A high school government class that wanted to know how government really works could do much worse than follow the Legislature’s attempt to “protect” the Metolius River Basin. It wouldn’t take the students long to recognize the process as an “embarrassment.” That’s how Sen. Jason Atkinson, R-Central Point, characterized a gimmick used this week to keep the “protection” express on the tracks.
The gimmick is something known as a “gut and stuff,” which involves replacing the contents of one bill with the contents of another bill that otherwise might die. Thus did the Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday transform HB 3298 into a ban on destination resorts in the Metolius basin. A different version of the bill already exists, but it’s stalled in a House committee. Apparently, some powerful senators got tired of waiting. Thanks to this bit of repackaging, the entire Senate may soon vote on the ban.
Participating with some ambivalence in the legislative surgery was Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches. He said he may vote “no” on the bill at a later time, but believes the Senate should have a “robust discussion” of the ban “in public.” He’s right about the last part. Oregonians do deserve an honest, “robust” discussion of this embarrassment. The following sticky details deserve particular attention:
1.The destination resort ban represents a significant “taking” of private property value. Consider one of the two properties the ban would affect, the intended site of the Metolian “eco resort.” The project’s developers bought a piece of logged-over forestland in 2005. Jefferson County mapped it for destination resort development the following year. Thus, developers are doing what the law allows and what Jefferson County’s elected leaders intend. But if the Legislature bans resorts like theirs, the developers will lose the money they’ve spent so far — well over a million, by their account — and the millions they stand to gain from the use of their property.
Some people argue that the ban wouldn’t amount to a taking, as the destination resort mapping occurred after the developers bought the land. The latter point is true. Consider, however, that the property was eligible for destination resort mapping and everything that entails when the developers bought it. The ban would retroactively remove that eligibility. If that isn’t a taking, what is it?
Imagine if something similar happened to legislators. Pretend that the 90 members of the House and Senate — through a citizen initiative, say — suddenly lost their eligibility to run for higher office. Pretend, too, that the initiative took effect after some of them had spent thousands of dollars organizing their campaigns for treasurer, governor and secretary of state. Do you think they’d sit back and consider themselves unharmed because they didn’t actually hold higher office at the time the prohibition went into effect? Of course not. There probably aren’t enough lawyers in Oregon to handle all of the lawsuits that would follow.
Because the resort ban would, in fact, amount to a significant taking, the Legislature shouldn’t approve it without making the affected landowners whole. That would cost millions and millions of dollars.
2.The ban makes a mockery of Oregon’s land use system. Jefferson County officials extended destination resort eligibility to a pair of properties in the Metolius basin through a lengthy public process dictated by state law. Problem is, certain powerful people — Gov. Ted Kulongoski, among others — didn’t like the result, and they’re perfectly willing to slap aside county officials who did exactly what they were supposed to do. This abuse of power, Sen. Atkinson argued Wednesday, “tells all 36 counties and all the county commissioners in the state, ‘Don’t follow the rules … because Salem is going to tell you what the rules are when they figure out what they want the rules to be.’ I think that’s very sad.”
So do we.
3.Look who’s involved. Hundreds of cabins and houses have been built near the Metolius River. One riverside vacation cabin belongs to the family of Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland. Much of the land around the water’s headwaters, meanwhile, belongs to Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose. Both enthusiastically support the crusade to “protect” the river and its surroundings from development miles away. There’s nothing like being a NIMBY with clout.
Speaking of Burdick, she sits on the committee that “gutted and stuffed” the resort ban on Wednesday. The vote to send the bill to the Senate was 3-2, with Burdick providing the all-important third “yes.” To her credit, and in “an abundance of caution,” Burdick did declare a “potential” conflict of interest. Immediately thereafter, Sen. Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, blasted the bill for suspending the rule of law in favor of “who is in political power at the moment.” And, he might have added, in favor of who happens to sit on the right committee at the right time.
A high school class that followed the Legislature’s Metolius embarrassment from its beginning in 2007 until its possible conclusion this year would get quite an education, indeed. Because some kids might not want an education in the way the lawmaking world really works, such a class would have a suitably admonitory name. How about “Self-service and Cynicism in State Government”?
Nick Budnick can be reached at 503-566-2839 or at nbudnick@bendbulletin.com.