Most Recommended Stories
Sat. April 28, 2007
1. Gasoline-cost analysis omitted major aspect
2. Supreme Court votes against women's rights
3. Better policing is more effective than prison
4. Remark blurs the truth about Arab nations
To access these articles please use the Statesmanjournal "link" provided in the "Link's" section of this Blog.
Annexation Bill (HB3303) would give local residents the right to vote on any possible annexation of property by the city of Salem. The thing that I found interesting about this article was that as Salem expands its “urban boundaries”, residents that live in these so-called “islands” will not have the right to vote on these proposals under current state law. This is another example of how public policies for urban development and transition can overshadow an individual’s rights. As we have seen throughout this semester wherever urban to suburban migration occurs both regions usually suffer. The urban areas lose tax revenues needed to maintain their infrastructure (usually to the detriment of the poor) and the suburbs become the victim of “urban sprawl” as these areas become more congested.
The second article on “Sub Prime Home Lenders” offered something to which I was not aware of concerning this issue. The people who provide these services often work on a “commission” basis. Since they have no real stake (as a loan officer at a bank would) in whether or not these loans ever get paid off, they can collect their commission check and move on the next victim. I use the term “victim” here because these unethical individuals have preyed on people who cannot typically acquire the average home loan from most lending institutions. When the “victims” mortgage payment increases (under this type of loan) to the point where they can no longer make the monthly payment they will lose their home. Since the purchase of a home is usually the biggest investment and the greatest source of most people’s tangible wealth, I am glad to see that the Oregon legislature is trying to make these lenders more accountable and transparent. I hope that more states will address this growing concern also.
Mark
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Annexation Bill Would Give County Residents a Voice
STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
April 27, 2007
Ron Taylor, who lives near Joe's on Lancaster Drive NE, wants the right to vote before Salem annexes his neighborhood into the city.
On Thursday, Taylor got what he wanted.
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously to approve House Bill 3303, a bill sought by Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, on behalf of thousands of people who live east of Lancaster Drive. The bill gives residents in so-called "islands" the right to vote on proposed annexations, in cities that require voter approval of annexations.
The city of Salem has no imminent plans for large-scale annexations of unincorporated areas of East Salem.
"What he's trying to do is give us a voice," Taylor said of Clem's bill.
Taylor said he fears that Salem will try to acquire Cordon Road from Marion County, thus surrounding unincorporated territory with city lands. That creates an island of unincorporated territory inside the city. Islands are easier to annex under state law, and residents of the islands don't get to vote on proposed annexations.
Under HB 3303, people inside the city and the affected islands get to cast votes on proposed annexations.
Taylor worries that his property taxes will increase if Salem annexes his neighborhood, and he's content with services provided by the county and special districts.
"There isn't a single service the city has to offer me," he said.
Clem said forced annexation was a common fear of East Salem residents when he walked door-to-door in last year's campaign.
"They want to be able to vote," Clem said.
Salem City Manager Bob Wells said the city can't simply acquire Cordon Road to surround an island of unincorporated territory. That's because the city's urban growth boundary was deliberately drawn west of Cordon Road, to prevent that kind of tactic, he said.
However, the urban growth boundary, which includes unincorporated East Salem, is a reflection of the area where Salem intends to expand, Wells said.
"How long that takes, I don't know," he said.
The Salem City Council supported HB 3303, Wells said.
Statesman Journal
April 27, 2007
Ron Taylor, who lives near Joe's on Lancaster Drive NE, wants the right to vote before Salem annexes his neighborhood into the city.
On Thursday, Taylor got what he wanted.
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously to approve House Bill 3303, a bill sought by Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, on behalf of thousands of people who live east of Lancaster Drive. The bill gives residents in so-called "islands" the right to vote on proposed annexations, in cities that require voter approval of annexations.
The city of Salem has no imminent plans for large-scale annexations of unincorporated areas of East Salem.
"What he's trying to do is give us a voice," Taylor said of Clem's bill.
Taylor said he fears that Salem will try to acquire Cordon Road from Marion County, thus surrounding unincorporated territory with city lands. That creates an island of unincorporated territory inside the city. Islands are easier to annex under state law, and residents of the islands don't get to vote on proposed annexations.
Under HB 3303, people inside the city and the affected islands get to cast votes on proposed annexations.
Taylor worries that his property taxes will increase if Salem annexes his neighborhood, and he's content with services provided by the county and special districts.
"There isn't a single service the city has to offer me," he said.
Clem said forced annexation was a common fear of East Salem residents when he walked door-to-door in last year's campaign.
"They want to be able to vote," Clem said.
Salem City Manager Bob Wells said the city can't simply acquire Cordon Road to surround an island of unincorporated territory. That's because the city's urban growth boundary was deliberately drawn west of Cordon Road, to prevent that kind of tactic, he said.
However, the urban growth boundary, which includes unincorporated East Salem, is a reflection of the area where Salem intends to expand, Wells said.
"How long that takes, I don't know," he said.
The Salem City Council supported HB 3303, Wells said.
Legislators Consider More Oversight of Subprime Home Lenders
BY AARON CLARK
The Associated Press
April 26, 2007
Lawmakers are considering clamping down on subprime lenders who they say are trapping Oregon residents into making poor financial decisions that can keep them debt-ridden for years or force them into bankruptcy.
Regulators and industry representatives told members of the Business, Transportation and Workplace Development Committee on Wednesday that several bills under consideration would create more transparency for borrowers and promote long-term stability for the mortgage industry.
"The ability to buy and finance a home is critically important; it may be the single most important financial decision an Oregonian ever makes," said Cory Streisinger, the director of the state's Consumer and Business Services department. "Having good information and having lenders take some responsibility to make sure that the loan is suitable for that person -- that is very important."
Streisinger said many companies that issue subprime loans -- mortgages with high interest rates and fees, generally offered to high-risk borrowers -- have no incentive to ensure that borrowers can pay back the loan over the long term because they are paid on commission.
Regulators and consumer advocates said they want to stem loans in which a lender refinances an existing home loan but the borrower receives no net benefit. Moreover, they said that any legislation should ensure that lenders and brokers demonstrate a borrower's ability to pay back the loan.
Another practice that Streisinger identified as harmful to consumers is negative amortization, when lenders offer mortgage loans with such low payments that the principle balance of the loan increases over time.
Prohibitive fees also can trap unsuspecting borrowers.
Oregon is one of 22 states that has introduced legislation this year aimed at curbing subprime lending practices, which many economists say threaten to hurt the economy.
In recent months, high-risk mortgage lending practices have resulted in shocks in the housing market as dozens of mortgage companies have gone under and many others have laid off workers.
Although Wall Street has expressed concern that the blowup of companies that make higher-risk loans could spill into other industries, Treasury Department officials have said the current situation is manageable.
The crisis has been less pronounced in Oregon, where housing and land prices have continued to rise, albeit more slowly, protecting borrowers who took out subprime loans.
Fifteen percent of outstanding loans nationally, including those made decades ago, are subprime, but the comparable figure for Portland is 9.8 percent, according to First American LoanPerformance data from 2006.
In 2006, subprime loans accounted for 17 percent of new mortgages in Oregon, down from the 20 percent in each of the previous two years, according to the organization.
The Associated Press
April 26, 2007
Lawmakers are considering clamping down on subprime lenders who they say are trapping Oregon residents into making poor financial decisions that can keep them debt-ridden for years or force them into bankruptcy.
Regulators and industry representatives told members of the Business, Transportation and Workplace Development Committee on Wednesday that several bills under consideration would create more transparency for borrowers and promote long-term stability for the mortgage industry.
"The ability to buy and finance a home is critically important; it may be the single most important financial decision an Oregonian ever makes," said Cory Streisinger, the director of the state's Consumer and Business Services department. "Having good information and having lenders take some responsibility to make sure that the loan is suitable for that person -- that is very important."
Streisinger said many companies that issue subprime loans -- mortgages with high interest rates and fees, generally offered to high-risk borrowers -- have no incentive to ensure that borrowers can pay back the loan over the long term because they are paid on commission.
Regulators and consumer advocates said they want to stem loans in which a lender refinances an existing home loan but the borrower receives no net benefit. Moreover, they said that any legislation should ensure that lenders and brokers demonstrate a borrower's ability to pay back the loan.
Another practice that Streisinger identified as harmful to consumers is negative amortization, when lenders offer mortgage loans with such low payments that the principle balance of the loan increases over time.
Prohibitive fees also can trap unsuspecting borrowers.
Oregon is one of 22 states that has introduced legislation this year aimed at curbing subprime lending practices, which many economists say threaten to hurt the economy.
In recent months, high-risk mortgage lending practices have resulted in shocks in the housing market as dozens of mortgage companies have gone under and many others have laid off workers.
Although Wall Street has expressed concern that the blowup of companies that make higher-risk loans could spill into other industries, Treasury Department officials have said the current situation is manageable.
The crisis has been less pronounced in Oregon, where housing and land prices have continued to rise, albeit more slowly, protecting borrowers who took out subprime loans.
Fifteen percent of outstanding loans nationally, including those made decades ago, are subprime, but the comparable figure for Portland is 9.8 percent, according to First American LoanPerformance data from 2006.
In 2006, subprime loans accounted for 17 percent of new mortgages in Oregon, down from the 20 percent in each of the previous two years, according to the organization.
Voters Might Get Opportunity to Retool Measure 37
BY AARON CLARK
The Associated Press
April 28, 2007
Oregon lawmakers advanced a bill Thursday that would give voters a shot at amending the state's controversial property rights law.
Voters would choose between a measure that would curb large-scale development but allow an expedited process for property owners who want to build no more than three homes and the existing process in which most counties and the state have ceded development rights under the property rights law known as Measure 37.
A party-line vote in the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness broke a nearly four-month stalemate during which the panel heard testimony from hundreds of people and held more than a dozen public meetings in an attempt to fix the voter-passed initiative.
Lawmakers said House Bill 3540 would allow voters to decide what they meant in 2004, when they passed the measure that requires governments to pay owners for property value lost from land-use restrictions passed after the property was purchased.
If governments don't pay -- and Measure 37 claims against state and local governments already have reached more than $10 billion -- they must waive the restriction and allow development.
"A lot of people wanted a right to develop their property and we still have that in this document," said Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, a member of the committee.
Republicans who voted against the legislation said it guts the voter passed land-use law. They predicted that if the bill is sent to voters, it would be rejected in favor of the current method of processing and approving claims.
"The only conclusion I have is that the effort behind this is to repeal ballot Measure 37," said Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood.
Supporters of the bill said the current system offers no recourse for neighbors who might be effected by large-scale development adjacent to their property.
The bill would allow landowners who want to build up to three homes to qualify for an "express lane" -- putting their Measure 37 claims on a fast track. Supporters of the bill estimate that more than two-thirds of the roughly 7,000 existing claims could fall into this category.
Property owners who think they lost more than the value of three home sites because of property regulations enacted after their land purchase would be allowed to apply to build as many as 10 homes -- with a statewide maximum of 20 home sites per claimant -- but would have to go through a more rigorous valuation process to prove their loss.
This option would not be available for some properties that are entirely high-value farm land, or in areas where groundwater is limited or in critical supply.
The Associated Press
April 28, 2007
Oregon lawmakers advanced a bill Thursday that would give voters a shot at amending the state's controversial property rights law.
Voters would choose between a measure that would curb large-scale development but allow an expedited process for property owners who want to build no more than three homes and the existing process in which most counties and the state have ceded development rights under the property rights law known as Measure 37.
A party-line vote in the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness broke a nearly four-month stalemate during which the panel heard testimony from hundreds of people and held more than a dozen public meetings in an attempt to fix the voter-passed initiative.
Lawmakers said House Bill 3540 would allow voters to decide what they meant in 2004, when they passed the measure that requires governments to pay owners for property value lost from land-use restrictions passed after the property was purchased.
If governments don't pay -- and Measure 37 claims against state and local governments already have reached more than $10 billion -- they must waive the restriction and allow development.
"A lot of people wanted a right to develop their property and we still have that in this document," said Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, a member of the committee.
Republicans who voted against the legislation said it guts the voter passed land-use law. They predicted that if the bill is sent to voters, it would be rejected in favor of the current method of processing and approving claims.
"The only conclusion I have is that the effort behind this is to repeal ballot Measure 37," said Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood.
Supporters of the bill said the current system offers no recourse for neighbors who might be effected by large-scale development adjacent to their property.
The bill would allow landowners who want to build up to three homes to qualify for an "express lane" -- putting their Measure 37 claims on a fast track. Supporters of the bill estimate that more than two-thirds of the roughly 7,000 existing claims could fall into this category.
Property owners who think they lost more than the value of three home sites because of property regulations enacted after their land purchase would be allowed to apply to build as many as 10 homes -- with a statewide maximum of 20 home sites per claimant -- but would have to go through a more rigorous valuation process to prove their loss.
This option would not be available for some properties that are entirely high-value farm land, or in areas where groundwater is limited or in critical supply.
Affordable-Housing Bill Introduced in Second Legislative Chamber
STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
April 24, 2007
Rep. Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach, and four other lawmakers have introduced a House bill to raise fees on recording of real-estate documents, to finance affordable-housing projects.
As reported in the Statesman Journal, a similar Senate proposal, Senate Bill 38, was deemed by legislative lawyers to be a tax. Tax-raising bills must originate in the House.
Boone’s proposal helps keep the affordable-housing proposal alive.
Sen. Margaret Carter, D-Portland, worked with Boone to submit a House version of the bill. Other co-sponsors are Rep. Mary Nolan, D-Portland, the powerful co-chairwoman of the joint budget committee; Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, whose committee has already worked the bill in the Senate, and Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene.
Statesman Journal
April 24, 2007
Rep. Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach, and four other lawmakers have introduced a House bill to raise fees on recording of real-estate documents, to finance affordable-housing projects.
As reported in the Statesman Journal, a similar Senate proposal, Senate Bill 38, was deemed by legislative lawyers to be a tax. Tax-raising bills must originate in the House.
Boone’s proposal helps keep the affordable-housing proposal alive.
Sen. Margaret Carter, D-Portland, worked with Boone to submit a House version of the bill. Other co-sponsors are Rep. Mary Nolan, D-Portland, the powerful co-chairwoman of the joint budget committee; Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, whose committee has already worked the bill in the Senate, and Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sat. April 21, 2007
1. Avoid making dumb comments to troops' families
2. Explore the future of 'green' living in Salem
3. Students learn about the Earth by teaching
4. 'Guns were yesterday's news, yesterday's worry, yesterday's political cause'
5. Logic behind staying in Iraq doesn't make sense
To read these "Most Recommended Stories" please use the Statesman Journal web-site link provided in the "Link's" section of this blog.
The article on the "Gay Rights" anti discrimination bill awaiting the Governors signature is another example of a minority groups exclusion from our society and its attempt to rectify the situation. In my opinion, no one in America should be exempt from employment opportunities based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference. This bill helps to amend some of these employment concerns. However, one rather troubling issue that this bill addresses, is that certain religious organizations are exempt from this legislation. I fully understand that some forms of Christianity perceive homo-sexuality as an abomination, but one would think that a religion which is based on the teachings of Christ would be more tolerant of others. Having studied the bible as a once practicing Catholic and later a born-again christian, the understanding that I took from Christ's teachings was acceptance and love for one's fellow human beings regardless of who or what they are. It is sad that practicing Christians cannot find a place in their hearts and institutions for anyone in need of employment.
As to the "Measure 37" debate over property development in Oregon, this issue continues to "heat up". The concerns over protecting farmlands and forests versus the rights of real estate developers to build home sites on land which they own, will only increase in the months ahead. In my opinion, it will be the faction which possesses the most "political clout" with Oregon's legislators that will ultimately prevail.
Note: The posting on the use of "eminent domain" here in Oregon, which I commented on earlier this semester, has received no new coverage as of this date. I was hoping to make this issue more of a centerpiece for this blog but I have seen nothing lately on this subject. Have a great day.
Sincerely, Mark
Sat. April 21, 2007
1. Avoid making dumb comments to troops' families
2. Explore the future of 'green' living in Salem
3. Students learn about the Earth by teaching
4. 'Guns were yesterday's news, yesterday's worry, yesterday's political cause'
5. Logic behind staying in Iraq doesn't make sense
To read these "Most Recommended Stories" please use the Statesman Journal web-site link provided in the "Link's" section of this blog.
The article on the "Gay Rights" anti discrimination bill awaiting the Governors signature is another example of a minority groups exclusion from our society and its attempt to rectify the situation. In my opinion, no one in America should be exempt from employment opportunities based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference. This bill helps to amend some of these employment concerns. However, one rather troubling issue that this bill addresses, is that certain religious organizations are exempt from this legislation. I fully understand that some forms of Christianity perceive homo-sexuality as an abomination, but one would think that a religion which is based on the teachings of Christ would be more tolerant of others. Having studied the bible as a once practicing Catholic and later a born-again christian, the understanding that I took from Christ's teachings was acceptance and love for one's fellow human beings regardless of who or what they are. It is sad that practicing Christians cannot find a place in their hearts and institutions for anyone in need of employment.
As to the "Measure 37" debate over property development in Oregon, this issue continues to "heat up". The concerns over protecting farmlands and forests versus the rights of real estate developers to build home sites on land which they own, will only increase in the months ahead. In my opinion, it will be the faction which possesses the most "political clout" with Oregon's legislators that will ultimately prevail.
Note: The posting on the use of "eminent domain" here in Oregon, which I commented on earlier this semester, has received no new coverage as of this date. I was hoping to make this issue more of a centerpiece for this blog but I have seen nothing lately on this subject. Have a great day.
Sincerely, Mark
Gay-Rights Bill Awaits Governor's Signature
April 20, 2007
BY PETER WONG
A gay-rights bill awaits only Gov. Ted Kulongoski's signature to become law.
The Oregon Senate, by a 19-7 vote Thursday, gave final approval to a bill that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Similar bills have been introduced since 1973.
Kulongoski has said he will sign the bill.
The House approved Senate Bill 2 on Tuesday after amending it to make the exemption for religious organizations more specific. Commercial-type ventures, such as hospitals, still would be subject to Oregon's anti-discrimination law, but other activities "closely connected" with organizations would not.
"It was changed to address some of the concerns of religious organizations that wanted more specificity in this exemption, and they got it," said Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, the bill's floor manager.
All seven votes against the bill came from Republicans.
"It clearly illustrates the danger of a potentially unconstitutional restriction of free speech inherent in this bill," said Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls.
Opponents have not said whether they will mount a challenge to the law in court, or petition to refer it or a pending domestic-partnerships bill to voters. Either referral would require 55,179 voter signatures to be filed within 90 days after the 2007 Legislature adjourns, and would be placed on the November 2008 ballot.
House Bill 2007, which establishes domestic partnerships for same-sex couples that cannot marry, awaits a Senate committee hearing and chamber vote. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2005, coupled with anti-discrimination provisions, but it died in the House.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 39
BY PETER WONG
A gay-rights bill awaits only Gov. Ted Kulongoski's signature to become law.
The Oregon Senate, by a 19-7 vote Thursday, gave final approval to a bill that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Similar bills have been introduced since 1973.
Kulongoski has said he will sign the bill.
The House approved Senate Bill 2 on Tuesday after amending it to make the exemption for religious organizations more specific. Commercial-type ventures, such as hospitals, still would be subject to Oregon's anti-discrimination law, but other activities "closely connected" with organizations would not.
"It was changed to address some of the concerns of religious organizations that wanted more specificity in this exemption, and they got it," said Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, the bill's floor manager.
All seven votes against the bill came from Republicans.
"It clearly illustrates the danger of a potentially unconstitutional restriction of free speech inherent in this bill," said Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls.
Opponents have not said whether they will mount a challenge to the law in court, or petition to refer it or a pending domestic-partnerships bill to voters. Either referral would require 55,179 voter signatures to be filed within 90 days after the 2007 Legislature adjourns, and would be placed on the November 2008 ballot.
House Bill 2007, which establishes domestic partnerships for same-sex couples that cannot marry, awaits a Senate committee hearing and chamber vote. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2005, coupled with anti-discrimination provisions, but it died in the House.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 39
Hearing Revisits Debate on Land Use
PETER WONG
Statesman Journal
April 18, 2007
No one was neutral Tuesday night about the property-compensation measure that voters approved in 2004 as Measure 37, or about specific changes that lawmakers considered at a three-hour hearing.
Many of the participants and observers who filled seats in six Capitol hearing rooms wore just one of two stickers: "Fix 37," or "I love M 37" with a heart substituting for "love." More than 100 signed up to testify, although less than half did.
Measure 37 requires government either to pay landowners when regulations result in reduced property values or to waive the regulations and allow development. About 7,000 claims have been filed, many of them within weeks of a Dec. 4, 2006, deadline set in the measure.
Members of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness heard proposed changes that would allow some landowners to proceed with development of homes. But the changes also would limit the scope of development, particularly on Oregon's best farmland or areas with limited groundwater.
"It strikes a responsible balance between landowner rights and farmland protection," said Gary Conkling, who spoke for the Oregon Winegrowers Association.
Ken Maddox, a Hood River grower, reflected the view of many who suggested that the proposed changes might allow too much development near farms and forests. Measure 37 claimants could develop up to three home sites with a guarantee of at least one home.
"I'd suggest a more conservative approach," he said.
But others vigorously disagreed.
"I believe these bills were created to destroy Measure 37," said Rita Swyers of Hood River, who ran twice for the Legislature in the 1980s.
Sixty-one percent of residents who voted approved Measure 37 in 2004.
"I hope you will listen to the will of the voters and uphold what their clear message was," said David Jaques of Winston, a real estate broker and chairman of the Douglas County Planning Commission.
The Legislature's minority Republicans have said that they do not agree with the changes, and Senate Republicans were not part of the five-member work group that came up with the changes behind the scenes.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
Statesman Journal
April 18, 2007
No one was neutral Tuesday night about the property-compensation measure that voters approved in 2004 as Measure 37, or about specific changes that lawmakers considered at a three-hour hearing.
Many of the participants and observers who filled seats in six Capitol hearing rooms wore just one of two stickers: "Fix 37," or "I love M 37" with a heart substituting for "love." More than 100 signed up to testify, although less than half did.
Measure 37 requires government either to pay landowners when regulations result in reduced property values or to waive the regulations and allow development. About 7,000 claims have been filed, many of them within weeks of a Dec. 4, 2006, deadline set in the measure.
Members of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness heard proposed changes that would allow some landowners to proceed with development of homes. But the changes also would limit the scope of development, particularly on Oregon's best farmland or areas with limited groundwater.
"It strikes a responsible balance between landowner rights and farmland protection," said Gary Conkling, who spoke for the Oregon Winegrowers Association.
Ken Maddox, a Hood River grower, reflected the view of many who suggested that the proposed changes might allow too much development near farms and forests. Measure 37 claimants could develop up to three home sites with a guarantee of at least one home.
"I'd suggest a more conservative approach," he said.
But others vigorously disagreed.
"I believe these bills were created to destroy Measure 37," said Rita Swyers of Hood River, who ran twice for the Legislature in the 1980s.
Sixty-one percent of residents who voted approved Measure 37 in 2004.
"I hope you will listen to the will of the voters and uphold what their clear message was," said David Jaques of Winston, a real estate broker and chairman of the Douglas County Planning Commission.
The Legislature's minority Republicans have said that they do not agree with the changes, and Senate Republicans were not part of the five-member work group that came up with the changes behind the scenes.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sun. April 15, 2007
1. Family Secrets
2. Hiring illegal aliens
3. Officers aid parents in fight against meth
4. Another View: Pedophile's Web site a disturbing reminder
To view these stories or the complete versions of the articles in this weeks post use the "Statesman Journal" link provided in the "links" section of this blog.
The article on "Children of Prison Inmates" was rather disturbing. The fact that an estimated 100,000 of these children statewide have parents who are somehow involved with the criminal justice system is deplorable.
The "invisible population" of children whose parents are incarcerated is another example of how the most vulnerable segment of our society if often neglected. These children have done nothing wrong, but due to their parents actions, their lives are irrevocably altered. Another social factor is how many of them will go on imitate the actions of their parents and end up in jail themselves. Too often children follow in their parents footsteps and without proper guidance fall prey to repeating the only type of behavior that they have ever known. I am not sure if these children fall under the category of a "socially excluded group" or not. However, in many cases thanks to their parents they have become part of a group that may be excluded from many of the opportunities that life has to offer. This is another example of how the actions of one person can affect many others, and often it is the innocent who pay the greatest price!
Sun. April 15, 2007
1. Family Secrets
2. Hiring illegal aliens
3. Officers aid parents in fight against meth
4. Another View: Pedophile's Web site a disturbing reminder
To view these stories or the complete versions of the articles in this weeks post use the "Statesman Journal" link provided in the "links" section of this blog.
The article on "Children of Prison Inmates" was rather disturbing. The fact that an estimated 100,000 of these children statewide have parents who are somehow involved with the criminal justice system is deplorable.
The "invisible population" of children whose parents are incarcerated is another example of how the most vulnerable segment of our society if often neglected. These children have done nothing wrong, but due to their parents actions, their lives are irrevocably altered. Another social factor is how many of them will go on imitate the actions of their parents and end up in jail themselves. Too often children follow in their parents footsteps and without proper guidance fall prey to repeating the only type of behavior that they have ever known. I am not sure if these children fall under the category of a "socially excluded group" or not. However, in many cases thanks to their parents they have become part of a group that may be excluded from many of the opportunities that life has to offer. This is another example of how the actions of one person can affect many others, and often it is the innocent who pay the greatest price!
Children of Prison Inmates ShareTheir Struggles
THELMA GUERRERO
Statesman Journal
April 13, 2007
Sareina Hernandez is angry at her mother for erasing any chance of having a normal mother-daughter relationship while growing up.
"This isn't the first time she's gone to prison," Hernandez, 13, said about her mother, Tiffany Turner, who was imprisoned on drug charges. "She's been there on and off since I was born. I feel sad and angry a lot because she doesn't see what she's doing to me. It's almost like I'm locked up in prison, too."
Hernandez, a seventh-grader at Parrish Middle School in Salem, is one of an estimated 774 youths in Marion County who have a parent in jail or prison.
Statewide, an estimated 100,000 Oregon children have a parent involved in the criminal justice system in some form, whether it's prison, probation, parole, or ordered anger management.
Children of incarcerated parents are an invisible population, said Cheryl Hansen, the executive director of the Children's Justice Alliance.
They often endure a silent sentence of their own, she said.
"People don't know about these children and, in many cases, they don't want to hear about them," Hansen said. "Communities will say, 'We don't have that problem,' but every community in the state of Oregon has the problem.
"It's just very well hidden."
No statewide figures exist on the exact number of children in Oregon whose parents are incarcerated because there is no system in place that asks offenders if they have children.
To complicate matters, many prisoners won't mention their children because they believe they'll be put in foster care, Hansen said.
The Oregon Department of Human Services reports that 71 percent of children enter foster care because of parental drug abuse.
In Marion County, 74 percent of children in foster care were removed from their parents because of drug abuse, according to the Marion County Children of Incarcerated Parents Initiative, a program that offers family support for children with parents involved in the criminal-justice system.
The most basic need, and often the most difficult, is for children to stay in touch with the imprisoned parent, Hansen said.
"These children still love their moms and dads," Hansen said. "They're more stable, do better in school, and the same is true of the parents.
"It gives parents an incentive to find ways to be successful both in prison and when they get out."
tguerrero@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6815
Statesman Journal
April 13, 2007
Sareina Hernandez is angry at her mother for erasing any chance of having a normal mother-daughter relationship while growing up.
"This isn't the first time she's gone to prison," Hernandez, 13, said about her mother, Tiffany Turner, who was imprisoned on drug charges. "She's been there on and off since I was born. I feel sad and angry a lot because she doesn't see what she's doing to me. It's almost like I'm locked up in prison, too."
Hernandez, a seventh-grader at Parrish Middle School in Salem, is one of an estimated 774 youths in Marion County who have a parent in jail or prison.
Statewide, an estimated 100,000 Oregon children have a parent involved in the criminal justice system in some form, whether it's prison, probation, parole, or ordered anger management.
Children of incarcerated parents are an invisible population, said Cheryl Hansen, the executive director of the Children's Justice Alliance.
They often endure a silent sentence of their own, she said.
"People don't know about these children and, in many cases, they don't want to hear about them," Hansen said. "Communities will say, 'We don't have that problem,' but every community in the state of Oregon has the problem.
"It's just very well hidden."
No statewide figures exist on the exact number of children in Oregon whose parents are incarcerated because there is no system in place that asks offenders if they have children.
To complicate matters, many prisoners won't mention their children because they believe they'll be put in foster care, Hansen said.
The Oregon Department of Human Services reports that 71 percent of children enter foster care because of parental drug abuse.
In Marion County, 74 percent of children in foster care were removed from their parents because of drug abuse, according to the Marion County Children of Incarcerated Parents Initiative, a program that offers family support for children with parents involved in the criminal-justice system.
The most basic need, and often the most difficult, is for children to stay in touch with the imprisoned parent, Hansen said.
"These children still love their moms and dads," Hansen said. "They're more stable, do better in school, and the same is true of the parents.
"It gives parents an incentive to find ways to be successful both in prison and when they get out."
tguerrero@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6815
Ruling by LUBA Could Claify Some Land Use Measures
The Associated press.
April 11, 2007
An Oregon board says property owners who use the voter initiative Measure 37 to develop land may need approval from both local and state agencies.
The ruling by the Land Use Board of Appeals is a setback for Willis Lee, 73, who has been trying to divide the 23-acre Ashland property he bought in 1974. He had proposed 5-acre lots, and Jackson County had approved the subdivision.
The decision could clarify some questions about the measure approved in November 2004. Legislators are bargaining over it, too.
Measure 37 requires governments either to pay landowners for the reduced values resulting from land-use regulations or waive the regulations. There are exceptions.
Almost 600 claims representing about 60,000 acres have been filed in Jackson County.
"This is one of the first decisions that has statewide applicability," said Greg Holmes of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land-use planning advocacy group.
In January, a local judge ruled that Jackson County had erred in not requiring property owners such as Lee to file a separate claim with the state.
"He said we're not allowed to waive state rules and regulations," said Doug McGeary, a lawyer for the county.
So, he said, the county didn't contest the issue before the State Land Use Board of Appeals.
"We conceded," McGeary said.
Commissioner C.W. Smith said the county is informing Measure 37 claimants they may need to file a separate claim with the state, which is interested in reviewing claims involving land zoned for exclusive farm use, for open space reserves, or for forests.
Lee said he will continue to try to divide his property.
Two months ago, he said, after his case went before the state board, he got a waiver from the state.
Now that the case has been settled, he probably will have to file his application with the county again.
He said dealing with the bureaucracy has been an aggravation.
"I lost a lot of sleep in the beginning," he said. "I thought 'I don't want to kill myself over it.'"
Lee plans to talk to county commissioners to find out what steps he'll have to take next.
"It'll work out, or it won't," he said.
April 11, 2007
An Oregon board says property owners who use the voter initiative Measure 37 to develop land may need approval from both local and state agencies.
The ruling by the Land Use Board of Appeals is a setback for Willis Lee, 73, who has been trying to divide the 23-acre Ashland property he bought in 1974. He had proposed 5-acre lots, and Jackson County had approved the subdivision.
The decision could clarify some questions about the measure approved in November 2004. Legislators are bargaining over it, too.
Measure 37 requires governments either to pay landowners for the reduced values resulting from land-use regulations or waive the regulations. There are exceptions.
Almost 600 claims representing about 60,000 acres have been filed in Jackson County.
"This is one of the first decisions that has statewide applicability," said Greg Holmes of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land-use planning advocacy group.
In January, a local judge ruled that Jackson County had erred in not requiring property owners such as Lee to file a separate claim with the state.
"He said we're not allowed to waive state rules and regulations," said Doug McGeary, a lawyer for the county.
So, he said, the county didn't contest the issue before the State Land Use Board of Appeals.
"We conceded," McGeary said.
Commissioner C.W. Smith said the county is informing Measure 37 claimants they may need to file a separate claim with the state, which is interested in reviewing claims involving land zoned for exclusive farm use, for open space reserves, or for forests.
Lee said he will continue to try to divide his property.
Two months ago, he said, after his case went before the state board, he got a waiver from the state.
Now that the case has been settled, he probably will have to file his application with the county again.
He said dealing with the bureaucracy has been an aggravation.
"I lost a lot of sleep in the beginning," he said. "I thought 'I don't want to kill myself over it.'"
Lee plans to talk to county commissioners to find out what steps he'll have to take next.
"It'll work out, or it won't," he said.
Oregon House to Vote on Gay-Rights Bill
STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
April 11, 2007
The Oregon House of Representatives will vote for the first time on a bill to grant marriage-style benefits to same-sex couples, and it will vote on a Senate-passed bill that would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Both gay-rights bills advanced to the full House Tuesday after the House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee passed amendments to address critics' concerns.
House Bill 2007 would enable committed same-sex couples to enter into contractual relationships that grant the same benefits offered to married couples under state law. The House committee stripped the term "civil unions" from the bill, preferring to call the relationships "domestic partnerships."
Senate Bill 2 would ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in employment, housing and access to public accommodations. The committee amended that bill Tuesday evening, after a day of behind-the-scenes talks, to strengthen the exemption for religious groups.
The revisions make it clear that faith groups, including those not tied to a specific church or denomination, could avoid hiring or serving people based on their sexual orientation. Language also was added to make it clear that religious schools, day-care centers, camps, thrift stores, book stores, radio stations and shelters are exempted.
If both bills are signed into law as expected, voters still might have the final say. Despite the changes made Tuesday, Oregon Family Council, which sponsored the gay-marriage ban on the 2004 ballot, may gather signatures to force a public vote on one or both measures, said spokesman Nick Graham.
Some bill supporters said replacing the term civil unions could help the bill weather an expected ballot-measure fight, based on polling results.
Thatcher said she prefers a "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill proposed by some House Republicans. That would allow a more limited range of marriage-style benefits to two people, such as elderly sisters, who live together and depend on each other.
Several gay-rights advocates have been saying there is no way to assuage Oregon Family Council on this issue and expected that one or both measures would wind up on the ballot via a referendum campaign.
Statesman Journal
April 11, 2007
The Oregon House of Representatives will vote for the first time on a bill to grant marriage-style benefits to same-sex couples, and it will vote on a Senate-passed bill that would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Both gay-rights bills advanced to the full House Tuesday after the House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee passed amendments to address critics' concerns.
House Bill 2007 would enable committed same-sex couples to enter into contractual relationships that grant the same benefits offered to married couples under state law. The House committee stripped the term "civil unions" from the bill, preferring to call the relationships "domestic partnerships."
Senate Bill 2 would ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in employment, housing and access to public accommodations. The committee amended that bill Tuesday evening, after a day of behind-the-scenes talks, to strengthen the exemption for religious groups.
The revisions make it clear that faith groups, including those not tied to a specific church or denomination, could avoid hiring or serving people based on their sexual orientation. Language also was added to make it clear that religious schools, day-care centers, camps, thrift stores, book stores, radio stations and shelters are exempted.
If both bills are signed into law as expected, voters still might have the final say. Despite the changes made Tuesday, Oregon Family Council, which sponsored the gay-marriage ban on the 2004 ballot, may gather signatures to force a public vote on one or both measures, said spokesman Nick Graham.
Some bill supporters said replacing the term civil unions could help the bill weather an expected ballot-measure fight, based on polling results.
Thatcher said she prefers a "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill proposed by some House Republicans. That would allow a more limited range of marriage-style benefits to two people, such as elderly sisters, who live together and depend on each other.
Several gay-rights advocates have been saying there is no way to assuage Oregon Family Council on this issue and expected that one or both measures would wind up on the ballot via a referendum campaign.
Health-Care Reform Plan Excludes Medicare
PETER WONG
Statesman Journal
April 10, 2007
Oregon's share of federal Medicare money will be excluded, at least for now, from an effort to reshape Oregon's health-care system and extend coverage to about 600,000 people.
Committee leaders decided against seeking federal permission to include Oregon's share of Medicare, the federal program of health insurance for people age 65 and older, as part of a pooling of several sources of money into an Oregon Health Fund. Including Medicare would require an act of Congress, not just a waiver of rules by a federal agency.
"While Medicare is important, a more important consideration to us is getting a financial reimbursement rate that brings use at least to the national average," Sen. Ben Westlund, D-Tumalo, the committee co-chairman, said in an earlier interview.
Reimbursement rates for Medicare providers in Oregon rank at the bottom of the states.
Westlund said an increase to the national average would produce another $1.5 billion annually on top of the estimated $6 billion spent on health care in Oregon.
The legislation would not actually extend coverage to people without it, at least for a couple of years.
It would set up a seven-member board, which would determine basic benefits for Oregonians, better ways of delivering services, a pool of money to pay for them, and other details. It would maintain a mixed public-private system.
The board's work would be submitted to the 2009 Legislature.
"Health care in Oregon is like two people in a boat rowing in opposite directions, and we're not getting anywhere," said Bates, a physician and the other co-chairman. "We have the opportunity to pull together and get the boat moving forward."
AARP Oregon, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, raised concerns about including Medicare money in any state pool.
But AARP never said so in testimony on his own proposal, Kitzhaber said, and he has never had a chance to offer amendments that might allay those concerns.
Kitzhaber, also a physician, spoke Monday after a luncheon appearance before the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce.
Omission of Medicare, he said, "would leave a flawed process that excludes a discussion of the very program on which more and more Americans are going to depend on, even as it moves the health-care system toward its final collapse."
Medicare is projected to run out of money by 2018, just a few years after the first of the post-World War II baby boomers start qualifying for coverage.
Kitzhaber was the chief author of the 1989 plan that transformed a traditional Medicaid program into a broader Oregon Health Plan offering basic services to all people under the federal poverty level.
While the priority-setting process for services worked, Kitzhaber said in his speech, the original plan itself was not broad enough to deal with rising costs.
During the speech, which largely focused on the need for change, Kitzhaber gave a personal example of how the system can save money without sacrificing essential services.
He said Medicare would have paid for lab tests and hospital stays for his mother in the final months of her life, when she was suffering from congestive heart failure and other complications. But Annabel Kitzhaber, a former state president of the League of Women Voters, chose to die in her Eugene home in 2005 rather than spend her remaining time in hospitals. She was 88.
"Medicare would not pay $18 an hour for a non-hospice care worker to help her stay in her home," Kitzhaber said. "My point is that the current reimbursement rate of Medicare encourages us to seek acute-care intervention that will not be a cure in these situations."
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
Statesman Journal
April 10, 2007
Oregon's share of federal Medicare money will be excluded, at least for now, from an effort to reshape Oregon's health-care system and extend coverage to about 600,000 people.
Committee leaders decided against seeking federal permission to include Oregon's share of Medicare, the federal program of health insurance for people age 65 and older, as part of a pooling of several sources of money into an Oregon Health Fund. Including Medicare would require an act of Congress, not just a waiver of rules by a federal agency.
"While Medicare is important, a more important consideration to us is getting a financial reimbursement rate that brings use at least to the national average," Sen. Ben Westlund, D-Tumalo, the committee co-chairman, said in an earlier interview.
Reimbursement rates for Medicare providers in Oregon rank at the bottom of the states.
Westlund said an increase to the national average would produce another $1.5 billion annually on top of the estimated $6 billion spent on health care in Oregon.
The legislation would not actually extend coverage to people without it, at least for a couple of years.
It would set up a seven-member board, which would determine basic benefits for Oregonians, better ways of delivering services, a pool of money to pay for them, and other details. It would maintain a mixed public-private system.
The board's work would be submitted to the 2009 Legislature.
"Health care in Oregon is like two people in a boat rowing in opposite directions, and we're not getting anywhere," said Bates, a physician and the other co-chairman. "We have the opportunity to pull together and get the boat moving forward."
AARP Oregon, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, raised concerns about including Medicare money in any state pool.
But AARP never said so in testimony on his own proposal, Kitzhaber said, and he has never had a chance to offer amendments that might allay those concerns.
Kitzhaber, also a physician, spoke Monday after a luncheon appearance before the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce.
Omission of Medicare, he said, "would leave a flawed process that excludes a discussion of the very program on which more and more Americans are going to depend on, even as it moves the health-care system toward its final collapse."
Medicare is projected to run out of money by 2018, just a few years after the first of the post-World War II baby boomers start qualifying for coverage.
Kitzhaber was the chief author of the 1989 plan that transformed a traditional Medicaid program into a broader Oregon Health Plan offering basic services to all people under the federal poverty level.
While the priority-setting process for services worked, Kitzhaber said in his speech, the original plan itself was not broad enough to deal with rising costs.
During the speech, which largely focused on the need for change, Kitzhaber gave a personal example of how the system can save money without sacrificing essential services.
He said Medicare would have paid for lab tests and hospital stays for his mother in the final months of her life, when she was suffering from congestive heart failure and other complications. But Annabel Kitzhaber, a former state president of the League of Women Voters, chose to die in her Eugene home in 2005 rather than spend her remaining time in hospitals. She was 88.
"Medicare would not pay $18 an hour for a non-hospice care worker to help her stay in her home," Kitzhaber said. "My point is that the current reimbursement rate of Medicare encourages us to seek acute-care intervention that will not be a cure in these situations."
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sun. April 8, 2007
1. Judge acts to deliver aid as well as justice
2. Police chief an asset to Salem
3. Another View: on the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade
4. Returning military members deserve better
5. Bill would expand time limit on medication lawsuit
6. Meaning of Easter doesn't fit in one basket
To peruse these Most Recommended Stories or the complete version of the articles which I have posted please use the internet link provided in the "Links" section of this blog. Thank you.
With this week’s chapter dealing with “urban displacement”, I thought that the possible home foreclosures of several million Americans to be relevant. I first became aware of “sub prime” lending practices by mortgage companies about six months ago, but very little has been mentioned in the news. You would think that the potential displacement of millions of families across America would be more newsworthy but apparently not.
As the article below states, last year “one in every 92 households” in America was foreclosed on. This number will most certainly increase in the very near future as 20 of the 25 major sub prime lenders in America have closed their doors. One article I read in my research named El Paso as the number one city in America where lenders used this form of mortgaging. These companies took advantage of the lack of knowledge that these working families had in regards to financing. The big winner here will be the banks that foreclose on these property loans. They will benefit not only from any increase in property value but any decrease in what is owed on the property through mortgage payments. This is just another example of how these financial institutions can control the housing market and displace the working class while increasing their profits.
I noticed that Sen. Sherwood of Oregon stated that it’s not the states role to “protect people from being stupid”. While this may be true, it is the state’s role to combat business practices that destroy his constituent’s lives! I hope that voters take notice of his comments and end his political career next election time! The other article on “Measure 37” deals with an issue that I have covered in earlier postings. Eminent domain backing politicians must make sure that just compensation is made by any real estate developers if they force people to move from their property. The rally mentioned in the article is being made to make this point. Too often across America, we have seen the government side with big business against our fellow citizens. These politicians need to be held accountable for their actions. No one should be forced from their land to make way for a new “Wal-Mart”, etc. There is a reason for the amendments to the constitution and this is one of them. The pursuit of happiness directly correlates to obtaining the “American Dream” which usually includes a piece of land. As major corporations continue to increase their stranglehold of power across America, I believe that the slumbering “Silent Majority” may soon wake up to this fact and remain silent no longer.
Well at least I can hope! Sincerely, Mark.
Sun. April 8, 2007
1. Judge acts to deliver aid as well as justice
2. Police chief an asset to Salem
3. Another View: on the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade
4. Returning military members deserve better
5. Bill would expand time limit on medication lawsuit
6. Meaning of Easter doesn't fit in one basket
To peruse these Most Recommended Stories or the complete version of the articles which I have posted please use the internet link provided in the "Links" section of this blog. Thank you.
With this week’s chapter dealing with “urban displacement”, I thought that the possible home foreclosures of several million Americans to be relevant. I first became aware of “sub prime” lending practices by mortgage companies about six months ago, but very little has been mentioned in the news. You would think that the potential displacement of millions of families across America would be more newsworthy but apparently not.
As the article below states, last year “one in every 92 households” in America was foreclosed on. This number will most certainly increase in the very near future as 20 of the 25 major sub prime lenders in America have closed their doors. One article I read in my research named El Paso as the number one city in America where lenders used this form of mortgaging. These companies took advantage of the lack of knowledge that these working families had in regards to financing. The big winner here will be the banks that foreclose on these property loans. They will benefit not only from any increase in property value but any decrease in what is owed on the property through mortgage payments. This is just another example of how these financial institutions can control the housing market and displace the working class while increasing their profits.
I noticed that Sen. Sherwood of Oregon stated that it’s not the states role to “protect people from being stupid”. While this may be true, it is the state’s role to combat business practices that destroy his constituent’s lives! I hope that voters take notice of his comments and end his political career next election time! The other article on “Measure 37” deals with an issue that I have covered in earlier postings. Eminent domain backing politicians must make sure that just compensation is made by any real estate developers if they force people to move from their property. The rally mentioned in the article is being made to make this point. Too often across America, we have seen the government side with big business against our fellow citizens. These politicians need to be held accountable for their actions. No one should be forced from their land to make way for a new “Wal-Mart”, etc. There is a reason for the amendments to the constitution and this is one of them. The pursuit of happiness directly correlates to obtaining the “American Dream” which usually includes a piece of land. As major corporations continue to increase their stranglehold of power across America, I believe that the slumbering “Silent Majority” may soon wake up to this fact and remain silent no longer.
Well at least I can hope! Sincerely, Mark.
Senate Looks for Ways to Protect Home-Loan Borrowers
STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
April 5, 2007
Foreclosures among Oregon homeowners increased 40 percent last year. Many blame the rise of "subprime" lenders, who entice buyers who have weak credit and charge them stiff terms.
Now that many subprime lenders are going belly-up and causing jitters on Wall Street, housing advocates decided the time was ripe to seek new consumer protections for would-be customers.
On Wednesday, the Senate Business Committee rolled out Senate Bill 965, which would enact new safeguards for home buyers against so-called "predatory lending."
Sandy Halonen, who runs a low-income housing group in Eugene, said low-income people often are naive about financial matters.
"They can be convinced to take out a mortgage where they really have no money left over to buy food," said Halonen, the executive director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Corp.
Nearly one-third of all Oregon mortgages issued in 2005 required interest-only payments, according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy. Those buyers are banking on rising property values to boost equity in their homes.
Many people are taking out negative-amortization loans, in which their loan principal grows rather than shrinks with each payment.
Senate Bill 965 extends consumer protections for so-called High Cost Home Loans. In today's market, that would be those charging 12 percent to 14 percent interest.
The bill would bar negative-amortization loans and require clear notices about terms of the loans. Borrowers would be steered to financial counselors before taking out loans. The bill is modeled on laws passed in New Mexico and other states.
One out of every 152 Oregon households was slapped with a foreclosure notice last year, Streisinger said, a 40 percent increase from 2005. The national rate was one in every 92 households.
Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood, panned the bill. "If someone is being deceptive, I'm with you," George said. But it's not the state's role to "protect people from being stupid," he said.
slaw@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6615
Statesman Journal
April 5, 2007
Foreclosures among Oregon homeowners increased 40 percent last year. Many blame the rise of "subprime" lenders, who entice buyers who have weak credit and charge them stiff terms.
Now that many subprime lenders are going belly-up and causing jitters on Wall Street, housing advocates decided the time was ripe to seek new consumer protections for would-be customers.
On Wednesday, the Senate Business Committee rolled out Senate Bill 965, which would enact new safeguards for home buyers against so-called "predatory lending."
Sandy Halonen, who runs a low-income housing group in Eugene, said low-income people often are naive about financial matters.
"They can be convinced to take out a mortgage where they really have no money left over to buy food," said Halonen, the executive director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Corp.
Nearly one-third of all Oregon mortgages issued in 2005 required interest-only payments, according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy. Those buyers are banking on rising property values to boost equity in their homes.
Many people are taking out negative-amortization loans, in which their loan principal grows rather than shrinks with each payment.
Senate Bill 965 extends consumer protections for so-called High Cost Home Loans. In today's market, that would be those charging 12 percent to 14 percent interest.
The bill would bar negative-amortization loans and require clear notices about terms of the loans. Borrowers would be steered to financial counselors before taking out loans. The bill is modeled on laws passed in New Mexico and other states.
One out of every 152 Oregon households was slapped with a foreclosure notice last year, Streisinger said, a 40 percent increase from 2005. The national rate was one in every 92 households.
Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood, panned the bill. "If someone is being deceptive, I'm with you," George said. But it's not the state's role to "protect people from being stupid," he said.
slaw@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6615
Rally Recognizes Children Who Have Been Abused, Neglected
BY RUTH LIAO
Statesman Journal
April 4, 2007
It took one encounter with a volunteer to help Pamela Butler, who was shuttled around in foster care since she was 7 years old.
Butler, who described members of the state system as overworked and underpaid, was 15 years old when she met a court-appointed special advocate, or CASA.
"I wasn't looking forward to repeating my life story for someone who wouldn't be there for more than two weeks," Butler said. "But I was wrong."
Now a college senior at the University of Oregon, Butler is on track to graduate with degrees in Spanish and business. Butler credited the foster-care support network for her turnaround.
Cordoned off by yellow police tape near the Capitol entrance were 18 baby seats, toddler chairs and rocking chairs. Each represented a child who died as a result of abuse or neglect in Oregon in 2005. In Marion and Polk counties, 1,808 confirmed victims of child abuse were reported in 2005, enough children to fill 32 school buses.
Marion County Circuit Court Judge Pamela Abernethy, who oversees the juvenile services and foster-care system, also spoke at Tuesday's rally.
Nurturing a healthy relationship between a parent and a child is crucial for early childhood development, Abernethy said. She held up her right hand in a fist.
"It's like a hand born without fingers," she said. "The physical architecture of the brain depends on that relationship.
Northeast Salem resident Nancy Boaz held her grandson Jayson during the rally. She said her daughter Melissa receives services through Healthy Start, and encouraged the rest of her family to attend. Boaz said reporting child abuse should be a responsibility for every adult and other children who know or hear about it.
"A lot of kids are neglected and people don't even help," Boaz said.
rliao@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6941
Statesman Journal
April 4, 2007
It took one encounter with a volunteer to help Pamela Butler, who was shuttled around in foster care since she was 7 years old.
Butler, who described members of the state system as overworked and underpaid, was 15 years old when she met a court-appointed special advocate, or CASA.
"I wasn't looking forward to repeating my life story for someone who wouldn't be there for more than two weeks," Butler said. "But I was wrong."
Now a college senior at the University of Oregon, Butler is on track to graduate with degrees in Spanish and business. Butler credited the foster-care support network for her turnaround.
Cordoned off by yellow police tape near the Capitol entrance were 18 baby seats, toddler chairs and rocking chairs. Each represented a child who died as a result of abuse or neglect in Oregon in 2005. In Marion and Polk counties, 1,808 confirmed victims of child abuse were reported in 2005, enough children to fill 32 school buses.
Marion County Circuit Court Judge Pamela Abernethy, who oversees the juvenile services and foster-care system, also spoke at Tuesday's rally.
Nurturing a healthy relationship between a parent and a child is crucial for early childhood development, Abernethy said. She held up her right hand in a fist.
"It's like a hand born without fingers," she said. "The physical architecture of the brain depends on that relationship.
Northeast Salem resident Nancy Boaz held her grandson Jayson during the rally. She said her daughter Melissa receives services through Healthy Start, and encouraged the rest of her family to attend. Boaz said reporting child abuse should be a responsibility for every adult and other children who know or hear about it.
"A lot of kids are neglected and people don't even help," Boaz said.
rliao@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 589-6941
Changes to "Double Majority" Tax-Measure Pass House
The Associated Press
April 6, 2007
Oregonians would get to vote on amending the state's "double majority" requirements for tax measures, under a resolution that passed the House on Thursday on a 46-11 vote and is headed to the Senate.
The double majority was added to the Oregon Constitution in 1996. Measures to raise property taxes need not just a majority vote, but also voter turnout of at least 50 percent of registered voters.
If turnout falls below that threshold, the measure fails.
The proposed fix would eliminate the double majority requirement in elections held in May and November, which backers said would give school districts and local governments two fair shots each year at passing a tax measure on its merits.
House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, said the current system concentrates too much power in the hands of nonvoters, who have on occasion campaigned to persuade people not to vote, to tamp down turnout.
"The will of a majority of voters should carry the day," Hunt said.
Backers of the double majority call it a safeguard against allowing a minority of motivated voters to put a financial burden on an entire community. And they say it helps guard against "sneak attack" elections, when cities or school districts put a measure on the ballot with little warning.
Hunt and others said that since the advent of vote by mail, there's no such thing as a low-profile Oregon election.
If the resolution passes, it would be on the ballot in November 2008.
April 6, 2007
Oregonians would get to vote on amending the state's "double majority" requirements for tax measures, under a resolution that passed the House on Thursday on a 46-11 vote and is headed to the Senate.
The double majority was added to the Oregon Constitution in 1996. Measures to raise property taxes need not just a majority vote, but also voter turnout of at least 50 percent of registered voters.
If turnout falls below that threshold, the measure fails.
The proposed fix would eliminate the double majority requirement in elections held in May and November, which backers said would give school districts and local governments two fair shots each year at passing a tax measure on its merits.
House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, said the current system concentrates too much power in the hands of nonvoters, who have on occasion campaigned to persuade people not to vote, to tamp down turnout.
"The will of a majority of voters should carry the day," Hunt said.
Backers of the double majority call it a safeguard against allowing a minority of motivated voters to put a financial burden on an entire community. And they say it helps guard against "sneak attack" elections, when cities or school districts put a measure on the ballot with little warning.
Hunt and others said that since the advent of vote by mail, there's no such thing as a low-profile Oregon election.
If the resolution passes, it would be on the ballot in November 2008.
Supporters of "Measure 37" Hold Rally
April 7, 2007
Advocates of change to Oregon's property-compensation law, which voters passed in 2004 as Measure 37, will muster their supporters for a rally.
The rally will be from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. April 14 on the Capitol front steps.
Among the scheduled speakers are Rep. Greg Macpherson, D-Lake Oswego, the co-chairman of the joint legislative committee working on a bill to modify the ballot measure and the son of Hector Macpherson, a state senator from Albany who was the co-author of Oregon's land-use planning law in 1973.
Others include Mike Carrier, the natural-resource policy director for Gov. Ted Kulongoski; state Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, a member of the joint committee; Bob Stacey, the executive director of the land-use watchdog 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and several farmers.
Measure 37 requires governments to pay landowners or waive rules when those rules result in reduced property values.
-- Peter Wong
Advocates of change to Oregon's property-compensation law, which voters passed in 2004 as Measure 37, will muster their supporters for a rally.
The rally will be from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. April 14 on the Capitol front steps.
Among the scheduled speakers are Rep. Greg Macpherson, D-Lake Oswego, the co-chairman of the joint legislative committee working on a bill to modify the ballot measure and the son of Hector Macpherson, a state senator from Albany who was the co-author of Oregon's land-use planning law in 1973.
Others include Mike Carrier, the natural-resource policy director for Gov. Ted Kulongoski; state Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, a member of the joint committee; Bob Stacey, the executive director of the land-use watchdog 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and several farmers.
Measure 37 requires governments to pay landowners or waive rules when those rules result in reduced property values.
-- Peter Wong
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sun. April 1, 2007
1.Team works to aid victims of meth abuse
2.Leave schools for blind and deaf independent
3.Community colleges worth the investment
4.Part 1: Saigon and Mui Nei Beach, Vietnam
5.Keep trash from sullying state's natural beauty
6.Hispanic community leaders riled by fight title
To read these articles please click onto the link provided in the "Links" section of this blog.
There are two articles from this week’s news that I would like to comment about. First the article entitled “Americans want to see all illegal immigrants deported.” Obviously the person who wrote this editorial is not familiar with the services that are provided by many of these so called “illegal immigrants” here in the U.S. Not only is it logistically and economically next to impossible to achieve this goal it would create a major problem for many industrial and agricultural businesses. These undocumented workers provide cheap labor in the harvesting of crops and the garment industry to name just a few. This cheap labor, in turn directly reflects of the prices that we pay when we shop. If these people were deported we would see many necessary goods double or triple in cost virtually overnight. While I firmly believe that our boarders need to be protected from individuals crossing who seek to do us harm it should not be at the expense of hardworking immigrants who are only seeking a better way of life for themselves and their families. There needs to be a major immigration policy change that would enable migrant workers to provide these services and return to their country of origin without fear of reprisals. The second article entitled “Salem-based Sunwest faces suit by residents is also very troubling. The care that many of our elderly are receiving in some of these facilities is reprehensible at best. As the baby boomer generation nears retirement age there will be an unprecedented need for elderly care here in the U.S. I understand the need for profit by these businesses but to jeopardize the health and well being of this age cohort is unconscionable. I have worked in geriatrics in the past and the major reason for quitting my job was exactly what this article stated. I was responsible for the care of over 30 residents by myself and it is impossible for one person to provide to services required in an eight hour shift. I was expected to get these people ready for breakfast (bathed, shaved, dressed, etc.) in 45 minutes. Many were ambulatory and able to care for themselves, but the 10 or so that needed one on one care could not be properly attended to in the time frame allotted. Needless to say I did not last long at this facility. If these institutions cannot provide adequate staff now what will happen when the number of residents increases exponentially 20 years from now?
Sun. April 1, 2007
1.Team works to aid victims of meth abuse
2.Leave schools for blind and deaf independent
3.Community colleges worth the investment
4.Part 1: Saigon and Mui Nei Beach, Vietnam
5.Keep trash from sullying state's natural beauty
6.Hispanic community leaders riled by fight title
To read these articles please click onto the link provided in the "Links" section of this blog.
There are two articles from this week’s news that I would like to comment about. First the article entitled “Americans want to see all illegal immigrants deported.” Obviously the person who wrote this editorial is not familiar with the services that are provided by many of these so called “illegal immigrants” here in the U.S. Not only is it logistically and economically next to impossible to achieve this goal it would create a major problem for many industrial and agricultural businesses. These undocumented workers provide cheap labor in the harvesting of crops and the garment industry to name just a few. This cheap labor, in turn directly reflects of the prices that we pay when we shop. If these people were deported we would see many necessary goods double or triple in cost virtually overnight. While I firmly believe that our boarders need to be protected from individuals crossing who seek to do us harm it should not be at the expense of hardworking immigrants who are only seeking a better way of life for themselves and their families. There needs to be a major immigration policy change that would enable migrant workers to provide these services and return to their country of origin without fear of reprisals. The second article entitled “Salem-based Sunwest faces suit by residents is also very troubling. The care that many of our elderly are receiving in some of these facilities is reprehensible at best. As the baby boomer generation nears retirement age there will be an unprecedented need for elderly care here in the U.S. I understand the need for profit by these businesses but to jeopardize the health and well being of this age cohort is unconscionable. I have worked in geriatrics in the past and the major reason for quitting my job was exactly what this article stated. I was responsible for the care of over 30 residents by myself and it is impossible for one person to provide to services required in an eight hour shift. I was expected to get these people ready for breakfast (bathed, shaved, dressed, etc.) in 45 minutes. Many were ambulatory and able to care for themselves, but the 10 or so that needed one on one care could not be properly attended to in the time frame allotted. Needless to say I did not last long at this facility. If these institutions cannot provide adequate staff now what will happen when the number of residents increases exponentially 20 years from now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)