It being Thanksgiving Week, nothing exciting was planned for activities. But we all know how that goes. If you want to hear God laugh, tell him you have a plan.
We have been for a number of weeks lobbying our Board of County Commissioners here in Josephine County over two issues. A long standing push has been to get the County to engage in the legal process known as “coordination” with the feds regarding the use of our federal forests. We are of course in favor of sustainable harvests. The enviros are not.
Then last week our Senators Wyden and Merkley and Representative DeFazio without notice sent a letter to the heads of Agriculture and the Interior asking for a moratorium on mining on an additional 34,000 acres of public land in the county. We lobbied the Board for an official letter to the same departments denouncing th request of the Oregon delegation.
Monday afternoon, we received word that both issues were set for decision today at 10:45 am. Also
we were made aware that the enviros had launched an e-mail campaign supporting the mining withdrawal. E-mail was being received from Seattle, the Sacramento Delta, Brookings, Ashland, and Talent – with lots of unknowns.
We did a flash blast in response and our people overwhelmed the other campaign. At the hearing we out numbered the proponents four to one.
Two important speakers appeared for the enviros. A spokesman for the Siskiyou Project presented a very cogent argument full of alleged facts. Fortunately we had our experts present who put the record straight. A spokesman from the Social Justice Alliance opined that jobs are not really a problem if the government would only take all the wealth from those that have any and use it to provide what is needed by those who would simply enjoy nature. We all realized that is the whole problem but we left it alone.
We won by votes of 2 to 1. The County is renouncing the Wyden plan and is implementing a plan of mandatory “coordination” by the BLM and USFS.
For a week that was supposed to be a zero, we scored two important wins.
URGENT NOTICE: PLEASE CONTACT ALL OUR FEDERAL LEGISLATORS – WYDEN – DEFAZIO – WALDEN – MERKELY – NOW!! THE CRUCIAL VOTE ON HEALTH CARE WILL BE SATURDAY. TELL THEM “NO” WE DON’T WANT IT. WE CAN’T AFFORD IT. USE PHONE OR E-MAIL. IF YOU HAVEN’T DONE SO ALREADY – SHAME ON YOU. IF YOU HAVE, DO IT AGAIN. WE CANNOT LET UP COMING DOWN TO THE WIRE.
The meeting last week involved a lot of discussion regarding the 11/7 Chapter Coordinators’ Meeting in Eugene and our disappointment with AFP direction on the proposed challenge to the Transportation Act.
This was an excellent learning experience for us and drove home the importance in a grass roots undertaking of adequate planning and coordination. It became apparent that among our urban chapters there is an absence of understanding of the rural chapters’ complaint against the compact and densification imperative in state land use regulation. We found this reasonable. One who lives in a city probably doesn’t understand why those who don’t, don’t want to.
Again, most chapters were apparently unaware of the extent to which wrangling over the compensation involved in paid solicitor campaigns led to the delays which ultimately doomed Petition 304. The significance that the same actors in those disputes are now heading up the new effort was lost upon the folks in Eugene.
It was an excellent lesson in the futility of shooting from the hip.
We had discussion of the importance of the coming campaign to defeat the new personal income tax rates and the value added tax on struggling corporations. These will be Measures 66 and 67. We garnered sites for field signs and established a team for installation.
Jack advised the group of the progress of the various Measure 37 litigations. The situation has not changed. The state courts are committed to the support of the state and consistently avoid the Constitutional issues.
Ron Glynn talked about the threat of Cap and Tax. Jean Sweat talked about the urgent need to put pressure on our legislators to defeat Health Care Reform.
Jack read a letter written by Wyden, Merkley, and DeFazio to the directors of the Dept of Agriculture and Interior calling for the removal of 44,000 acres from the 1872 Mining Act and defacto establishment of an additional wilderness area in JoCo.
There was discussion of coming events: the Wyden TownHall, a meeting with Allen Alley, and the planned protest at the Al Gore event in Portland.
It was decided that there would be no meeting on 11/26.
On 9/12, the Josephine County chapter of Americans for Prosperity held a Tea Party in Grants Pass, Oregon. There were ten speakers and two singers at the event. This 3-part program shows the highlights.
In Part 1, Linda Anderson sings the national anthem and Pastor Tony Russo delivers the invocation. Then Jack Swift tells us our legislators ignored the first Tea Parties, but we can get their attention (at least in Oregon) by closing the checkbook. Jack Brown explains the importance of electing representatives who understand fiscal responsibility and respect the Constitution. 14-year old Taylor Rose follows up with a song she wrote with her father about our soldiers serving overseas.
In Part 2, Margaret Goodwin tells us we cannot have a sound economy without production, which is being stifled by overregulation and punitive taxation, Jean Sweat talks about the flaws in the healthcare plan proposed by the current administration, and Jim Frick demands that the government allow us to utilize our natural resources, which provide employment for our local communities.
In Part 3, Damon Mancuso cautions us about the risks of a Constitutional Convention, Jon Lesh tels us how to get involved and make a difference at the local level, Bill Ertel explains the four new tax bills passed by the Oregon state legislature, and Paul Walter discusses the differences between living in a communist society and a free society. Jack Swift closes the rally and sums it al up.
On April 15, Americans for Prosperity sponsored a TEA Party in Grants Pass. 1200 people from all over Southern Oregon and Northern California gathered to send a message to our government that we have had enough!
We don’t want any new taxing, spending, borrowing, stimulus packages, bailouts, or government takeovers. We have enough restrictive regulations driving industries off shore. Enough redistribution of wealth. What we want from the government is to get out of the way! And we, the People, will get the economy going again by increasing production at home.
Obviously, the government didn’t pay attention. Right here in Oregon, the state legislature passed four new tax bills in the last session! This time, we’ll get their attention by closing the checkbook on them. Government can’t expand without our money. If we cut off their allowance, you can believe they’ll sit up and take notice.
There will be petitions at the Tea Party, demanding the new taxes be put on the ballot. Let the voters decide, — not the legislature.
Please join us on Saturday, 9/12, at the Josephine County Courthouse from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Our theme this time around is Starve the Beast!
This is the second half of a one hour program that examines the types of minerals found in Oregon, their importance to our economy and in our daily lives, and the impacts of state and federal regulations and land withdrawals on the mining industry. (The first half is posted here.)
In Part 4, an ex-Navy SEAL who has been instrumental in developing the suction dredge technology for placer mining in river beds talks about the environmentalists’ litigation against mining and the recently passed law that bans suction dredging in California. Then the state geologist from the Josephine County office of the Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries discusses how the Dept. of Geology assists miners, and we learn that it is being shut down.
In Part 5, we visit a minig camp where a miner lives with his wife and three children. Then we meet a miner who’s family developed a process for smelting a nickel ladderite ore into a “master metal” from which any grade of stainless steel can be easily produced. He has spent 17 years fighting legal battles to be allowed to mine his claim.
In Part 6, we learn about aggregate mining, and how important it is to our economy. Then we learn more about the endless litigation tactics employed by the environmental lobbies, and how they manage to manipulate both the courts and government agencies at great cost to the mining industry and the taxpayers.
In the last legislative session, the Oregon state legislature passed a number of new taxes, which Governor Kulongoski subsequently signed into law. Because we have a referendum process in Oregon, if we get enough signatures on petitions, we can refer these taxes to the voters and give the citizens the final say in whether to raise our taxes, rather than leaving it up to the legislature and the governor.
There are four petitions in circulation, calling for referendums the four most eggregious new tax bills.
Petition #301: HB 2649 increases the personal income tax rate for people earning over $125,000 per year. This will give Oregon the highest top income tax rate of any state in the country.
Petition #302: HB 3405 will increase business taxes, and will tax gross receipts of all corporate entites (including S corporations), regardless of whether they make any profit. This tax will undoubtedly result in more small businesses having to shut down or move out of state.
Petition #303: HB 2116 assesses a 1% tax on all healthcare premiums, which will be passed on directly to consumers.
Petition #304: HB 2001 increases the gasoline tax from 24 cents per gallon to 30 cents per gallon, — a 25% increase. it also mandates new land use regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gases…
PLEASE NOTE: You can only sign a petition if you are a registered voter in Oregon, and received a ballot in the last election at your current address, (or, if you moved since the last election, if you have re-registered at your current address).
Please DO NOT sign any petition more than once. You cannot sign a single-signer (downloaded) petition if you have already signed a petition for the same referendum in person, or vice versa. We do recommend signing all four petitions, however. If you have already signed the first two petitions (personal income tax and corporate/business tax), then you can use the single-signer petitions to sign the other two (healtcare tax and transportation/gas tax).
DOWNLOAD PETITIONS
If you have NOT already signed these petitions, you can now download single-signer petitions for each of these bills, sign them, and mail them to:
AFP-Oregon
7100 SW Hampton, Suite 201
Tigard, OR 97223
To download the first two petitions (personal income tax and corporate/business tax), Click Here.
To download the second two petitions (healthcare tax and gas tax/transportation bill), Click Here.
Please be sure to read the instructions thoroughly.
If you would like to circulate petitions and gather signatures from friends, family, and co-workers, or volunteer to gather signatures from the public, please contact us to get a petition packet and more information.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at your local chapter of Americans for Prosperity.
This is the first half of a one-hour program that examines the mining industry in Southern Oregon. (The second half hour of this program will be posted next month.)
In the first segment, a gold miner shows us the adit of a gold mine in Josephine County, Oregon, where there’s still plenty of gold in the ground but the challenge is getting it out. He also shows us one of the best places for gold panning along the Rogue River, but cautions about running afoul of the new regulations. Then a retired state geologist discusses the different types of minerals found in Southern Oregon, and why it’s so difficult for miners to extract them.
In the second segment, we visit the Dawg Mining SummerFest and learn about highbanking and gold panning. Then we visit the site of one of the largest and highest grade silica deposits west of the Rocky Mountains, and learn why it’s taken 24 years to get to the point where the owner of the claim has any hope of mining it.
In the third segment, a gold miner shows us the reclamation project he implemented at a gold mining site in Golden, Oregon, where he established a wetlands with eleven ponds, providing habitat for fish and wildlife and trails for recreation. Then the former owner of the largest mining shop in the US discusses mining and mining regulations, and their impact on the local economy.
These three videos make up the second half hour of a one-hour program that looks at how responsible forest management is important for healthy forests, and examines the negative impact of federal regulation and environmental litigation on the timber industry and on local economies in rural Oregon.
The first episode focused on the people working in the forests and sawmills. This episode includes interviews with people from county, state, and federal forestry agencies.
In Part 4, the Josephine County Forestry Supervisor hoots for a spotted owl and explains the impact of federal regulations on county forestry practices. Then, the retired Director of Forestry in Josephine County talks about the Biscuit fire and how current federal forest practices leave our forests vulnerable to an even more catastrophic fire.
In Part 5, a retired Timber Program Manager with U.S. Forest Service talks about the programs that were funded by timber revenue on federal lands, and the impacts of environmental litigation on those programs. A former County Commissioner discusses the economic and social impacts of the decline of the timber industry on Jackson County, Oregon.
In Part 6, a District Protection Planner for the Oregon Department of Forestry talks about a balanced approach to timber management. Then the Executive Vice President of the Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association shows us the demolition of the last remaining sawmill in Jackson County, and discusses what it means and why it didn’t have to happen.
The Josephine County chapter of Americans for Prosperity will be giving away copies of the Costitution and Declaration of Indepenence at the Josepehine County fairgrounds on July 4th, from 7:00-9:00 PM, before the fireworks display. We have 300 copies to give away on a first come, first served basis.
Happy 4th of July! Remember, this is the day we celebrate the birth of our nation, and all the rights and freedoms we enjoy as American citizens. Come get your free pocket copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. (And don’t forget to read them!)
This is the first part of a two-part series focusing on the timber industry in Oregon. This one-hour program looks at how responsible forest management is important for healthy forests, and examines the negative impact of federal regulation and environmental litigation on the timber industry and on local economies in rural Oregon.
These three videos make up the first half hour of the program, which includes interviews with people working in forestry, logging, trucking, and sawmills. The second half hour, which includes interviews with representatives of county, state, and federal forest programs, will be published next month.
In Part 1, a forester explains the lifecycle of a timber stand, and a logger talks about his work and his love of the forests.
Part 2 contains interviews with the owner/operator of a small logging business, a log truck driver, and a sawmill supervisor.
In Part 3, the owners of a private forest company and the last remaining sawmill in Josephine County talk about effects of the curtailment of federal timber harvests on their businesses and on the local economy.
The Josephine County chapter of Americans for Prosperity sponsored a Tax Day Tea Party in Grants Pass on April 15. There were 12 speakers, three singers, and over 1200 attendees who turned out to protest excessive taxing, spending, borrowing, bailouts, and overregulation of individuals and industry. This 3-part video shows highlights from the Tea Party.
In Part 1, Lorrie Ahrens opens with the national anthem, and Pastor Tony Russo gives the invocation. Richard Burke, of AFP Oregon, talks about why we’re attending this event, and Jean Sweat talks about our Republic. Jack Swift discusses the economy and the message we want to send to our legislators, and then reads a letter from state Representatives Ron Maurer and Dennis Richardson.
In Part 2, Gary Spangler discusses the Constitution, Gil Gillingham talks about the government spending our money, and Paul Walter tells a parable about how we’re losing our country. Margaret Goodwin lists our grievances and issues a call to action, and Jim Frick talks about how the government needs to allow us to use our natural resources.
In Part 3, Jack Swift decries the effects of too much government regulation, Bill Davis explains how to replace a Congressman, Damon Mancuso talks about working together for freedom, and Shaun Curry talks about the DHS warning of “right wing radicals” on the eve of the Tea Parties. Jack Swift closes the event with a summary of what the Tea Parties are about.
Click here to view an extended, one-hour version of this video. The complete speeches can also be viewed, either individually or sequentially, at www.youtube.com/afpjocoteaparty.
On April 23, Scott Jorgensen hosted a talk show on KAJO radio about the Grants Pass Tax Day Tea Party. His guests were Jack Swift, Margaret Goodwin, and Shaun Curry.
A crowd of well over 1,000 turned out for the Tax Day Tea Party in Grants Pass, Oregon, organized by the Josephine County chapter of Americans for Prosperity.
Have you had enough taxation, regulation, over-spending, over-borrowing, bailouts, stimulus packages, and redistribution of wealth?
How well is your government serving you?
Our elected representatives are gutting our economy with irresponsible borrowing and spending for Toxic Asset Relief Programs, bailouts, and stimulus packages that benefit their major campaign contributors at your expense.
They’re diluting all of our savings, income, and retirement funds by printing up trillions of dollars of toilet-paper currency, leading to hyper-inflation and the devaluation of every dollar you own or earn.
They’re mortgaging our nation to China and other foreign powers, and indenturing our children and grandchildren to pay off the astronomical debt they’re incurring in our name.
They’re driving the industries that sustain our economy off-shore through prohibitively expensive and increasingly restrictive regulation, ostensibly to protect “the environment” and prevent “climate change.”
They’re establishing a whole new elite class of government employees who produce nothing, but are compensated more highly than the private sector can afford to match, and are paid at the expense of the taxpayers.
They created this economic crisis by establishing social engineering as economic policy, and now they’re pretending to get us out of it the same way they got us into it – by loosening up credit, promoting risk-free mortgages for those who still can’t afford to buy homes, and investing our money in the same toxic assets that are threatening the world economy!
On top of that, they plan to expand entitlement programs, under the misguided belief that government should provide for everybody who can’t or won’t provide for themselves — at the expense of those who do. They believe they need to pass even more laws to protect us from ourselves. States are drafting new regulations to determine how we can and can’t use our private property. And, at every level, they’re absolutely convinced that they know how to spend our money better than we do.
If the founding fathers could have even imagined the plethora of laws, regulations, ordinances, taxes, licenses, permits, fees, etc. that we are subject to today, and which are constantly increasing, they would roll over in their graves. Yet our current administration, and Congress, seem to believe we do not have enough government. They want to see government expanded at an even greater rate than it’s already expanding. One has to wonder what these people think the ultimate role of government should be. — It’s certainly a far cry from what our founding fathers intended.
If you’ve had enough, and you’re ready to stand up and send a message to your legislators that their days in office are numbered unless they STOP THE SPENDING, STOP THE BORROWING, STOP THE TAXING, STOP THE PORK-PADDING, and STOP REGULATING OUR ECONOMY INTO INSOLVENCY, join us in protest on April 15.
The Grants Pass Tea Party will be held at 5:00 PM, April 15, in front of the County Courthouse, 500 NW 6th St. We will have signs, flags, T-shirts, speakers, and pocket copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence for participants. If you’d like to help with planning or participate on a committee, please contact Jack Swift at jhswft@earthlink.net.
There will also be a Tea Party in Medford, gathering at 9:00 AM on April 15 at the Far East Restaurant, 236 N. Front St. For information on the Medford Tea Party, contact Jerry McCauley at highlandglen@ccountry.net.
We encourage everybody who can to attend both Tea Parties. The larger the crowds at every Tea Party across the nation, the louder a message we’ll send to our legislators.
This 3-part video explores the impacts of overregulation on the farming industry in Oregon. Farmers have to contend with all sorts of federal, state, and local agencies whose conflicting goals and reguations are squeezing them to the point where farming becomes less and less viable every year.
In Part 1, we learn about different government agencies enforcing conflicting regulations. A sheep rancher talks about environmental agencies targeting farmers and ranchers because of perceived threats to the environment from standard farming practices. A farmer who has gone to great lengths to implement environmentally friendly farming practices tells how the local irrigation district has taken him to court to make him revert to flood irrigation, which is more harmful to the environment, and the state Supreme Court upheld their right to do so.
In Part 2, a rancher whose land has been in his family since 1859 (before Oregon was a state) tells how current law prevents him from being able to pass it on to his heirs. He has four children, but SB 100 prohibits dividing up the land into lots smaller than 80 acres, and won’t allow more than one house on the property. A natural gardener who wants to start a U-Pick farm tells how she can’t do that in Oregon, because she can’t afford to buy 80 acres of land and wait until she makes $80,000 a year before building a house on it.
In Part 3, a cattle rancher explains the financial impact of having to fence off all the creeks and ditches on his land to keep the cows away from the water, and discusses a plethora of new laws that target farmers, from regulating dust to taxing cow farts.
Amricans for Prosperity is a national organization dedicated to limited government and free markets. It operates at the grassroots level, with chapters in 23 states. This program explores how Americans for Prosperity is making an impact at the national, state, and local levels.
In Part 1, Jeff Kropf, director of the Oregon chapter of AFP, discusses the national organization, what it stands for, how it operates, and some of the successes of AFP chapters in other states.
In Part 2, Jeff discusses the Oregon chapter of AFP, and Jack Swift talks about the local subchapter in Josephine County.
In Part 3, Jack interviews Jerry McCauley, chair of the Jackson County subchapter, about the initiatives AFP is sponsoring in Jackson County to support private property rights, and how AFP can help local chapters to draft initiatives, get them on the ballot, and successfully campaign for them. Information is provided on how to contact your local AFP chapter.
This is the third episode of the monthly Americans for Prosperity series on RVTV. This episode will air every Friday at 7:30 PM, on Channel 15, throughout the month of March. These programs can also be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/afpjoco.
This 3-part video is the saga of a property owner who’s spent 17 years doing battle with government bureacracy and local land use activists to get his 158 acre parcel reverted to its original zoning after it was arbitrarily rezoned from 5-acre residential to Woodlot Resource in the wake of SB 100. The video includes interviews with the property owner, a land use consultant, two former County Commissioners, and the Josephine County Counsel.
Part 1 reviews the history of State vs. County over the DLCD-mandated land use regulations, and follows the property owner’s saga up through the first appeal to LUBA by the land use activists.
Part 2 follows the saga from the aftermath of the first LUBA appeal through the most recent hearings in 2008.
Part 3 explores the impact of the state’s interference in local land use decisions, and the tactics used by land use activists to drag out land use cases until they exhaust their victims’ resources so they can no longer afford to fight back.
This is the second episode of the monthly Americans for Prosperity series on RVTV. This episode will air every Friday at 7:30 PM, on Channel 15, throughout the month of February.
This past week there was a gathering of the West Coast movers and shakers of the environmental movement in Seattle.The occasion was an annual seminar on developments in the world of litigation regarding the Endangered Species Act.In actual fact, it was more of a synod of the high priests and bishops of the Church of Global Warming.In many respects it was a bureaucratic exercise in anticipating how the fact of global climate change will impact future implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
The keynote speaker was one Peter Ward, PhD of the University of Washington.He is a scholar in the Earth and Space Sciences Department.His message was simply that his research indicates that there have been three episodes of mass global extinction of species in the history of the planet, that two of those were caused by CO2, and that we are on the verge of yet another that will eradicate all animal life from the planet.His evidence is the fact of man-caused global warming.He explained that no scientist doubts this fact.All non-believers are either religious fanatics or politicians with an agenda.Of that there can be no doubt because we have experienced extraordinary hurricanes (Katrina) in the Gulf of Mexico, exactly as predicted in the warming computer models.(I thought the climate scientists had totally debunked the idea that there has been anything unusual about the frequency/intensity of hurricanes in the past 60 years?)
I got the idea that the ashes of Rachel Carson (“The Sea Around Us”) must have been present somewhere in the assemblage but I could not find them.At any rate her ghost was clearly walking the halls as one speaker after another warned us of the inevitable and immediate rise of the oceans by some 240 feet.
Most of the conversation went to the anticipated effect of climate change upon the protection of endangered species.Predictably, there were no answers but a great deal of hand-wringing lamentation.It was humorous to watch as these pundits tried to fuse the evangelical concept of worldwide change into the statute whose sole function is to prevent change in the natural world.Unwittingly, they exposed the fundamental flaw in the act.Change is the one true constant of existence.
There was an attempt by the head attorney for the NOAA to provide us with data as to what to expect in the Puget Sound environment.Bottom line: the waters may or may not rise 240 feet.There was an awful lot of data and no conclusions.What you would expect if you set a bunch of bureaucrats to reading tea leaves with computer models.
There was a great deal of Bush bashing by a lead attorney from the U.S. Solicitor’s Office in Portland.Everyone was genuinely exultant that the new administration and Congress would be far more sympathetic and supportive toward environmental protection.They did some more hand wringing over the inconvenient fact that the political reality demanded correcting our economic problems and that as a consequence, there would likely be attempts at large scale development across the region in the form of roads and dams.Clearly they anticipate a need to fight the changes envisioned by their benefactors in the new government.
There was a moment of sanity that first day when two attorneys representing Indian tribes reported their successes in blunting ESA demands with treaty rights.Apparently they have successfully restored three steelhead and salmon species on the Snake River, even though the fish have to successfully navigate nine dams to reach their spawning grounds and are successfully fished by treaty right.
News on the litigation front was not so humorous.Last year there were two successful attempts at extending the ESA to control over the states, even though the act speaks to the regulation of federal agencies. In Washington, a very talented lawyer was able to impose financial liability upon the State for damage done to the environment by private persons licensed by the State.In Texas, a federal court used the act to order the State to license, monitor, regulate and limit the use of privately owned water wells.That decision does not bode well for rural America.
There is a great deal of angst among the environmental law community about the Supreme Court’s decision in the American Homebuilders vs. Defenders of Wildlife case.They are worried about it but so far no circuit has done anything with it.
There was minimal discussion of the WOPR beyond complaints about lack of consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife.What is downright worrisome in that arena is the fact that the U.S. Solicitor in Portland who will likely defend the BLM in the inevitable litigations is such an environmental advocate.
All of this was going on, by the way, while Seattle experienced a most extraordinary and remarkably unseasonal snowstorm whose ice and freezing temperatures snarled traffic across the area and made for wary walking.They do not use salt in Seattle to remove ice, fearing the consequences of salt water runoff into the salt water Puget Sound.
A Federal District Court recently ruled that Measure 37 Waivers are Constitutionally protected contracts that cannot be legislated away by the subsequent passage of Measure 49. This 3-part video contains interviews with Measure 37 claimants and the attorneys who represented them in Citizens for Constitutional Fairness v. Jackson County.
Part 1 briefly summarizes the history of land use regulation in Oregon, explains the Federal Court case, and contains an interview with one of the claimants.
Part 2 contains most of the interviews with M37 claimants, though they begin in Part 1 and carry over into Part 3.
In Part 3, the attorneys discuss why they undertook this case, its significance beyond Jackson County, and what happens next.
Our economic and political well-being, if they are to be sustained, depend upon production. That is because the grease of the economy is currency. It is an exchange medium that allows a universal system of barter. Currency can be taken or given in exchange for anything: a product, a service, or an asset. It has no inherent value in its own right. It’s worth is measured purely in terms of what it can purchase. It’s value is directly related to the productivity of the issuing economy. The more production of desirable products, services, and assets, the greater its exchange value.
That simple fact establishes the burden upon any member of an economic system to be productive. One must take a natural resource (even if that resource is nothing more than the individual’s capacity to labor) and by exercise and wit transform that resource into a marketable commodity: a product that can be exchanged for currency. It is not possible to sustain any economic system that delivers currency for nothing. Production is the essence of economic sustainability.
Our current economic crisis is a fundamental failure to produce. Since the days of Johnson’s “Great Society” we have adopted a national policy of providing currency in compensation for an individual’s lack of capacity to produce. This makes for excellent charity but lacks inherent sustainability. Because this funding is predicated upon taxation of production, it not only provides something for nothing, it also presents a drain upon production with is in no way compensated.
Also, from the days of Kennedy and Johnson, we have seen the rise of neo-environmentalism driven by the concepts of Rachel Carson (“The Silent Spring”) and Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb”). These parents of the neo-environmental movement have made themselves immensely popular over issues of the environment and ecology. Capitalizing upon public concerns about pollution, visual blight, and the needs of exotic endangered species, the neo-environmentalists have managed to directly curtail production in vast sectors of our economy: be it the prohibition of drilling for oil, mining, timber harvesting, or simple water management. Indirectly, they have managed to impede profitable production with ecological regulation. The result has not been pretty and it is not sustainable.
The United States, going into World War II was the manufacturing giant of the world, called by Churchill the “arsenal of democracy.” One need only to observe the unemployment problems in the old industrial heartland of our nation to recognize that we have de-industrialized the nation. We have literally dismantled our manufacturing capacity and shipped it to Asia. This has been done in the name of the environment, but it has destroyed our productivity and that, in turn, is destroying the value of our currency. Contrary to the visions of Clinton and Bush, small business is small because it produces less.
The political fervor to achieve sustainability in the form of taxation has also led to the departure of “big business” from these United States. Big business here is burdened with the second highest tax rate in the world. Is it any wonder they choose to go offshore?
When businesses relocate, they take not only their production capacity with them, they also remove the opportunity for the individual to be productive. This is a double hit to our productivity.
In politics and economics we have the famous Laffer curve which shows that tax revenues rise when tax rates are cut. The message is that with lower taxation, there is more production to tax. Escalating taxation necessarily results in declining productivity. Taxation is a burden upon production and escalating taxation is not sustainable.
Our economic problem at present derives fundamentally from two national policy decisions. Initially there was the election to de-industrialize and reduce our production capacity. That was followed by a second election to escalate taxes (and produce a burden upon production) so as to allow the reward of non-production. It is questionable whether either policy could work standing alone. In combination, the system is unsustainable and that is what we are discovering.
AFP Oregon Director, Jeff Kropf, presents AFP JoCo chair, Jack Swift, with Chapter of the Year award Left to right: Peggi Goodwin, Jack Swift, Jeff Kropf
Starting January 9, 2009, AFP JoCo will present the Americans for Prosperity program every Friday evening at 7:30 PM on RVTV, channel 15 in the Rogue Valley. We’ll bring you a new program each month, which will be repeated every Friday throughout the month, so each episode will be aired four times.
The first episode, titled Measure 37 Waivers Upheld by Federal Court, will premiere January 9. In this episode, we review the history of Oregon land use regulation, from the Oregeon Land Use Act (aka Senate Bill 100) through Measure 37, Measure 49, and the recent ruling by Federal District Court Judge Owen Panner that Measure 37 waivers are constitutionally protected contracts that cannot be legislated away by the subsequent passage of Measure 49.
Special guests in this episode include four Measure 37 claimants, who tell their side of the story, and three attorneys representing Citizens for Constitutional Fairness, who brought the lawsuit against Jackson County that resulted in this ruling. AFP JoCo subchapter coordinator, Jack Swift, is the attorney who wrote the trial briefs and represented the plaintiffs in court. (Jackson County commissioners declined to be interviewed for the program, pending appeal of the ruling.)
The recent election focused upon the American voter’s dis-satisfaction with the state of our government and the state of our economy. Each campaign played upon this angst by pitching “change” but neither candidate articulated a vision of what is wrong or what might be an effective cure. The national change required is far more fundamental than anything suggested by these politicians. The problem is one of sustainability.
“Sustainability” is the great buzz word of the day. It describes a concept. In an economic context, the concept is to provide for the reliable funding of our social and economic well-being both now and in the future. In political thinking, it is a plan to provide for the continuation of our economy and government which will sustain those activities forever.
Sustainability is not a new concept. It is what conservation is all about. It first appeared in Washington politics during FDR’s administration as the concept of “sustained yield” and was applied by law to the management of our publicly owned natural resources, most notably timber. Economically, it is a mandate that one not use more assets than one can replace and not use them at a rate faster than one can replace. It is a logical and practical approach, reflecting the essential elements of good stewardship.
Modern neo-environmentalists have perverted traditional conservation strategy, replacing the steward’s concept of conservative utilization with goals of pure preservation. Going a step further, they seek a regeneration of the past, sacrificing utilization today in an effort to replace that which was (in their minds) squandered a century ago. In their zeal to provide posterity with the opportunity afforded our forefathers, they are foreclosing current utilization. Such an investment might be desirable and commendable, if it is affordable, and if undertaken on a scale which is sustainable.
The question is whether that approach is itself sustainable. The answer depends upon our need for current production in the economy.
Politicians speak a lot about sustainability. Their concern is for reliable and predictable funding for government operations, services, and social programs in a world of expanding government and escalating costs of operation. They need funding which is, in a word, certain. The only certainties in life are death and taxes. Accordingly, traditional politicians associate sustainability with taxation.
That squarely presents the question of whether the escalating costs of ever expanding government are, in fact, sustainable. Again, the answer depends upon production. Government produces nothing of consequence to the economy. It facilitates commerce. It regulates abuse and it provides a predictable and reliable background of law. But it produces nothing and can sustain itself only as a parasite upon a productive economy.
Production is the essence of sustainability, for the economy and for the government. There is no system of economics or government known to man which does not depend upon production.
Two months ago, we posted about the Ockenden Land Use Hearing Re-Opened. To recap, the Ockendens are a local family that has spent 17 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting land use activists and government bureaucracy to get their property rezoned to its original zoning classification.
The land was originally zoned RR-5 (rural residential with a 5 acre minimum). In 1985, it was rezoned to Woodlot Resource based solely on its size and location and the fact that it had not been developed. However, the land isn’t suitable for timber production due to the soil composition. When a soil analysis was subsequently performed, it was determined that the Woodlot Resource zoning was a misclassification.
Ordinarily, in a case like this, it’s a simple matter to revert the zoning to its original classification. And that’s what initially happened. Seventeen years ago, the Josephine County Board of County Commissioners approved the Ockendens’ request to revert the zoning to RR-5. However, this didn’t suit the local land use activists, who oppose all new development and will go to any lengths to prevent it.
They appealed the decision to LUBA, based on some technicalities they found in the county’s zoning codes, rather than any deficiencies in the Ockendens’ case. Nevertheless, every new appeal, and the subsequent hearings, cost the Ockendens tens of thousands of dollars for new surveys, tests, expert opinions, land use consultants, and legal representation. And it cost the county a lot of money, too.
Realizing the land use activists would never give up, the county eventually decided to try to appease them and started raising the burden of proof on the Ockedens, perhaps hoping they would eventually stop pursuing the rezoning. However, the Ockendens had right on their side and they knew it. Last March, the county created a new ad hoc zoning classification of RR-15, reducing the number of houses that could be built on the property from about 30 to a maximum of 10. This appeased the land use activists, but it turned out not to be legal. In August, a new hearing was granted.
For the new hearing, the burden of proof on the carrying capacity of the land was raised yet again, the Ockendens were also required to provide a subdivision plan, which is normally not required in a zoning hearing. They anted up $30,000 for the subdivision plan and dutifully brought forth a new slew of experts who testified on soil composition, slope, traffic, well capacity, riparian setbacks, etc. They met every challenge, satisfied every requirement, and made it clear they were not giving up. AFP JoCo members showed up again for the hearing, and spoke out on the benefits of the development to the community, the jobs it will create, and the property tax revenue it will provide for the county.
At the August hearing, the leader of the land use activists had failed to appear because he was in jail for violating a restraining order (unrelated to this case). He did, however, attend the October 6 hearing where, in front of witnesses, he threatened to rip the head off of one of the Ockendens’ supporters. (The Sheriff was called, and arrived to take a report.) But, after all the drama was said and done, the Board of Commissioners finally did the right thing, and voted to grant the rezoning to RR-5.
The leader of the land use activists immediately said he would appeal the case to LUBA again. The Ockendens will now have to hire a land use attorney to represent them, raising the ante again. Assuming they win the appeal, the next step will be the subdivision plan review, with all the pre-application fees, application fees, and permit fees that entails, before they can actually begin any development, with the land use activists challenging them at every step of the way.
This case is a textbook example of how land use activists manipulate the system, driving up costs and dragging out the process for years in a calculated strategy to exhaust the resources of potential developers. When an individual who just wants to develop his own private property can no longer afford to fight back, the land use activists win by default. Their case doesn’t have to have any merit; all they have to do is outlast their victim. The deck is stacked in their favor because the appeals cost them very little, while the developer has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet whatever challenges they raise and satisfy the ever-increasing burden of proof placed upon him.
It has taken the Ockendens 17 years, and cost them over $400,000, to get this far. Who knows how long it will take, or how much the total costs will run before they can actually break ground for their development?
Several AFP JoCo members attended the Big Look town hall meetings in Klamath Falls and Medford. The Big Look is an artfully deceptive set of proposals, worded to make it sound like the LCDC is attempting to give more local input and control over land use decisions to regional governments and citizens. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth.
The proposals talk about providing local control over lands that are not deemed (by the LCDC) to be of “statewide importance”. Lands of “statewide importance” are defined as farm land, forest land, and natural areas (undeveloped land). That pretty much leaves local communities with the ability to control land use within their Urban Growth Boundaries. We have that today. While the wording emphasizes the “local control” aspect, the full text makes it clear that they want greater ability to control privately owned land by declaring it of statewide importance.
The proposals also talk about the necessity of funding for urban infrastructure, using words like “infill” to describe packing more people into smaller areas to reduce the “greenhouse gases” caused by driving longer distances. And, of course, they want to ensure “quality of life” for those whom they’re packing in. Moreover, they want to do this at the expense of taxpayers all across the state. The rural communities in this state already produce 70% of the state’s economy, while 70% of state taxes go to the urban areas of Portland and Salem. But the LCDC doesn’t think that’s enough. They want to spend even more of our hard-earned money on restructuring urban areas and ensuring the quality of life of the people they cram into them.
At both of these town hall meetings, the spaces booked for the meetings were filled to overflowing, with about half of the participants having to stand against the walls or at the back of the room. Some had to actually be turned away from the Meford meeting because they couldn’t fit in the room. At both meetings, the community feedback ran 10:1 against the Big Look plan. The local communities were not fooled by the deceptive language or the expensive propaganda materials. We can only wonder how much of this feedback will actually make it back to Salem, or what they plan to do with it, if it does.
A draft of the Big Look plan has been posted on the Big Look Web site since June. It wll be interesting to see how much, if any, the plan changes based on the feedback received from this statewide tour, or whether these meetings are just window dressing so they can say they sought feedback from the citizens.
There’s a survey on the Big Look Web site, which was also handed out at the town hall meetings. The survey is multiple choice and many of the options are worded so that, whichever answer you chose, it can be interpreted to fit their agenda. We recommend that you take the online survey, but that you fill in your own comments in the comment area provided for each question.
Click here to hear KMED talk show host Bill Meyers interviewing Jack Swift, head of the JoCo subchapter of AFP, on the Big Look proposals.
In passing Senate Bill 1036, the state legislature granted local school districts the authority to impose a new excise tax on all new construction. They left it up to the discretion of the school boards to determine the rate, up to a ceiling of $1 per square foot on residential construction (including additions to existing homes), and .50 per square foot on commercial construction (up to a $25,000 limit).
AFP members, as well as members of the Realtors’ Association and the Homebuilders’ Association of Josephine County, attended the Grants Pass School District 7 and Three Rivers School District board meetings to speak out against the new tax. Nevertheless, both school districts opted to impose the maximum tax allowable by law. In response to a plea from the Realtors’ Association, they did agree to postpone collecting the tax until July 1, 2009.
AFP opposes this tax for several reasons. First, excise taxes are generally use taxes. This is not a use tax. There’s no direct relation between remodeling a home and increasing enrollment in schools. Most people moving to this area and buying new homes are retirees. They do not contribute to the burden on public schools either. And, certainly, commercial development of new businesses (which provide much needed jobs for our community) do not affect the enrollment in schools. Yet these are what the school boards are levying taxes against to provide more money for schools.
Second, construction is one of the hardest hit industries in Oregon in the current economy. Well over 10,000 construction jobs have been lost in Oregon within the last year. That’s almost 10% of all construction jobs in the state. Adding a new excise tax on construction right now will inhibit new construction even further, and raise the barrier to entry for new development and economic growth in our county. We cannot promote economic recovery by stifling economic growth.
Third, this tax was imposed upon the citizens without a vote. Had it been put to a vote, it would undoubtedly have lost. Yet the legislature granted the authority to the school boards to impose the tax without the consent of the taxpayers. The question remains, is it within the power of the state legislature to delegate taxing authority to a non-legislative body, or does that violate the state constitution? Stay tuned…
On Monday, August 4, a number of AFP members attended a public hearing on whether to reopen the Ockenden Land Use Hearing.
The Ockendens own ~158 acres of land on Hugo Rd, the main thoroughfare between Merlin and Hugo. The land was originally zoned Rural Residential with a 5-acre minimum lot size (RR-5). In 1985, the land was arbitrarily rezoned to Woodlot Resource, purposed for Forestry and Agriculture, with no on-site investigation of the suitability of the land for that purpose. Subsequent investigations by qualified experts, including soil engineers, geologists, and surveyors, have determined that the land is not suitable for forestry or agriculture, but is suitable for rural residential development, as it was originally zoned. The expert opinions are borne out by the fact that the neighboring properties, having the same characteristics, have been developed under RR-5 and RR-2.5 zoning with no ill effects.
The Board of County Commissioners and Land Use Planning Commission already ruled, at a previous hearing, that the WR zoning was a misclassification, and that the only purpose for which the land can be profitably used is rural residential development. Ordinarily, under such a circumstance, the land would have reverted to its prior zoning classification. But, in this case, there was significant political opposition from local land use activists, whose leader happens to live on the same road as the Ockendens’ property.
This battle has been going on for 17 years. At the last land use hearing, the BCC tried to reach a compromise by inventing a new ad hoc zoning classification of RR-15, arbitrarily restricting the minimum lot size to 15 acres, so that no more than 10 homes could be developed on the property. This made the land use activists happy, but significantly reduced the value of the Ockenden’s land, in which they had invested 17 years and most of their financial resources in hiring land use consultants and qualified experts to provide evidence to satisfy the ever-expanding burden of proof demanded by the land use activists.
None of the credentialed experts found any justification for restricting the capacity of this parcel to 15 acres per lot. All of the expert opinions concur that the carrying capacity of this land is consistent with RR-5 zoning. Those who oppose the rezoning have presented no hard evidence or expert opinions to substantiate their claims yet, for 17 years, they have been allowed to employ their customary tactics of dragging out the process until their victim can no longer afford to continue fighting them.
The purpose of the hearing on Monday was to petition the BCC to re-open the land use hearing, given new evidence from the county surveryor and the the county road department engineer to address the concerns upon which the BCC based the 15-acre restriction. The land use activists opposed re-opening the hearing. A number of AFP JoCo members spoke in support of allowing the new evidence to be heard. The leader of the land use activist was not able to attend, having been arrested over the weekend for violating a restraining order, unrelated to this case.
The BCC ruled in favor of re-opening the hearing. The date for hearing the new evidence will be October 29, 2008. Please attend to support the Ockendens in their struggle for justice and the preservation of private property rights in Josephine County.
On July 22, Jeff Kropf and Jack Swift were interviewed by news director Scott Jorgensen on KAJO radio. Jeff Kropf is the Director of the Oregon chapter of Americans for Prosperity, and Jack Swift heads up the Josephine County sub-chapter.
If you missed the broadcast, click hereto listen to a recording of the interview.
The Josephine County sub-chapter of Americans for Prosperity was organized by Josephine County resident, Jack Swift, and inaugurated on June 9, 2008, with a visit by Jeff Kropf, Director of the Oregon chapter of AFP, and Matt Evans, Associate Director. The initial meeting was attended by about two dozen people. Jeff and Matt presented a slide show on what Americans for Prosperity is about, why it exists, and some of its recent accomplishments in national and regional politics. Jack discussed the key issues we face locally, and the benefits of aligning with a national organization of citizens throughout the country with the same goals and concerns that we have.
The Josephine County sub-chapter has been holding regular weekly meetings since then, and has developed a set of goals for our local sub-chapter and an action plan for accomplishing them. (See About AFP JoCo for more information.) If you’re interested in helping to limit local government, promote fiscal responsibility in our county, and protect the rights and interests of private citizens, we welcome you to join us.
We meet on Thursdays, at 6:30 PM, at Elmer’s Restaurant (175 NE Agness Ave, Grants Pass).
