Molalla Pioneer

Two steps in the right direction

Our View Election 2007 Endorsements

An improvement across the board

Decisions, decisions. Everyone loves to make them, everyone hates to make them and everyone makes them just a little bit differently than the next guy.

For example, when you shop for a car, you get to choose the options. Air? Stereo? Power steering? Lighted, color-changing cup holders?

Fortunately or unfortunately, the world of politics doesn’t work like that. Take the proposal to expand the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners to five members.

We have listened to supporters and opponents of this proposal.

We have seen the debates in the newspapers, on the radio and on the Internet. Remarkably, most folks had little trouble agreeing they want five commissioners. The options are the sticking point.

Should there be an elected chairperson chosen directly by the people? Should the commission be partisan or not? Should the elected commissioners be part time or full time? Should they be elected countywide, or by district?

We all have our preferences, but there is only one proposal on the table to reshape the county commission for the future. That’s Measure 3-272, the proposal that was crafted by a BOC-appointed task force, including Molalla City Councilor Glen Boreth. We’re very glad that Mr. Boreth was there representing us.

The group has proposed a five-member commission with a separately elected chairperson, four other full-time commissioners, countywide elections, and no partisan labels.

Voters must decide if this is better than what we already have. Our answer? Yes.

Clackamas County is overdue for the five commissioner format. Most counties our size have it, and for good reason. The job entails too many meetings, and too much interaction with other agencies, for three commissioners to handle.

We realize salaried department heads can also go to meetings and speak for the county, but there’s no substitute for having elected commissioners at the table. It simply carries more weight. Only elected officials can say they have a franchise with voters.

We also believe that having five commissioners would improve the give-and-take at BOC meetings.

Right now issues tend to quickly crystallize into a two-on-one stalemate, often without a lot of discussion of the options and impacts. We think it’s a good idea to strike party labels from commission candidates, as the task force has recommended.

As well, it would give voters a final choice between the strongest two candidates, not the strongest from each party.

Did all task force members love everything about this proposal? No, and neither do we.

The biggest objection raised by some is that this new proposal fails to divide the county into districts. They say districts would provide better regional representation while lowering the prodigious cost barrier of running for office. Are they right? We believe so, especially when it comes to the Molalla area.

Our own community has, at times, been seen as an isolated southern outpost. It would be wonderful to have one commissioner representing the views and people of Molalla and nearby communities like Colton, Mulino and the other unincorporated areas outside of town.

Is this a fatal flaw in the proposal? No, because the current system also lacks districting. No matter how this vote turns out, there will be no district-based commission seats for the time being. Maybe — hopefully — later.

For now, Measure 3-272 may not make things perfect, but it certainly makes them better.

We recommend voting yes.


Measure 49 offers a better balance

So far, the campaigns for and against Measure 49 — presented as an attempt to “fix” property rights Measure 37, which voters approved in 2004 — have been a tangled conflagration of hype, exaggerations and distortions.

Certain supporters of Measure 49 would have you believe that if it fails, then all of Oregon will be covered in subdivisions and pavement as far as the eye can see. Let’s calm down. This obviously hasn’t happened, and we feel confident in saying it won’t anytime soon.

Certain opponents, meanwhile, want you to think that if Measure 49 passes, government officials may be on your front porch the very next day, demanding that you sign your property deed over to the government. They will “take your house and property,” in other words. Let’s get real.

It takes some study, and a good deal of reasoned thought, to set aside all the bunk being broadcast on television screens, from both sides, and figure out what Measure 49 is really all about.

We’ll start with the obvious. Property rights are a cornerstone of American freedom and the American economy. Capitalism depends on the right to invest in property, improve it, and combine resources and labor to make products and services. But property rights cannot be absolute, and they should not exist in a vacuum.

People sometimes tend to forget that principle until something they don’t want is proposed around the corner or down the street. Then they realize that the right of one to live in a peaceful neighborhood may conflict with another’s right to construct, say, a distribution center.

Soon, all the talk begins about property values going down if such-and-such is allowed to locate nearby.

The plain fact is, land-use proposals often stir conflict. Historically, zoning laws have existed to sort out competing and conflicting interests.

Measure 37 arose because of the overzealous application of zoning laws intended to protect neighborhoods, farmlands and forests. Until it passed, for example, some people who wanted to build a home on their agricultural property were denied that right.

Measure 37 restored it. Unfortunately, it opened the door for all sorts of other land uses that are neither desirable nor reasonable.

There’s been a lot of debate as to which creates the best balance between rights and responsibilities — Measure 37 as originally passed, or Measure 49 in the way it modifies Measure 37. We believe it’s the latter.

The intent of Measure 49 is clear. It is to allow reasonable claims so that between one to 10 homes can be built on claim-eligible resource lands, depending on the circumstances.

At the same time, it rules out the larger, more unreasonable claims that are speculative in nature and based on high-impact changes in land use.

Those who want to upzone and develop their resource land still have that option, but they need to persuade governing bodies, and probably their neighbors as well, that a change is constructive and appropriate.

They may need to modify their proposal or make concessions. There’s no guarantee everyone will feel good with the outcome, but the chances are better.

We believe Measure 49 most closely represents what voters thought they were getting with Measure 37. It won’t let government officials capriciously block small and harmless amounts of homebuilding. It also won’t allow willy-nilly development that’s out of character with communities or surrounding lands.

We endorse a yes vote on Measure 49.

It may not be simple, and it may not get things perfect, but it gets them basically right.