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
Saturday, April 21, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)