Nov 3, 2006

The Ballot Measures: How I Voted

Measure 39: YES
I voted yes on this but not after giving long consideration to a less talked about portion of this measure which modifies current condemnation procedures.

If passed, Measure 39 would also allow the owner of private property to recover attorney fees, costs and other disbursements if the judgment awarded at trial exceeds the initial offer of compensation offered by the government, even if the government subsequently made a higher offer. This would mean increased costs to government agencies because it would remove any incentive by the land owner to settle before trial.

However, I kept in mind that most property owners don't have the financial resources to pay the legal fees needed to fend off a lowball initial offer made by a government entity in a condemnation process. I also kept in mind two examples of blatant disregard of private property rights at this year's League of Oregon Cities Conference.

The first example: At a Measure 39 seminar, Hillsboro Mayor Hughes bragged about how great it was that condemnation was available to take land away from UNWILLING property owners in order to turn their land over to private developers. The second example: During a session about Oregon's "Big Look" land use committee, Metro President David Bragdon said "Most people care more about private property rights than I do".

Most people I've talked to in government have the same attitude regarding private property rights. That's why Measure 39 needs to pass.

Measure 40: YES
Originally, the Oregon Constitution required all judges to be elected by district. I think M40 would allow a better way to reflect the concerns and points of view from all areas in Oregon, not just the Willamette Valley.

Measure 41 and 48: YES
I don't see this as a Democrat or Republican issue, because legislators from both parties have failed to stem the out of control spending in Salem.

Measure 42: NO
There's no reason for passage of M42. Existing state law already prohibits the use of credit scores to increase premiums for existing policyholders and prohibits insurers from using credit records to cancel or not renew existing policy holders. Also, I wish Bill Sizemore would get out of the business of ballot initiatives. He has little credibility.

Measure 43: YES
This is common sense. Parents deserve to know what's happening with their minor children. We deserve to be involved in the health care decisions of our daughters. M43 provides protection to our daughters that Planned Parenthood and their ilk will never provide.

Measure 45: NO
We already have term limits. They're called elections. I realize that 95+ percent of incumbents win. But that's the fault of voters if they fail to throw out the rascals.

Measure 46 and 47: NO and NO
Money in politics is free speech. Limiting campaign contributions would only help incumbents win. This measure totally contradicts the purpose of the term limits initiative.

1 comment:

IfItsTheLastThingIDo said...

If you are a parent and your daughter can't talk to you about an abortion, or you are not involved enough to know what is going on with her, your family has real problems.

Passing a law is not always the answer. Fix the lines of communication in your family. Stay involved with your daughter's life.

Why doesn't the law require a boy to notify his family that he impregnated a girl he is not married to? Then his parents could force him to take responsiblity. Don't the boy's parents have a right to know the girl is considering aborting their grandchild, and that their son is being promiscuous and irresponsible?