse for value they believe had been taken from them by Oregon’s land use laws.

There are, however, some glaring shortcomings in the Initiative process. The text of each initiative is left solely to its sponsor; no debate or compromise is involved. Legal advice is not even required, which leads many initiatives to end up in court, as has M37.

Once the initiative is approved for the ballot, the campaign begins; here the voting public is subjected to the full force of modern marketing and publicity techniques with all manner of slogans, sound bites and misleading information. In the case of M37, this is how we were convinced that sweet little Dorothy English was terribly wronged, even though the big timber and real estate development companies were the major financial backers of the campaign.

Now, contrast this with the legislative process for writing laws and constitutional amendments. Before the House and Senate vote upon an issue, committees hold hearings, lobbyists and citizen comment, legislators negotiate and compromise and legal counsel is provided.

This system of checks and balances is intended to assure that all citizens are represented and designed to help clarify ambiguous language, and to address constitutional issues. These checks and balances also help to prevent unintended consequences, a gravel pit, a Wal-Mart or a new subdivision in your neighborhood for instance.

This brings us to M49, the proposed Legislative fix to the original M37. While neither proponents nor opponents are entirely pleased with M48, we now have a measure that has been subjected to the positive effects of the Legislative process and more closely reflects the will of the electorate.

Join me in supporting M49. It will minimize the harm done to prime agricultural lands here in the Hood River Valley and statewide, and keep subdivisions and industrial development from invading our farms, forests and open spaces.

Just one doctor

The president’s recent annual physical was conducted by 11 doctors, all specialists in various fields of medicine.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the 45-plus million Americans who have no health insurance got examined annually by even one doctor?

What wind brings

Brent Foster, of Columbia Riverkeeper, says in his recent letter that UPC’s Cascade Wind Project does not have a direct connection to the Columbia River. New wind power projects along the river corridor build miles of new roads along fragile ridge tops, while the turbine footprint areas are denuded, bulldozed and blasted up to 10 acres at each turbine site, causing extensive erosion into the Columbia River. Isn’t this a direct effect on the Columbia River?

In his initial letter in May, Brent Foster states that 60 mw of wind energy “is being built in Wasco County.” He does not mention the project by name, but since there are no other wind power projects proposed in Wasco County, what other project could he possibly be referring to?

Foster claims to have had “multiple conversations” with me regarding his letter and the Cascade Wind project. We actually spoke once on the phone and exchanged a few brief thoughts on wind power at a function in Hood River. This hardly qualifies as “multiple conversations.”

When I asked Brent Foster to retract or clarify his previous May letter, he never agreed to and in fact, never did. It is for this reason that my husband, C.H. Barker, referenced Foster in his recent letter to the editor. Foster is one of the spokespeople for the local environmental community, so it’s important that his position is clear.

Beyond the Cascade Wind project, I believe that Columbia Riverkeeper is among a number of environmental groups in the Northwest that have been rounded up under the firm hand of the Bullitt Foundation to give blanket support to industrial wind power. The Bullitt Foundation has made it clear that they do not give financial support to any group who does not support their energy policy.

For example, Bullitt’s environmental grant recipients gave support for the proposed wind power projects on the Columbia Hills in the east Gorge where there are major cultural, biological, and scenic issues.

We understand that Riverkeeper signed off on the Energy Overlay Zone that covers two-thirds of Klickitat County, including many of the ridges above the Columbia River — a zone that allows industrial windpower projects with no citizen review. My point is that Foster may be disingenuous about his group’s position on Columbia Gorge wind power. Is Riverkeeper going to oppose SDS’s proposed 70 mw wind energy project on Underwood Mountain?

Give kid a break

I read in the paper where they are considering bringing charges against the boy who inadvertently started the (Frankton Road) fire last week.

What a shame to even consider such actions. It was not started on purpose. It was a spark from a mower. The kid wasn’t lighting firecrackers, smoking pot or even smoking cigarettes.

Surely the D.A. can find a more useful way of spending our tax dollars than taking this kid to court for that!

Personally I think he should be commended for mowing instead of being out running the streets or partying.