I was shocked! How in good conscience could the Hood River News (Oct. 17) recommend a “No” vote on Measure 49?

To actually recommend a one-time, short-term gain for a few rather than the long-term common good in a county whose economic mainstay is agriculture, that’s shooting yourself in the foot! Nothing could be more poignant than to have on the same page the excellent “Another Voice” by Mike Oates explaining very clearly that, despite what the editorial states, agriculture has survived in the valley BECAUSE OF the land use planning that took place 30 years ago.

If Measure 49 does not pass, Measure 37 remains the law of the land. With its existing and future claims and resulting checkerboard land use and adjacent, incompatible competing uses there will be irreversible loss of farm and forest land and compromised water supplies.

Why did California, Washington and Idaho vote down their Measure 37 clones in 2006? They never made it to the ballot in Nevada and Montana. Could it be that their voters had no trouble imagining what was going to happen to and in Oregon?

Vote Yes on Measure 49.

•

I read in the Oregonian today that a claim-by-claim analysis of one county’s Measure 37 claims would primarily restrict large subdivisions. It got me thinking about Measure 49, so I printed it and read it. After reading it, that’s basically what I learned. Measure 49 restricts large scale development and commercial/industrial development, but allows smaller scale development to move forward. However, I also came away with some other observations.

I find it very interesting that we have many pro-conservation voters voting “Yes” on M49, and many others, primarily resource land owners, voting “No.” A Yes vote allows more homes on resource lands, something that was previously an anathema to pro-conservation voters. Were this a few years ago, the sides would be switched; resource land owners would be voting for M49, and the pro-conservation voters would be vehemently against.

So what does that say about Oregon’s land use laws? To me, it says they are in need of some reform. This is patent in the pro-conservation position of Yes on M49, which is to allow some development on some resource lands, which implicitly says their previous position has waned.

I’m quite amazed that someone would vote against M49, especially a resource land owner, because a few years back, a law like this would never have happened. In the end, everyone gets something. It may not be everything they want, but it sure isn’t a stick in the eye either.

Will M49 solve everything? Absolutely not. Oregon’s land use laws are in need of reform. I’ve read the preliminary findings of the Big Look committee, and they are an honest, forthright attempt to address what they refer to as Oregonian’s “inner conflict” for growth and preservation. Their work should be lauded, and they should receive funding and be allowed to lead the way toward land use reform.

Vote Yes on M49. Call Sen. Metsger and Rep. Smith and tell them to restart the Big Look Committee. Perhaps once we get past M49, both sides will be a bit closer together, and we can focus on the future, not as urbanites and ruralites, but as Oregonians.

•

I spent this past weekend visiting my family in eastern Washington and found myself thinking about Measure 49, which we will be facing here in Oregon on our November ballot.

When I was a kid, my family spent the summers at Lake Coeur d’Alene, just 30 miles due east of Spokane. It was 1973 when we first began taking the annual trip between the two towns. That’s what I remember most — two distinct communities. We would drive out of town, leaving behind the commercial center of Spokane and eventually the industrial outskirts, too, would recede in the rearview mirror.

Then came farms and fields, cows and horses, small houses dotting the landscape that still revealed a blue horizon. Jacklin Seed Company was the only commercial blip on the route — row after row of large containers stacked up next to each other and spelling out Jack-Jack-Jack.

After some time, long enough for a child to doze off, the small community of Coeur d’Alene would reveal itself — the gas station and lumber yards, then houses, churches and schools.

Driving that same route this past weekend, I realized how much the landscape between theses two communities has changed. The interstate between them is now packed with car dealerships, shopping malls and outlet stores. Acre after acre has been leveled, and large billboards exclaiming, “Will Build To Suit!” litter what was once farmland.

On one side of the freeway, a concrete wall pens in a herd of cookie-cutter houses where horses used to graze. On the other side, one remaining alfalfa farmer made his slow harvest, rolling his crop into large, perfect wheels.

I’m not a farmer and never have been. I don’t know the story of that community that I left as a teenager or the effects, good or bad, on the people who farmed and lived there. I don’t know when or why the fields I saw as a kid turned into parking lots. But I do know that once that pavement goes over the earth, it usually doesn’t come back up. And I also know that we are facing this same choice here in Oregon with Measure 49.

I urge all people who love open spaces to vote yes on Measure 49.

•

If you do not have a current Measure 37 claim, then you stand to lose a great deal by the failure of Measure 49 to pass. If you do not have a current claim already filed, then ignore all the talk and print about what Measure 49 will do to your property rights or to the “poor” claimant. Measure 49 won’t affect any land that is not currently under claim. What you should ask yourself, is whether you want to have neighbors who follow no land use laws at all.

This is not a religious issue. It is not about Republicans vs. Democrats. It is, purely and simply, our second chance.

In our lives, we rarely get such an opportunity to correct a grave error that we have actually made. Most of us thought Measure 37 was about building a few houses on the family’s farm. It’s not. It is about much more than trading a quarter of Hood River farmland for houses, golf courses, gravel pits and billboards up the valley, because it will happen at the coast. Around Malheur Lake. In the Blue Mountains. At Newberry Crater. In the Willamette Valley.

At every place Oregonians feel special about, that same tiny number of claimants has plans which will make Oregon a special place only in our memories. Remember Bend, in the old days? Can you find it now?

Don’t Bend Oregon any further. Put a stop to this greed which is of biblical proportions. The family that wants to add a few houses to their farm will still get to do that, but the enormous corporate claims will not be allowed. Vote Yes on 49.

•

I‘m a land use rights proponent; that’s why I, like most Oregonians, voted for Measure 37 in 2004.

However, I’ll be voting “Yes” on Measure 49. Here’s why:

Measure 49 still allows the average mom and pop to be able to build three houses on their property, and up to 4-10 in many cases. Isn’t that enough? One of the most ludicrous Measure 37 claims filed in Hood River is by a family demanding to be paid $57 million or be allowed to build 800 houses on their 210 acres!

Measure 49 would disallow corporations to benefit unjustly from this law. Some of the largest filers of Measure 37 claims are actually corporations, like Portland-based Stimson Lumber Co., filing for more than 108,000 acres of subdivisions. Measure 49 disallows large housing developments and strip malls.

Most Measure 37 claimants will actually fare better under Measure 49, because it extends the rights of development to surviving spouses, not provided for in Measure 37.

The potential implications of Measure 37 would be devastating for our valley, resulting in irrevocable changes to the landscape, economy, and population. If the 4,000 acres or more are developed as more than 215 local Measure 37 claimants wish, we could see 5,700 new housing units to house up to 14,000 people here in the Hood River Valley alone.

Seventy percent of Measure 37 claims are on land zoned for exclusive farm use. Is this what we want? And if Hood River turns into one big sprawling development, what’s that going to do for our tourism industry? Who’s going to want to come to Hood River to view our beautiful housing developments?

The last issue is simply one of fairness. Measure 37 backers claim: “Hey, it’s my property, I pay the taxes, and I should be able to do what I want with it.” Like any of us can do that. Our land is in the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. Think I can do what I want? Nope. Gotta move to Montana for that.

Measure 49 will preserve our valley and still allow for reasonable land use rights. Vote Yes on Measure 49.

No on 49

Accolades to Hood River News and its Wednesday, Oct. 17 editorial “No on 49.” I have been critical of the paper it its inability to point out in depth, or not at all, issues that really need to be discussed. Your paper has been overloaded with the “Vote Yes” attitude on this topic. So I have to eat a little crow.

I have never seen so much nonsense, doom and gloom. It’s the end of the world! Oregon is going to break away from the U.S.; it’s Armageddon! It sounds like a lot of horse poo to me.

The county can deny any M37 claim it wants to. The standards are health, safety and services (water, sanitation, roads, schools, etc.). Good Exclusive Farm Use land is important and should be considered just EFU only.

Many claims are EFU and forested designated areas and are poor-to-marginal units. They should be reclassified for uses other than EFU only. It ends up the county government is going to have to make tough decisions. Do they approve two or three houses next to a good EFU orchard?

You know what evolves out of that scenario. That alone would lead to NO large developments and improper uses of land. The county has to forget politics and make decisions according to facts not by pressure from special interest groups.

Mr. Mike Oates in “Another Voice” of Oct. 17 is not credible. The fruit industry will not perish in 30 years. Only if he and other like him don’t change their ways of operating, growing and competing with other areas or counties.

I hear a lot of noise out there. It sounds like he and others want time to stop, and everything will stay the same. It won’t! Adding some homes to the area where new people, new ideas and new perspective of what this valley will become and more likely in his favor.

Only he and others with this attitude will be the downfall of the fruit industry. I believe competition will make the valley fruit industry change, not M37 or M49.

•

One size does not fit all. Let’s get the bipartisan Big Look Land Use Task Force back to work creating real land use planning for Oregon. Vote No on Measure 49, the legislature’s contrived measure which bypassed standard Attorney General procedures. Measure 49 even hurts people like 95-year-old Dorothy English, Measure 37’s poster girl.

Vote carefully

Please read ballot measures in their entirety and don’t vote for something unless you understand what you are voting for. Get beyond sympathetic ballot titles and 30-second sound bites. Read the fine print. And then, ask yourself if the measure imposes the will or practices of the majority on an unpopular minority, setting the stage for increasing the tyranny of the majority. In most cases, this calls for a “no” vote.

Kids’ health

It has become apparent to me that President Bush and our local Representative Greg Walden are not concerned about the children and families that make up this country’s working poor. President George W. Bush’s decision to veto the expansion and reauthorization of the SCHIP children’s health program is a clear message that our children’s health is not a priority of his.

The U.S. Congress and House of Representatives had worked together to compromise and pass this important children’s bill with a 2/3 majority in Congress and almost enough votes in the House to override the president’s veto. Even after hearing a lot of local support for this children’s bill, Rep. Greg Walden (the only Oregon legislator who sided with the president) did not vote to override the president’s irresponsible veto of this bill.

I have worked with children and families in the Columbia Gorge area for the past 18 years with New Parent Services through my work as a Family Home Visitor. We see families when we do our “Welcome Baby Visit” to first-time parents who have enough resources for their family. But we also see lots of parents who are struggling to find the money to pay for the diapers, car, formula, clothing, housing, food, and medical help they need.

Many of the families I home visit work under 40 hours a week so they are considered part-time and their employer does not provide medical coverage for them or their children. Some families qualify for the Oregon Health Plan if they earn minimum wage, but others don’t qualify because they make a little too much.

Just the other day I received a call from a distressed mom who earned a little too much to qualify for the Oregon Health Plan and now her teenage daughter is pregnant. How will she afford medical care for her daughter?

In the past several years I have paid $650 a month out of my paycheck to provide medical coverage for my husband, who is self-employed, and for our two daughters. Fortunately my employer pays for my medical coverage. My husband makes a good income so we are able to manage the medical insurance payment. How do the working poor in our community provide adequately for their families when medical care, and prescriptions are so expensive and they have no medical coverage? How could they afford to pay what our family pays each month?

Why doesn’t our government place more value on the health of our families and their children? How important is it to make sure our children in the community are healthy? Without medical care will they be healthy and prepared to succeed in school? I doubt it!

We have a broken medical care system and it is time for us to fix it. It has been shown that spending $1 on prevention saves $3 in treatment. Wake up America, you are failing your children.

I wish President George W. Bush would advocate for the health care of the children of this country as he has advocated for this hopeless Iraq war. Obviously his priority is not our children.