Discussion on Land Use Law in Clatsop County

Opinion

NorthCoastOregon August 29, 2008

These comments on land use law needed their own spot. Carry on. They are removed from the story on energy (unless they relate to it). If you think your comment was pertinent to the Kulongoski summit leads to OPEC article, please repost it there. Please be considerate of the request to keep comments on the topic of articles. You have an opinion corner to post to post opinions as well as a virtually unmoderated forum loosely associated with this site. Many options to express your opinions, with very few rules you are asked, politely, to abide by.

On Aug 28, 5:03 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
A “Variance” you call it Commissioner?
An amendment to the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan and The Land and Water Use amd Development Ordinance is called a “variamce”?
Explain this for us Commissioner Samuelson since you wish to dispell all the disparity of factual information.
I would certainly like to be accurately informed prior to marking my ballot.
For your convenience, the wording in ammendment 08-05 is below.
LWDUO – Section 3.586-5 – Provisions of LWDUO are amended to list, “Cable, Sewerline, Waterline or other Pipeline” as a Conditional Use in the OPR Zone as described in Section – 6.
LWDUO – Section 3.586-6 – LWDUO 3.586(10) is amended to state; “10. Cable, Sewerline, Waterline, or other Pipeline” and the current LWDUO 3.586(10) is made LWDUO 3.586(11)

*********
On Aug 28, 8:14 PM, read the whole of it wrote:
First of all, according to LWDUO a variance is “A grant of relief to a person from the requirements of this ordinance in a manner
that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance.” Samuelson voted on a variance. If the person is unable to obtain a conditional use permit, they cannot put a pipeline in.
08-05 Section 5 Provisions of the LWDUO are amended to list “cable, sewerline, waterline, or other pipeline” as a conditional use in OPR zone, as described in Section 6.
Section 6. LWDUO 3.586(10) is amended to state “10. cable, sewerline, waterline or other pipeline” and the current LWSUO 3.586(10) is made LWDUO 3.586(11)
Section 7. In support of this ordinance, the Board adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law as indicated in Exhibit A.
On Aug 28, 8:15 PM, read the whole of it wrote:
http://clatsopcounty.us/Assets/Dept_12/PDF/032008%20Findings%20exhibit%20A%20final.pdf
Exhibit A pg.241 (pg 249 in the adobe page finder as it counts the preface pages numerically)
We therefore conclude that the text of the OPR Zone should be revised to state that pipelines will be conditionally allowed, and we conclude that this amendment to the text of the OPR Zone is consistent with the County’s plan, with all applicable statewide planning goals, with the purpose of the OPR Zone, and with L2.330. 24.4 Board Action: APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT AS A CONDITIONAL, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, USE AND PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITION THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED. We approve the proposed text amendment adding the words “10. cable, sewerline, waterline or other pipeline” to L3.586, conditional uses in the OPR Zone and make the current L3.586(10), L3.586(11).
The applicant shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit prior to constructing the pipeline in the OPR Zone.
On Aug 28, 8:37 PM, read the whole of it wrote:
You cannot take this thing piecemeal, as you are want to do. Section 6 must be read with Sections 5 & 7.
LWDUO 3.586 is Conditional Development and Use on OPR zoned land. Bradwood asked that the wording be placed under 3.584 development and use permitted.
You state that it has no qualifying language. The following LWDUO 3.588 Conditional Use and Development Criteria holds the qualifying language you desperately seek:
The following limitations and requirements shall apply to conditional developments:
The proposed development shall be consistent with the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan.
The development shall be compatible with and appropriate to the natural resources and features, recreational characteristics and current predominant land use of the area for which it is proposed.
In no event shall the proposed development destroy or endanger the natural and recreational resources giving value to the area.
On Aug 28, 8:38 PM, read the whole of it wrote:
The proposed development shall include adequate measures to reduce fire hazards and prevent the spread of fire to surrounding areas.
The location of buildings, signs, parking, recreation areas and open space shall be compatible with adjacent areas and the natural scenic amenities of the locality.

*********
On Aug 28, 9:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
I’d like to hear Ms. samuelson’s justification for her vote please.

*********
On Aug 28, 10:06 PM, Peg Browning wrote:
Your hatred of the commissioner is well known and your refusal to sit down with her and discuss this, or any matter, as she has offered to do with you on various forums over the years, has shown that no matter what she says to answer you, you will attack her. Call her up, write her an email or finally meet her for coffee if you are truly courageous and want answers to your questions rather than this weird obsession you seem to go through periodically. Do you ever meet the people you harass or do you just poke them constantly online and avoid them in real life?

*********
On Aug 28, 10:14 PM, enough already wrote:
another thread digresses down mcgee obsession lane.

*********
On Aug 28, 10:26 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Im don’t hate anybody on any commission Peg Browing, Ms. Samuelson, since she chooses to be critical of those “Constituents” who do not agree or share the same viewpoint as hers on this rerefendun 4-131 and as one of those charged with doing our “Public Business”, owes it to all of us an explanation specifically, as to why she voted the way she did.
She says there is a lack of factual information the voters are receiving that may impact their vote on the referendum and “Scare Tactics”?
I say she needs to step forward and explain herself.

*********
On Aug 28, 10:28 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:14 PM, enough already wrote:
another thread digresses down mcgee obsession lane.
Sorry, not this time.

*********
On Aug 28, 10:28 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Amen “enough already”
Patrick-I’m tired of you quoting the LWDUO constantly, making it look like it’s the 10 Commandments, in other words, set in stone. It is a guideline, plain and simple, subject to change via a VARIANCE…a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. What the Commissioners approved was NOT a change to the law itself, as the anti-pipeline people wish everyone to believe, just a permit based on the applicants request. (Over private property I’d add!)
We elect these people to hear and vote, on a CASE BY CASE basis, land use issues…that is all this was, and personally, through the process that took almost a year, they did an exemplary job! They posed condition after condition on the 25+ land use issues before them regarding the Bradwood project.
If you had attended all of the hearings, you might have already known what led the Commissioners to approve this. But you didn’t, so I don’t think Ms. Samuelson owes you an explanation of what led them to approve it.

*********
On Aug 28, 11:13 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Actually, Ann and the BOCCC did not vote on a variance but an amendment to the ordinance of land use & developmental planning in Clatsop County.
It should be provisionally modified even further to outline specific conditions for high pressure pipelines, sewerlines, waterlines, and large diameter cables in OPR zone. Where there is a comprehensive detailed condition criteria outlined and defined. Such as what is “high pressure” for context purpose and large diameter. An external document can be lawfully referenced and made into a applicable “law” or “regulation” as conditions. Including provisions that these are NEVER located in “parks” and “recreation areas” used by public and be restricted zones and noted signs placed.
On Aug 28, 11:23 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Patrick: FYI: Zoning laws are always and constantly amended. Even in Astoria. Get it?
It reflects society and what they feel as acceptable and that varies.
If we are being so governing over everything the County Commissioners and Planning Commission does then WTF have a BOCC and Planning Commission? You want every single project proposed be brought before the public to vote and decide every conditional use permitting?
We are a Republic not a pure democracy. We have a represenative government to deal with day to day. So what do you want? All amendments to county law, ordinances, policy, procedure, and regulations be governed by ballot vote? Then the BOCC would be nothing more then a budget commitee and you want us to vote for the budget, too. Come on. It will blow the cost of these operations by the magnitude of 1000s of times.
On Aug 28, 11:33 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Ann Samuleson:
If I’m mistaken about this being an amendment to the zoning law itself in the document to add pipelines, ect. as a conditional use from being non-existant. If the board did not make a vote to make an amendment to the zoning laws for OPR zone properties then can you explain it to me?
I’m not personally critical of the BOCC. I’ll be willing to meet with you f2f (face to face) in Astoria if you like to explain it that way.
You can also explain it here or to my email address.
Thank You.
email: rickbalkins(at)gmail(dot)com
replace (at) with @
replace (dot) with the period —-> .

*********
On Aug 29, 7:58 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Commissioner Samuelson has chosen to publicly crticize those citizens who do not share her view as liars, fear mongers and misinformation mongers.
Rick, a smart politician will always want a foe to “Have Coffee” in a private face to face to keep themselves from, as this site is famous for, being accountable to all they serve on an issue.
You’re smart enough to know this Amendment 08-05 is no variance for an individual project, it’s a change to CCComprehensive Plan and LWUDO, no matter how it’s spun and has become Item #11 of 3.586 of LWUDO and will impact all other OPR zoned properties in Clatsop County and she certainly owes us, now, her justification of why she voted the way she did.
I invite her to come here, face all her constituents and explain herself and convince us of how it is simply a “Variance”
On Aug 29, 8:02 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Maybe Samuelson, through County Counsel Andy Jordan, can offer us a swallowable explanation on this Zoning/Comprehensive Plan change.

*********
On Aug 29, 9:36 AM, Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:
Patrick McGee wrote:
I invite her to come here, face all her constituents
1. This isnt your forum to invite anyone to.
2. All her constituents aren’t here.
3. You couldnt be more self absorbed even if you were made of equal parts of water and paper towels.

*********
On Aug 29, 9:51 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:36 AM, Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:
Patrick McGee wrote:
I invite her to come here, face all her constituents
1. This isnt your forum to invite anyone to.
2. All her constituents aren’t here.
3. You couldnt be more self absorbed even if you were made of equal parts of water and paper towels.
She is an elected member of the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners and acoountable to and judged in her actions by all of us in the end.
She tends to infer sometimes an immunity to that fact.

*********
On Aug 29, 10:37 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:
One of the important facts that the Governor called to the attention of the summit attendees was even if there were enough energy sources generating capacity to meet the future demand for electricity – Oregonians need to invest in a transmission infrastructure to move that electricity from where it is generated to where it is distributed. In Clatsop County ballot measure 4-131 is about the transmission of energy.
On Aug 29, 10:39 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:
Proponents of measure 4-131 want to allow conditional use permits for energy cables and pipelines through remote and seldom used areas of Clatsop County. Opponents of the measure want to block it, in the hopes it will forestall an LNG terminal from being built in the area. Mark Dodson, with NW Natural explained that if the measure is defeated Clatsop County will not have a way for new transmission lines of energy to be placed. “If we can’t build pipelines, we’re in trouble,” Dodson stated, “we only have one line into Clatsop County at this time and there won’t be a way to increase capacity if we can’t put in more.”
On Aug 29, 10:40 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:
The above 2 post say’s it all, taken from the above story.
Thanks Carrie

*********
On Aug 29, 10:51 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Nothing wrong with pipelines but, its the property they go through that is worrysome and an acute mismatch of an ordinace in accord with the intended use of a property is wrong no matter how the industry tries to spin it.
Get the property rezoned to an apprropriate use if you don’t want your deal all squirreled up Swede.
If BOCC can bastardize OPR zoning they can sure add an appropriate zoning to grease those skids for you and NSNG on that piece of property.
On Aug 29, 12:32 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:37 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:
One of the important facts that the Governor called to the attention of the summit attendees was even if there were enough energy sources generating capacity to meet the future demand for electricity – Oregonians need to invest in a transmission infrastructure to move that electricity from where it is generated to where it is distributed. In Clatsop County ballot measure 4-131 is about the transmission of energy.
It’s about the transmission of Natural Gas in a 36” dia., High Pressure Pipeline buried 3 feet below grade through a property zoned OPR Swede, approved by the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners by amendment to the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development and Water Use Ordinance(LWDUO) on the advice of Northern Star Natural Gas.
On Aug 29, 12:37 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:39 AM, Emil E. “Swede” Nyberg wrote:
Proponents of measure 4-131 want to allow conditional use permits for energy cables and pipelines through remote and seldom used areas of Clatsop County. Opponents of the measure want to block it, in the hopes it will forestall an LNG terminal from being built in the area. Mark Dodson, with NW Natural explained that if the measure is defeated Clatsop County will not have a way for new transmission lines of energy to be placed. “If we can’t build pipelines, we’re in trouble,” Dodson stated, “we only have one line into Clatsop County at this time and there won’t be a way to increase capacity if we can’t put in more.”
Mark Dodson?
Northwest Natural Gas?
Well, what the hell would you expect him to say?
I would even venture NWNG is on the Bradwood Landing short list od Terminal Use Clients.
Come on Swede!!!!

*********
On Aug 29, 12:48 PM, Ginger wrote:
Phase 1 leads to phase 2 and so on…Why was NW Natural drilling up Sager Creek and on Hwy 202 at mp37? Is this prep work for phase 2 to Mololla?
On Aug 29, 2:56 PM, OregonGuy wrote:
“Nothing wrong with pipelines but, its the property they go through that is worrysome and an acute mismatch of an ordinace in accord with the intended use of a property is wrong no matter how the industry tries to spin it.”—Patrick McGee, August 29, 2008, “Comments 10:51”
Well said. There is nothing wrong with pipelines. Nothing at all.
Welcome to the 20th Century. Now, try to keep up with the rest of the group.

*********
On Aug 29, 3:19 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 29, 2:56 PM, OregonGuy wrote:
“Nothing wrong with pipelines but, its the property they go through that is worrysome and an acute mismatch of an ordinace in accord with the intended use of a property is wrong no matter how the industry tries to spin it.”—Patrick McGee, August 29, 2008, “Comments 10:51”
Well said. There is nothing wrong with pipelines. Nothing at all.
Welcome to the 20th Century. Now, try to keep up with the rest of the group.
Scratching for anything huh Tommy?
In context, pipelines do have their place, just like Natural Gas at the moment but, do we need LNG Speculators and Ultra-expensive terminals with accompanying pipelines and explosive tankers, which other supply technology will make outdated, likely before this proposed Bradwood project would be finished?
I think not but, that’s just me.

*********
On Aug 29, 4:23 PM, its all right there in black and white wrote:
CONDITIONAL use. Meaning that they would have to follow LWDUO 3.588 Conditional Use and Development Criteria in order to get a conditional permit to get ANY energy line placed:
The following limitations and requirements shall apply to conditional developments:
The proposed development shall be consistent with the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan.
The development shall be compatible with and appropriate to the natural resources and features, recreational characteristics and current predominant land use of the area for which it is proposed.
In no event shall the proposed development destroy or endanger the natural and recreational resources giving value to the area.
The proposed development shall include adequate measures to reduce fire hazards and prevent the spread of fire to surrounding areas.
The location of buildings, signs, parking, recreation areas and open space shall be compatible with adjacent areas and the natural scenic amenities of the locality.

*********
On Aug 29, 4:32 PM, Peg wrote:
There would be NO WAY for a “dangerous” power transmission line to pass through a park.
The ONLY reason the pipeline is passing through this “open space” is because of where it is located, on private property. It is consistent with the criteria of LWDUO 3.588.
PER NORM the fanatics don’t tell the WHOLE story.

*********
On Aug 29, 4:43 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick….
“explosive tankers” ??? If you can show me even ONE instance in the over 40 years of transporting LNG over the sea, where a tanker has EXPLODED, I’ll put a “no lng pipelines in parks” sign in my yard. I’m not too worried, cause IT’S NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!! Something like 400,000 ship transits in over 40 years, I’d rather ride an LNG tanker into town than drive my car, it’s safer.
On Aug 29, 4:46 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
I am really encouraged by the direction the State is going, finally getting serious about looking at EVERYTHING. My only concern, is that the acronym OPEC is already taken, by a rather ironic industry also! http://www.opec.org/home/

*********
On Aug 29, 5:00 PM, tommy aint playing today wrote:
Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw! McGee’s got his guys confused! Just like he has this ballot measure, and energy and pretty much everything else! Idiiiiooot!

*********
On Aug 29, 5:10 PM, Tina wrote:
4-131 is about the transmission of energy. That is the simplest and most forthright statement I have seen yet about this ballot measure. THANK-YOU!
When people have asked what this is ALL about, FINALLY there’s a way to explain it!
Are we going to allow narrow minded people to block the transmission of energy in Clatsop County? VOTE YES on 4-131, yes for renewable energy! Yes for JOBS, Yes for progress!

*********
On Aug 29, 5:39 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
I guess all us “Armchair Scholars” will have to wait on the LUBA ruling huh?

*********
On Aug 29, 6:19 PM, Oops! wrote:
I guess Us “Armchair Scholars” will have to wait till September 17th, huh?
Don’t think this will go to LUBA.

*********
On Aug 29, 6:21 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:00 PM, tommy aint playing today wrote:
Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw! McGee’s got his guys confused! Just like he has this ballot measure, and energy and pretty much everything else! Idiiiiooot!
Tommy’s always good for a laugh.
So much rhetoric for so little said.

*********
On Aug 29, 7:29 PM, Name (required) wrote:
McGee gets pwned….again.

*********
On Aug 29, 7:35 PM, Have A Great Labor Day Weekend! wrote:
Be safe but, have some fun.

*********
On Aug 29, 7:37 PM, McGee wrote:
On Aug 29, 7:29 PM, Name (required) wrote:
McGee gets pwned….again.
Even a blind rooster gets a kernel od cron every now and again.
Have a great Labor Day weekend will ya?
Be safe.

*********
On Aug 29, 8:02 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Ummmm Patrick? Let’s revisit the LUBA issue again, when LUBA does NOT turn the Bradwood Landing consolidated land use decision back to the County, shall we?
LUBA will find that due diligence was done on this decision – that our County Commissioners went above and beyond to pick it apart, set conditions, and ultimately approve it.
I know that LUBA is waiting to see how the referendum comes out, but even if it fails, I sincerely believe they will not kick it back to the County.
And of course, I’m doing all I can, every day, to help this referendum succeed – I cannot even tell you how many people I’ve turned around, from believing the opponents lies, to realizing this referendum is bogus and just wrong.
I neglected to comment that Patrick cannot answer my original question of: “If you can show me even ONE instance in the over 40 years of transporting LNG over the sea, where a tanker has EXPLODED, I’ll put a “no lng pipelines in parks” sign in my yard. I’m not too worried, cause IT’S NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!!”
He attempted to sideline it with “I guess all us “Armchair Scholars” will have to wait on the LUBA ruling huh?”
I thought that he’d be all over the challenge…apparently not, because he knows he cannot back it up. Tsk Tsk

48 Comments

On Aug 29, 8:24 PM, Another Astorian wrote:

On Aug 29, 8:17 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Apparently my last post didn’t post - I commented that yes, LUBA has the appeal on the Bradwood Land Use approval, and I sincerely feel that they will deny the applicants appeal, since they will see the intense work that went into the decision by the Planning Commission and County Commission...9 months worth of paperwork back and forth.

I’m sure they are waiting for the referendum, but I sincerly don’t think a negative outcome will affect their decision, as it’s blatantly obvious that the Commissions did their due dilegence and applied conditions that were needed.

And I believe the approval will prevail.

On Aug 29, 8:34 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

September 16, 2008 will clearly show whose lies prevail “AA”.

That’s for certain.

I really have nothing more to say on it.......I think.

On Aug 29, 8:35 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Thanks CB, for relocating this - there for awhile though, I thought I’d had some bad lasagne. Typed two posts, the first one disappeared, TWICE...but then I saw what you did here. Thanks for giving us a place to hash this out!

On Aug 29, 8:37 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Patrick, the decision on 9/16 will mean diddly-squat to me personally, and it won’t mean a thing to Bradwood. What it WILL mean, is that it’ll create a nightmare for people who own private property bordered by OPR land...that’s all, and that’s what I’ve been fighting all along.

On Aug 29, 8:42 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Patrick..your reference to “lies” struck a nerve.

Have you ever had a company that would be traded on the stock exchange? Obviously not (and I’d have been surprised if you had).

Northern Star and Bradwood Landing has, from the start, been held to a very high standard - because they have a pending IPO with the SEC.

If, once they’re ready to go and become a publicly traded company, the SEC determines that they have been untruthful? Or has bribed anyone?...then guess what...they don’t get to go public. There goes their construction money.

So all along - the opponents have been able to say whatever the hell they want...but Bradwood has had to be ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFUL, because their ability to BUILD THEIR PLANT depends on it. And you can bet their attorneys have kept an eye on this from day one, so nobody jeopardizes anything.

On Aug 29, 9:00 PM, energy crisis in Oregon wrote:

Actually, if the ballot measure is defeated in Sept. another will be done (maybe even in time for Nov) since the Governor was clear about transmission being a priority with suppliers, business, labor and environmentalists all in agreement that an infrastructure for transmission is of paramount importance.

Most conservationists and ecologists are cognizant that a bridge fuel is needed and realize that the East Coast and Southern States have the the upper hand in negotiating prices for gas, both US natural gas (with all but one pipeline from the Rockies going East) and imported LNG (with eight LNG terminals on the east coast and in the southern gulf and none on the the west coast). Oregon is in a very, very sorry state and a no vote on 4-131 shows how uneducated many in Clatsop County are about energy, overall.

On Aug 30, 1:37 PM, Billy Bob wrote:

PM, You are always inviteing Ann to come and speak before all of us! I know you would be a no-show because you don’t attend these things

On Aug 30, 3:07 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:37 PM, Billy Bob wrote:

PM, You are always inviteing Ann to come and speak before all of us! I know you would be a no-show because you don’t attend these things

Very astute observation but, what better venue that NCO for Commissioner Samuelson to address her constituents on issues that impact her service to the community.

On Aug 30, 8:30 PM, nemo wrote:

Patrick McGee wrote:

....but, what better venue that NCO for Commissioner Samuelson to address her constituents on issues that impact her service to the community.

You cant be serious.

She fulfills her obligation to the people by showing up at the regular meetings, doing the work and taking part in the official process. That IS the venue. An internet message board might be acceptable to some couch potato like you when it’s generally accepted that you’re a blithering wing nut. So, why would a county official waste time and energy engaging you and your ilk in such an unproductive manner and environment?

On Aug 30, 9:58 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick,

Bottom line: She would be more then willing to answer such questions but it is the habit that you “attack” and use everything that is said and “twist it” into an “attack” at the person. Degrading into uselessness and unproductive. So Ann doesn’t wish to waste her time being constantly scruitinize and having to answer every one of your questions. She has her duties in the office and makes her decision based on what facts are presented to her as any public official does and makes a judgement call. Knowing very well that ANY decision you make will make some happy and some angry because some folks takes things too seriously. You can’t please everyone.

If you agree then ok. If you disagree, then agree to disagree and be done with it, respectively. You seriously need to be in an seat of office to know what it is like. Now lets not get too deviated, ok?

On Aug 31, 8:51 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

So I ask you Rick, present those facts to us.

Where are the minutes of that meeting and decision.

It should be on the “Public Record”?

I challenge you to find any record of deliberation on that Comprehensive Plan and LWDUO Ordinance Change.

Of course I can ask for the documents in a Public Information Request But, I thought, since she has chosen to publicly criticize the referendum supporters as liars and fear mongers in her elected capacity as a Clatsop County Commissioner, she might on this venue take the opportunity to clarify herself.

On Aug 31, 9:23 AM, Name (not required) wrote:

, Patrick McGee wrote:

.. she has chosen to publicly criticize the referendum supporters as liars…

She aint just whistling Dixie there, Sport. They are liars for attempting to dupe the voters with their outrageously false claims.

On Aug 31, 9:28 AM, McWhatever wrote:

The Commissioner did not publicly critisize these people in her post, she complimented the truth of the article written, said she was concerned about the lack of accurate information people were getting on this referendum. It’s pretty obvious that the anti-lng crowd is not telling the truth, one does not even have to dig deep to discover that. If you knew her I doubt that you’d behave this way towards her. This should not be a venue for her to defend herself against you, same garbage different day from you McGee.

On Aug 31, 9:37 AM, McWhatever wrote:

Quite frankly, the last thing I would expect her, Samuelson, to do would be to speak up here or anywhere else to explain her criticism ot those she serves.

On Aug 31, 11:09 AM, Ted's friend wrote:

“"Commissioner Samuelson to address her constituents"” Those would be in district 2. I can’t recollect if PM is in 3 or 4. Riachl is in the book and sudden Sam is probably on his speed-dial. I’m sure his commissioner would be happy to fill him in, with everything they know. Seems like all the politicians are leaninig to Nat. gas now, 40% growth in the NW. How is solar and wind going to keep up with that. Seems like Ted K is facing up to reality. If we are truly concerned about being a green state, We need alot more natural gas, cheaper and better for the enviroment, compared to coal and oil based fuel. Vote YES 9 on 4-131

On Aug 31, 11:16 AM, Ted's friend wrote:

sorry forgot she’s in district 5

On Aug 31, 11:50 AM, McWhatever wrote:

On Aug 31, 11:09 AM, Ted’s friend wrote:

“"Commissioner Samuelson to address her constituents"”

One at a time for coffee perhaps or enmasse?

Let us know when.

Ought to be good entertainment.

On Aug 31, 1:18 PM, Give it up McGee wrote:

your obsession continues....how about get back on topic.

On Aug 31, 2:09 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick,

It’s not my responsibility to go out and dig up all this information for you. Much of this is going to cost a fee for the Public Information Request.

The point is, if you wish her to be more open to answering your questions then do the following:

1> Be respectful to her Right to free speech and vote.
2> Respect the other readers.
3> Stop “attacking” people.

In other words, Comissioners have a right to make a decision and if you disagree with it then fine. Vote No on the referendum and be done with it. For me, the decision of the BOCC seems reasonable but less then ideal but that is why it can be amended again with improved language.

On Aug 31, 2:16 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

A no vote puts a precedent which is considerably damaging. The political stigma would make it uncomfortable to ever amend the ordinance in the future. What if the people disagree?

In other words, what this whole referendum stands for and the “no” vote, politically is that “We don’t trust the BOCC to make decisions on behalf of the public in any matters especially in zoning ordinances and proposed amendments and that the BOCC should not be authorized to make such amendments”.

It is a foot in the door to one political group stripping the BOCC of any power of representation. Destroying the whole republican system of government. (And no, I’m not talking about the political party)

On Aug 31, 3:04 PM, Jon Dana wrote:

BINGO, about time you quit dancing around the truth. It’s all political, nothings changed for the last year and a half. Until the truth becomes more important than being right or winning, the future doesn’t look much brighter.

On Aug 31, 4:28 PM, don't you notice the double standards? wrote:

Always two sets of rules for McGee and his ilk. One year ago he was challenging people to “call Marquis” and “talk to him face to face” and in May he was ranting at people to talk “face to face” with Rohn, if they didn’t agree with him. Yet, he doesn’t have the courage to take his own counsel, while calling everyone else cowards. These type of people are rampant in the anti-LNG faction. Two sets of rules. You can see it in how they call out “foul” on Bradwood, accusing a corporation of not following rules that apply to PACs yet lying to donators, telling them their donations will be matched. They yell that Bradwood’s being backed by “speculators” who are taking all of their money away from the area, yet they take donations from local people and shun local businesses to buy their signs, pamphlets and business cards from out of state! Double standards are the earmark of McGee and his “ilk.”

On Aug 31, 4:40 PM, the amendment shows BOCC as foreward, progressive wrote:

In March 2008 Clatsop County’s Board of County Commissioner’s amended their Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance to allow conditional use permits for the purpose of the transmission of energy through OPR zoned lands.

This enabled privately-owned, for-profit entities, as well as special districts, and non-profit corporations to apply for conditional use permits for energy & technology cables and pipelines through areas zoned OPR, which met the conditional use guidelines:

The following limitations and requirements shall apply to conditional developments:

The proposed development shall be consistent with the Clatsop County Comprehensive Plan.

The development shall be compatible with and appropriate to the natural resources and features, recreational characteristics and current predominant land use of the area for which it is proposed.

In no event shall the proposed development destroy or endanger the natural and recreational resources giving value to the area.

On Aug 31, 4:42 PM, the amendment shows BOCC as progressive thinking wrote:

The location of buildings, signs, parking, recreation areas and open space shall be compatible with adjacent areas and the natural scenic amenities of the locality.

The following standards are applicable to permitted and conditional developments in this zone:

Setbacks. No structures shall be placed closer than 100 feet to perennial streams, lakes or other water bodies or closer than 60 feet to arterials, collectors or public roads and highways or closer than 20 feet to other roads and property lines.

Utility Services. All utility services, including power and telephone, shall be installed underground where physical conditions permit.

Building Height. Maximum height for all structures shall be 35 feet or the maximum height allowed in an adjacent zone that has a lower maximum height standard.

On Aug 31, 4:45 PM, the amendment shows BOCC as progressive thinking wrote:

Area and Lot Size. The minimum area and lot size shall be that determined to be necessary for the protection of health and natural resources.

An accessory structure separated from the main building shall be located in accordance with yard setback requirements.

If any state or federal permit is required for a development or use, an applicant, prior to issuance of a development permit or action, shall submit to the Planning Department a copy of the state or federal permit.

Measure 4-131 endorses the amendment to the land use law.

If 4-131 is defeated, not only it show that most people in Clatsop County have little idea what the Board of County Commissioners is supposed to do as a quasi-judicial body, energy transmission in Clatsop County will be crippled.

On Aug 31, 5:26 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

The opponents created a monster with this - they’ve even got people going door to door for crying out loud. People who don’t care (which is a WHOLE bunch), will believe every word they say, decrying that “OMG, we can’t allow them to put a pipeline thru a park!” I don’t know if we’re reaching enough people with the truth, I can only hope. I thought the informational flier that came in last weeks mail was good, but so many people won’t even read it. I am sincerely concerned that this referendum will pass, and can see the nightmares ahead if it does.

On Aug 31, 5:32 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 31, 4:28 PM, don’t you notice the double standards? wrote:

Always two sets of rules for McGee and his ilk. Yet, he doesn’t have the courage to take his own counsel, while calling everyone else cowards. These type of people are rampant in the anti-LNG faction. Two sets of rules. You can see it in how they call out “foul” on Bradwood, accusing a corporation of not following rules that apply to PACs yet lying to donators, telling them their donations will be matched. They yell that Bradwood’s being backed by “speculators”, yet they take donations from local people and shun local businesses to buy their signs, pamphlets and business cards from out of state! Double standards are the earmark of McGee and his “ilk.”

McGee and his ilk as you say?

Well, that would be the majority of the citizens of Clatsop County wouldn’t it, especially if you are using this site as a model of how the citizens of Clatsop County think.

How quickly you forget.

On Aug 31, 5:41 PM, don't you notice the double standards? wrote:

No, i don’t read anyone else posting here calling people cowards for not doing something they themselves don’t have the courage to do. But there you go, again, pointing your finger at everyone else instead of just stepping up to the plate.

On Aug 31, 5:47 PM, SeaWolf wrote:

did anyone see that goofy demonstration they held downtown on thursday(?), who were those people? they were all waving signs around and smiling like a bunch of cultists at an orgy. most of’em were middle aged women- but if they are local I sure as hell dont know them- and I’ve been here 60 years and know a lot of people. I guess it’s mostly the new people from California and other various and assorted trustafarian dingbats aka “artists”

jeez, you get the impression that they think they own the Columbia River and have the right to control it

On Aug 31, 5:55 PM, the amendment shows BOCC as progressive thinking wrote:

Oregon Department of Energy has FUNDS for energy projects that are feasible. Feasibility has a determining factor of TRANSMISSION. Renewable energy is expensive to start out. The project is built from scratch. Businesses in the renewable energy industry rely heavily on government grants and subsidies. A land use law which PROHIBITS the transmission of energy, no matter how remote the land, will FREEZE the project from happening.

When what is needed is a narrow corridor down a strip of remote land, zoned OPR, for an energy cable, it is ridiculous to assume that the lengthy process entailed by rezoning (which could add an additional year to the project’s timeline) is a timely or best use practice of the land.

Opponents of 4-131 have shot themselves in the foot with this one. NO renewable energy firm will look at Clatsop County with land use laws that prohibit the placement of energy transmission cables or pipelines.

On Aug 31, 5:59 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

“Well, that would be the majority of the citizens of Clatsop County wouldn’t it, especially if you are using this site as a model of how the citizens of Clatsop County think.”

Patrick, it seems to me that it’s getting to where the majority of people who post at this site are pro-lng, pro-development, and pro-progress. More and more every day...because what the anti-LNG people are saying is more and more wrong!

SeaWolf - yes, I saw those idiots, what a bunch of weirdos! I recognized several of them, and yes, most are transplants. I even saw somewhere, that they got their signs printed out of town - way to support local business’!

On Aug 31, 6:10 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Oh jeeze - I obviously need my reading glasses today… “I am sincerely concerned that this referendum will (NOT!) pass, and can see the nightmares ahead if it does.”

On Aug 31, 6:27 PM, Werner "Gate Mouth" Braun wrote:

McGee and his ilk as you say?

Does this..this..this Mcgee person have any ilk? Man, I dunno..he seems to be one of a kind in his own unique world. I mean, in his head he’s Frank Lloyd Wright for hawking cheap house & garage plans he buys off the web, then I was reading another one of his multi-personality delusions that he thinks he is some rock star-then he puts on his great leader/debater hat and comes to NCO to expound ad nauseum on how the world should be run. I doubt the guy, whoever he is, ever leaves the house or the computer-he’s a legend in his own mind-a collection of figments of his own rather egotistical imagination.

On Aug 31, 6:57 PM, just my own two bits wrote:

I wouldn’t call myself “pro” lng, as much as “open” minded to the discussion on energy. I am not “for” fossil fuel, however I recognize the fact that we are not where we need to be technology wise to be able to sustainably use only renewable energy yet I do realize that using just fossil fuel is harmful to both the environment and the pocketbook. I don’t think we know enough about our planet to understand what is happening when we take so much out of the inside of it. Is it like the appendix and is the planet done with it? Should it be a balancing act, like should we be taking only so much out of one area of the planet and an equal amount out of another and by not doing so are we making something unstable, like the planet’s equalibrium? We just don’t know and have to go with MODERATION. Using a COMBINATION of many energy sources is the most prudent way to proceed, along with conservation.

On Aug 31, 7:17 PM, J.R. Ewing wrote:

Why not pump that stuff out of the deep earth? It doesnt do anyone or anything any good just sitting down there-I think all the talk about running outta gas and oil is just a bunch of hooey-there’s a gazzillion square miles they havnt pulled one ounce out of it yet--all that baloney about running out is just the oil companies way of scaring people into thinking it’s a disappearing commodity...Remember when Shell Oil had that drilling platform offshore here? They hit the mother lode and said, “we’ll be back here when we need to be and get it” Mark my words, Oregon and Washington will be known as the Oil Coast sometime in the next 40 or 50 years and the Columbia will see modern refineries shipping oil out, and gas piped down from inland, converted to LNG and sent out. Gonna be untold billions of dollars funnled through here

On Aug 31, 8:19 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Moderation and Balance is key. To understand the world, it migh be helpful to understand ourselves. If you eat too much of one thing, it is bad for you. If you eat too little, it is bad. We are biblically (if you are an avid follower of the Bible but bear with me if your not) called to be good stewards of the Earth but we must start with ourselves. We are being of this world. We can take a few lessons from their and apply them. The point being, we should take care of the world much the same as we do with ourselves. The situation we are end, does not allow us to jump cold-turkey so a process/transission must take place.

Everything works with balance and moderation. That is the “design” of life and Earth that “living rock” (metaphor) we live on and is part of.

On Sep 5, 8:32 PM, T. Boone Pickens Says: wrote:

Notice: No cry for foreign LNG and its pipeline.
Natural gas is our country’s second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.
Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy — residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.
Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.
While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.....

On Sep 14, 6:52 PM, Balance wrote:

Check this out...the local democratic central committee can go pound salt with their enviromental extremism!!!http://lightsonoregon.com/no_gas.php

TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!not BULL..............

On Sep 15, 10:19 PM, Sali wrote:

The peter is predicting 41% will say yes to ballot measure 4-131 and 59% will say “no”. I predict 25% yes and 75% no. The people I have talked to are terrified of pipelines in their children’s schoolyards and through Tapiola and other parks in town. They have been guaranteed by these people that by voting “no” on this referendum it will prevent this from happening. No one told them that their schoolyards, and none of the parks in the cities, were zoned by the county or had anything to do with this vote. They think they are protecting these areas by what they were told by the antiLNG squad. Liars, liars. But as long as you got your way, what difference does it make that you lied to do it?

On Sep 15, 11:10 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Sali...EXACTLY! It pisses me off to no end that they get to spew whatever they want to, all along the way (the anti-lng people that is)

Nobody wants to put a pipeline thru a park...or a schoolyard.

No commission in their right mind would APPROVE such a “conditional use” thru and actual park

They have played the fear card here - they went door to door with canvassers, telling people about this horrible thing.

I’m afraid this referendum is going to fail...and will landlock our area for years to come, because nobody will be able to get an approval, for anything, if they border OPR zoned land.

Why is it, that these damned Anti-LNG people, cannot see more than a foot in front of their face? They are incapable of seeing what might happen in the long run? STOP THE PIPELINE! Oh sure, but in the meantime, stop any and all development too, in the meantime!

On Sep 16, 12:51 AM, PAH of the damned wrote:

Dude,help me out here. When has the current wording of the comprehensive plan regarding pipelines in OPR ever stopped development? That’s all a no vote does, leave the plan as it has been for years (decades?). NoStar’s pipeline was the only time I’ve heard that there was an issue. The BOCC made a less than elegant choice in how to accommodate the LNG folk and made the referendum possible. In fact I doubt if the commissioners knew that they were changing law with the change made, what with everything else going on. I could be wrong, but didn’t Commissioner Samuelson refer to the action as a variance?

On Sep 16, 5:57 AM, Nobama wrote:

So if a new green hitech garbage burning facility wanted to hook up to the existing 8 inch line coming into Clatsop county, they could no problem right? (And had to cross open land) Or does a No vote tie the hands of the commission to grant or deny an action on this.

On Sep 16, 6:14 AM, My question wrote:

I don’t think we have to worry about industry green or otherwise coming to clatsop county...these folks have theirs, and until their continuous lies are exposed, people wake up to the damage they are doing to our community, no business of any size would want to come here with these loons running the place...undoing votes of elected officials, can’t get much weirder than that!!

On Sep 16, 10:14 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

PAH of the damned:

To put it simply. Have you heard of political pressure?
Politics governs the laws and how they are interpreted and how they are enforced. Remember the political pressures of lawsuits and the such in the past both inside the community and outside that has lead the planning commission and BOCC to automatically say “permit denied” if the use is not explicitly written in the permitted use or conditional use. Of course conditional use requires another step in the process which is to evaluate how it meets the conditions.

The political pressure puts all the people we have working for us and voted represenatives under essentially a political gun. Already when we just recalled Mr. Lee because one group of people didn’t like Mr. Lee.

On Sep 16, 12:37 PM, I am done with doing it like this wrote:

There’s no wording for pipelines in OPR zones. In all the aquatic regions conditional use for pipeline construction is allowed, but not OPR, even if it is alongside water ways and in the middle of other aquatic zoned regions. Secondly, the city parks aren’t zoned by Clatsop County and most parks in the county aren’t even zoned OPR. Thirdly, FERC can put a pipeline through any of the OPR zoned lands, especially privately owned property that meets the criteria of the conditions that the section of land currently under debate does.

This election is retaliation, pure and simple, as Forrester pointed out. When 4-131 is defeated the petitioners, the “Common Sense” group, the CFOG group and the Anti-LNG force will say, “See, people do not have confidence in the BOCC nor do they want LNG” when, in fact “the people” will NOT have voted on any of that. They will have voted based on LIES told to them.

Karma, Peter. What goes around comes around.

On Sep 16, 3:00 PM, Prediction wrote:

I predict, maybe one more recall, or retaliation campaign and the public at large will of had their fill of this folks....think of what this costs us as a community, the cost of the elections...there’s been three caused by these nuts, and the polarization of the community we live in...enough already, I believe in Karma also, it’s coming.....

On Sep 16, 3:59 PM, if its one, lets make it a good 'un wrote:

I think that’s what Marquis is banking on to save his sorry ass.

On Sep 17, 12:34 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Perhaps it is time to disban the ENTIRE clatsop county government and home rule charter and the entire ordinance and return the government rule of Clatsop County back to the state like it was back before the 1980s.

Why? Lets see, the people in this county can not trust the county government so why have a BOCC or planning commission or locally controlled ordinance of the county.

This is what this is about.

Tip of the Day

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~Thomas Jefferson (Thanks, Auntie)

NorthCoastOregon.com

Opinion