If you are still on the fence on Measure 49 and haven’t voted, here’s something to consider:

We hear the hue and cry about private property rights. But what about public property rights — rights that go with the land and our responsibilities to the community larger than ourselves? Public property rights are considerations for others, for generations of unborn Oregonians, for the ancient ancestors who lived here, for our historic landscapes, and considerations for other than human creatures — plants, rivers, rocks, fishes and birds. The deer in whose eyes we see ourselves and our roots. All these things define us and the Oregon landscape.

Susan and I just returned from a travel odyssey to six western states. We had time to compare what’s going on in Oregon to other places. We tried to absorb what I call landscapes of the heart — open spaces that fill our soul.

A defining moment came as we re-entered Oregon from Nevada at Denio and had lunch at Fields. We sat at the counter with two cowboys, real cowboys working the range. They seemed as wild as the wild mustangs, a vestige of the past yet a symbol of open space Oregon.

As we left Fields, I thought of Tom McCall railing against sagebrush subdivisions. Out of Gov. Tom’s heart grew Oregon’s planning system endeavoring to protect the landscape we love. Measure 37 threatens to change that landscape — create a landscape of anywhere, but in reality of nowhere. Those cowboys didn’t look like they’d fit in a Prineville subdivision.

But those beautiful sagebrush rangelands, conifer forests, oak woodlands, orchards and farmlands can be protected. Future generations can decide on the balance appropriate for their time. But once land is developed its open character can never be regained. We of this generation owe it to the future to think about those public property rights. Please vote yes on Measure 49. Thank you.

Wind sores?

All proposed wind projects are not profitable enough, without tax breaks. When the government stops tax breaks, all wind farms will go bankrupt, leaving worthless eyesores on scenic Gorge ridgelines.

Correct with 49

I urge everyone to please vote yes on Measure 49. It will correct serious problems resulting from the passage of Measure 37 in 2004.

The problem with Measure 37 was that it contained many loopholes and went beyond what most Oregonians thought they were voting on. Instead of just ensuring that small individual landowners could build a few additional houses on their property, the measure opened the door for massive development and subdivisions.

The Hood River Valley would receive the worst impact on farmland of any county as nearly 25 percent of the land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use is under a Measure 37 claim.

Please protect Oregon from massive housing subdivisions where they don’t belong (while at the same time preserving the right of individual landowners to add homes on their property) by voting yes on Measure 49.

Yes on 49

Measure 37 created two special groups of landowners: the first group is people in their 60s and 70s who are old enough to have inherited or bought lands before Oregon’s land use laws went into effect. The second group includes Fortune 500 timber companies who more often than not have long been on the public dole since their founding.

Much if not most of their lands were acquired for very little from our government and way too often were obtained totally for free. If this freeloading weren’t bad enough they also pay little or no federal taxes due to a special loophole they have had drilled in our tax laws.

Both groups have additionally benefited for decades from property tax deferment laws that have allowed them to pay tens of thousands of dollars less in taxes on their holdings, and in the case of certain timber companies the tax deferments have been worth tens of millions. Yet they want more?

Neither of these two groups seem to care that most of the rest of the people in Oregon have not benefited and will never benefit from Measure 37; in fact many of the rest of us stand to be financially damaged.

Imagine an inspiring young couple who has just paid a premium for a rural lot only to find out that the Measure 37 claimant next door is going to liquidate their lands for half that price. Oregon’s land use laws will never be perfect; they will always affect some more than others, but to have made them not apply to one generation or especially to rich impersonal financial entities while still applying to young persons trying to raise families and pay off debts just seems plain wrong. Measure 49 will help right this travesty.

Wonderful, or not

If you want to live in Bedford Falls, vote yes on 49. If you’d rather live in Pottersville, vote no.

Still neighbors

Thank you Kate McCarthy, Mike Oates, Jonathan Graca, John Ihle, Paul Zastrow, Joe Mullen, Gary Fields, Gorham Babson, Ron Cohen, Peggy Dills Kelter, et. al. for your cogent expressions of support for Measure 49.

Thank you, Jon Laraway, Brian Clem, and Mike McCarthy for your diligent and careful work to present the principle points and implications of Measure 49 in understandable language, AND for your restraint and good humor when confronted by dastardly statements and personal attacks by speakers of an opposing view.

Thanks to the Hood River News for providing an accessible public forum where all could express their concerns and explore alternatives. AND for editorials which inflame and incite us spectators enough to stop sitting on our hands and put pen to paper to express, civilly, our heartfelt concerns.

Of course we shall all survive this present “Sturm und Drang,” but may we come out the other side neighbors yet and committed to actively participate in the essential and ongoing dialogue which sustains our community.

This was best said recently by Kim Stafford, director of the Northwest Writing Institute at Lewis & Clark College: “Our common cause is hard to find in the presence of a ballot measure. But I think it’s available if we can take the long view together. Someone on a ranch, someone in the city — they have a common cause that’s difficult to legislate but possible to imagine.” And may all those whiney lawyers start getting paid the same as farmers do who engage in that behavior.

Food and 49

If our agricultural lands are turned into subdivisions where will our food supplies come from? I fear that more and more we will rely on countries which have few, or no, regulations on the types and amounts of pesticides used.

I fear that jobs in agriculture will be lost, and we will grow more dependent on other countries for our food supplies. I’m voting “Yes” on 49.

Beware ballyhoo

There has been so much bluster and ballyhoo from those in opposition to both Measure 49 and Measure 50, that I ‘d like remind everyone of the wise saying when trying to decide what to vote for: “Follow the money.”

In case you’re wondering, bluster means to force or bully with swaggering threats. Ballyhoo means sensational advertising or publicity. I hope it’s clear to all that the millions being spent trying to convince you to vote against the children’s health care Measure 50 is being financed by RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris. Big Tobacco’s bluster is trying to scare us with ads about “tampering with the constitution.”

Their ballyhoo is stating that raising the tax on cigarettes to fund health care will hurt small business. Since I don’t believe the big tobacco companies are thinking of what is best for Oregon, I’d suggest voting against big tobacco and voting yes on 50.

With Measure 49, it’s a bit more difficult to find out where the money is coming from to pay for all those anti-49 mailings and TV ads. I spent several hours on the Web trying to find out who is bankrolling groups like Oregonians in Action and Oregon Family Farms PAC but didn’t see a lot of money being spent by those groups.

I did come across a number of articles about a New York real estate mogul named Howie Rich. It seems Mr. Rich (no pun intended) has been bankrolling the “takings initiative movement” throughout the country.

In fact, through groups with names like Americans for Limited Government and Fund for Democracy, Rich has supplied 85 percent of the money to groups like Montanans in Action and other groups in California, Arizona, Idaho and Washington to sponsor initiatives to abolish land use planning.

By the way, despite millions being spent by Mr. Rich’s groups, none of those states passed those anti-land use planning measures. My guess is that Rich’s money is behind all those anti-49 ads.

The bluster from anti-49 folks is that the government will take your property if you vote for 49. The ballyhoo is that farmers will lose their farms. Since I don’t think a real estate mogul from New York would be thinking about what’s best for Oregon, I’m voting Yes on Measure 49.