LNG Referendum 4-131 Campaign - Fraudulent or Fact? | Opinion | Articles

Opinion

LNG Referendum 4-131 Campaign - Fraudulent or Fact?

NorthCoastOregon August 22, 2008

Is the campaign being run based on fraudulant or factual information? Two bloggers write about the referendum campaign and LNG in general. Oregon Guy writes: You’d really have to be on the fringe to imagine some random pipeline construction taking place…because, and for the mere fact, of its being legal. Non Sequiturs & Exquisite Nonsense writes: If the Bradwood site goes into operation, is the choice whether to create a police-state environment or to provide easy opportunities for arsonists and nutcases and lazy terrorists?

Is the 4-131 campaign “dirty”? Has a “push-poll” ever influenced anyone in a local election? Would someone really be so dumb to do one right after Lee was accused of doing so and being so badly beaten? Are these types of accusations just a part of politics? Is it “responsible” journalism to report these kinds of accusations? Are the “glossies” this time around suspicious? Do they give out real facts or emotional ploys?
Email from a listserve against LNG:

Date: 6/27/08
We expect a vigorous and well-funded opposition from NorthernStar, the promoter of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline at Bradwood. But with your generous support, we will prevail.
The campaign ahead will not be easy. To succeed, we need your financial help today. With money for lawn signs, mailings, radio and newspaper ads, and other expenses, we can run an effective and informative campaign to reach voters county-wide. With $50, we can buy radio time; with $100, we can buy 30 yard signs; with $1000, we can do a mailing. No gift is too small; every dollar will help us keep LNG pipelines out of parks.

SUPPORT THE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN TODAY.
For every dollar you give through July 6, the campaign will receive a matching dollar, effectively doubling your contribution.

Donate online at http://www.ClatsopCommonSense.org.

Or mail your check payable to:
Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense
PO Box 186
Warrenton 97146

To satisfy Oregon law, please include your name, address, phone, type of employment, and name and address of employer with your check; or download a form here .

FORWARD THIS EMAIL to everyone you can. Add a message explaining how important every donation is this campaign. More information is below and at http://www.ClatsopCommonSense.org.

Please donate today. Thank you!
Marc Auerbach, Laurie Caplan, Debbie Twombly, and Don West On behalf of Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense

Email from Pro LNG listserve:
Date: 7/16/08
Hello valued supporters,

We wanted to let you know that Sr. VP of External Affairs for Bradwood Landing, Joe Desmond, will be on Tom Freel’s morning show at 8am on Wednesday July 16th. Tune in if you can – Joe’s interviews are always extremely informative!

8am Wednesday, 1370 AM

Thank you!

This email was sent to multiple recipients from our supporter database. If you would like to opt out from receiving occassional emails regarding upcoming events, hearings, etc., don’t hesitate to let us know. We will never provide your email to another party or company.

No vigorous or well-funded opposition actually materialized, or did it? Did any reporter ask who or what entity was matching each dollar that was given through July 6? Do radio interviewers ask the questions you want answered? Do you feel you have enough information to vote on 4-131? Where did you get your information? How are you going to vote?

Oregon Guy
Non Sequiturs & Exquisite Nonsense

108 Comments

On Aug 23, 12:02 AM, shaking my head wrote:

Marc Auerbach has had a total of $6,986.85 paid back to him with little to no explanation? Seems to me a poll could probably be bought for that amount of money.

Kerstin Adams gave $5000 on July 1st, but it doesn’t look like there was an amount matching $5000 given after July 6th. A total of $9,867 is collected from various people through July 6th yet no single person nor entity matches that dollar amount.

Marc Auerbach makes a pledge of $2000 cash, gives the cash one month later and immediately is reimbursed with $1800 of it! They don’t use ANYONE locally! They buy their signs and their printed materials out of state! And guess which state, predominately? The one they don’t want to be a oil line to!

On Aug 23, 12:03 AM, shaking my head wrote:

The McKenzie River Gathering Foundation is listed as having made a $2000 grant on 8/14/08 to “Common Sense” yet does not list them as having been awarded a grant on their website. Aren’t they proud of their contribution to this group?
Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense ID #13160
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/sooDetail.do?cneCommitteeId=13160

Campaign Finance Activity
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitte;eId=13160

On Aug 23, 8:48 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

No vigorous or well-funded opposition actually materialized, or did it?

One good indicator is the “Ad Blitz” on KAST radio with those absurd testimonials at every available opportunity all day long.

Now, if NSNG is so confident that their project will move forward, referendum or not, why the heightened visability?

On Aug 23, 8:56 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Clatsop County Land and Water Use and Development Ordinance - Section 3.582 - Purpose; The OPR Zone is intended to provide for the conservation of open space; The protection and development of areas uniquely suited for outdoor recreation and the protection of designated scenic, natural and cultural resource areas.

On Aug 23, 9:05 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

LWDUO - Section 3.584 - Development and Use Permitted in OPR Zones. - The following developments and their accessory developments are permitted under a Type 1 procedure subject to applicable development standards.

1. Farm Use
2. Forest USe
3. Wildlife Refuge or Management Area
4. Public Regional Park or Recreation Area Excluding Campgrounds
5. Historical or Archaeological Site/Area
6. Golf Courses
7. Municipally Owned Watersheds
8. Other Watersheds
9. Accessory Development Customarily provided in Conjunction With The
Above Developments

On Aug 23, 9:20 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

LWDUO Ordinance - SECTION 3.586 - Conditional Development and Use in OPR Zoned Properties; The following developments and their accessory developments may be permitted under a Type II procedure and Sections 5.010 and 5.025 subject to applicable criteria and development standards and site plan review.

1. Campgrounds
2. Group Camping Facilities
3. RV Park (Subject to S3.550)
4. Resorts and associated favilities
5. Hunting and Fishing Clubs
6. Riding Stables and Trails
7. Marinas, Boat Launchings and Moorage Facilities
8. Structures for Viewing or Exhibition of Natural resources
9. Accessory Development in conjunction with the above
10. Cemetery
11. Other Developments within a Historical Structure provided the use
would not result in the modification of the outward appearance
of the structure.

And County wants to allow a 36” Diamater Pipeline through this OPR Zoned(Open Space, Parks and Recreation Zoned Property)property as a conditional use?

On Aug 23, 9:24 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

No LNG Pipes In Parks?

Pipelines from an LNG Facility?

This is not too hard to figure out and this is one of NSNG’s Joe Desmond’s main points in his argument in the validity of the referendum?

Something tells me somebody is running scared.

On Aug 23, 9:48 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Here is what the BOCC is allowing with absolutely no oversight control language at all and a generalization so broad as to make this OPR zoning so diluted it sets a terribly dangerous precedent, in my view.

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 23, 11:05 AM, Name (required) wrote:

Non Sequiturs & Exquisite Nonsense writes: If the Bradwood site goes into operation, is the choice whether to create a police-state environment or to provide easy opportunities for arsonists and nutcases and lazy terrorists?

Oh brother. Third rate fear mongering ripped right from the playbook of the Bush-Cheney school of bullshit.

On Aug 23, 1:07 PM, check it at the door wrote:

McGee,
A variance is not a precedent....

On Aug 23, 1:31 PM, prove it wrote:

Here is what the BOCC is allowing with absolutely no oversight control language at all and a generalization so broad as to make this OPR zoning so diluted it sets a terribly dangerous precedent,

Specifically, how so? It is a conditional use variance that must be issued for each development requesting one. Dangerous “precedent”? Specifically tell us what makes it so dangerous.

On Aug 23, 1:37 PM, lng works for me wrote:

If Bradwood said nothing they would be hiding, when they say something they are running scared. Whatever. THe anti LNG faction lies and spins everything. Their campaign that each dollar will be matched, but not saying who by is typical. And then it doesn’t even happen. Isn’t that a election violation? I am outraged that the only money they spent locally was at the Daily Astorian and the radio stations. No money to local printers for their brochures, business signs, or yard signs! All their money to that horrid state that they don’t want to become a pipeline for! But they’ll send all of their money to it!

Bunch of hypocrites!

On Aug 23, 1:57 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Wikipedia defines “Precedent” as;

* An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing
with subsequent similar instances.
* Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in
subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal
precedent.

On Aug 23, 3:12 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 23, 1:31 PM, prove it wrote:

Here is what the BOCC is allowing with absolutely no oversight control language at all and a generalization so broad as to make this OPR zoning so diluted it sets a terribly dangerous precedent,

Specifically, how so? It is a conditional use variance that must be issued for each development requesting one. Dangerous “precedent”? Specifically tell us what makes it so dangerous.

I think, really, it’s the responsibility of the BOCC to prove it to us, those whom the serve, the legitimacy of their decision, presumably, in our interests.

On Aug 23, 4:18 PM, anti lng tin foil hat wearers spin lies wrote:

“And County wants to allow a 36” Diamater Pipeline through this OPR Zoned(Open Space, Parks and Recreation Zoned Property)property as a conditional use?” No, county wants to allow a pipeline through a piece of privately owned property that hasn’t been used for anything and is surrounded by other property zoned for specific use.

Spinning this to look like they are proposing putting a pipeline through a park with picnic benches that we all are using is a LIE.

On Aug 23, 4:45 PM, shame on Common Sense wrote:

You are so full of it, MCGee. YOU ARE the one saying that this sets a precedent for something “dangerous” to happen and then you can’t even give an example. Just some vague ominous statement. And this is a perfect example of all the lies that Anti LNG people tell. Whenever someone pins you down with a direct question you dodge it. In a few paragraphs you will come back and say, “Oh, what was the question, I’ve forgotten it, you’re all over the place” its always the other person’s fault that you’re a liar and spinner.

Auerbach more than likely bought a poll or two himself, Common Sense’s whole accounting looks pretty screwy. And it is pathetic that they didn’t buy locally at every opportunity. Spending all the money local people contributed for businesses in California!

On Aug 23, 5:03 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Just one opinion of many “Shame on Common Sense”.

On Aug 23, 5:13 PM, Lawrence wrote:

This park land ballot is nothing but leverage by the “no’s” to get a feel on how the county feels about the LNG and what their next maneuver should be. There never was any concern on 36” natural gas lines in parks.

On Aug 23, 6:23 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 23, 5:13 PM, Lawrence wrote:

You really think the anti-OPR pipeline forces have that much leverage?

They are simply trying to keep the ordinance in place as it is.

Since Commissioner Samuelson is so conscious of conveying an image of BOCC as Community Builders, it would be very helpful if she could explain the justification on County Commission’s change in this existing OPR Zone ordinance.

Maybe NCO will invite her to do so.

On Aug 23, 8:38 PM, Here's the list wrote:

List of what we are being blamed for:

A complete list of things caused by global warming
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

On Aug 23, 8:45 PM, common sense owes us more explanations wrote:

It would be more interesting to know why the Common Sense folk are so desperate they must resort to lies then why the BOCC granted a variance for a conditional use permit on a piece of privately owned land (NOT PUBLICLY OWNED PARKS as Common Sense would have us believe)!

It would be more interesting to know why the Common Sense folk lied and said that all contributions made through July 6th would be matched, but don’t show any matching contributions.

It would be more interesting to know why McGee doesn’t show up as a contributor to this group who’s lies he regurgitates.

It would be more interesting to know why the Common Sense folk chose to sent all of the locally contributed money down South to California to buy products they could have had made right here in Clatsop County.

On Aug 23, 8:54 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

What lies would those be CSOUME?

On Aug 23, 9:07 PM, just the lies from this thread alone wrote:

“BOCC is allowing with absolutely no oversight control language at all and a generalization so broad as to make this OPR zoning so diluted it sets a terribly dangerous precedent”

The BOCC allowed a CONDITIONAL PERMIT variance with a TON of control on the project!

“And County wants to allow a 36” Diamater Pipeline through this[a list of a bunch of publicly owned properties] OPR Zoned(Open Space, Parks and Recreation Zoned Property)property as a conditional use?”

Lies, to make it look as if the BOCC had allowed an LNG pipe through a public park or recreation area. Didn’t happen, hasn’t happened, won’t happen.

“They are simply trying to keep the ordinance in place as it is.”

Bull - They want to push us back to the dinosaur age. THey want to take local control of issuing variances for conditional use permits away from the board we elected.

On Aug 23, 9:12 PM, Best Guest wrote:

A pipeline will create more recreation areas and more browse for deer and elk. I’m for the pipeline.

On Aug 23, 9:15 PM, the ugly American wrote:

If you own a motel or restaurant in Seaside, Cannon Beach or even Astoria a pipeline out of Clifton wont affect doodily squat-wont affect ONE tourist, tourist related buisness or park. Jeez, what a load of bull this so called commons sense bunch is peddling.

On Aug 23, 11:49 PM, lng works for me wrote:

The LIES COmmon Sense tells?
That flyer is a LIE.

That they have a match for all donations through July 6th, a lie.

That there is any such thing as an LNG pipe, a LIE.

That there the BOCC will allow a creek in a public Park to be torn up so that a pipe can be laid down, as the picture clearly depicts, if people don’t vote no, a LIE!

That the river would be shut down to all whenever an LNG tanker comes through, a LIE!

That the Bradwood project has any impact on salmon, one of the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL!

That UPGRADING the Clifton Road would have a negative impact on the environment, A LIE!

On Aug 24, 12:08 AM, watching the orestar account wrote:

Suspiciously interesting how many items Common Sense owned to sell at “fair market value” in the amount of $61, $90, $100 especially when Common Sense didn’t PURCHASE anything in those amounts, nor did they receipt anyone for inkind donations of items worth that amount.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=13160

On Aug 24, 12:26 AM, hmmm.... wrote:

Expenditure to Fred Smith for $700?? The Dentist??

On Aug 24, 1:54 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

LWDUO - Section 3.584 - Development and Use Permitted in OPR Zones. - The following developments and their accessory developments are permitted under a Type 1 procedure subject to applicable development standards.

Seems like five of the above uses would be still be compatible with a ng line going through it, with the exception of 4 and 5 and those are

On Aug 24, 8:47 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 24, 1:54 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

Seems like five of the above uses would be still be compatible with a ng line going through it, with the exception of 4 and 5 and those are

Seems like?

In contrast to; Clatsop County Land and Water Use and Development Ordinance - Section 3.582 - Purpose; The OPR Zone is intended to provide for the conservation of open space; The protection and development of areas uniquely suited for outdoor recreation and the protection of designated scenic, natural and cultural resource areas.

On Aug 24, 10:17 AM, Question? wrote:

Is this pipline going to be buried underground? Fenced on both sides?? Or is it going to be like the gas line up on Pipeline road above Astoria that is burried and you wouldnt even know was there except for some signs. We can still recreate in areas around that pipeline. I thought much of the line was going to be directional bored so it wasnt visable and had little impact.

On Aug 24, 10:32 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

From Section 18 - Natural Gas Pipeline - Table 6. This is Bradwood telling County what they have to do on various zoned properties, this one being involved in the Referendum.

6. At mile 5.3, near River Ranch, pipeline
passes through about 0.7 mile of land zoned
Open Space, Parks and Recreation. (OPR)
Amend LWDUO text to add words “15.
cable, sewerline, waterline or other
pipeline” to L3.584 (list of outright uses in
OPR Zone), and then allow pipeline
outright.

That same table states the depth of pipeline;

*(min) 3 feet deep on Crop and Range Lands
* 5 feet under Roads
* 7 to 7.5 feet under Wetlands
* 10 under Railroad Embankments

Seems to me this pipleline and right of way would have to comply with all codes governing them in Oregon

On Aug 24, 10:36 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

If a NG pipe runs through it, guaranteed that it will be conserved for farm or forest and wildlife. What does the private property owner think? Maybe this is the first step to your question of what are property rights.I know you’ll say let the people decide. OK, just give them the facts. LNG through parks is two lies in one sentence and thats what I read on the promotional material.

On Aug 24, 10:47 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

I guess 36 inch pressurized NG pipeline through open spaces just doesn’t sound as good does it?

On Aug 24, 10:51 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 24, 10:36 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

LNG through parks is two lies in one sentence and thats what I read on the promotional material.

First, I think, like Joe Desmond you have to stop sounding so desperate with that LNG pipes/non-Parks thing, you think?

And a reminder, unlike Joe, you forgot to mention the “Propane Tank” on the photo of the travel trailer.

The property is zoned OPR (Open Space, Parks and Recreation), every piece of it in Clatsop County.

The Pipeline?

It comes from an LNG Transfer/Storage Terminal in Bradwood and is transporting High Pressure Natural Gas in a 36” diameter pipeline which, I believe, requires a 120 - 150 foot wide right of way.

Is this an appropriate use of that property?

Again the justification to the citizens of Clatsop County needs to come from BOCC in a public explanation dues to the importance of their decision.

On Aug 24, 1:04 PM, Tami wrote:

It is ridiculous that when someone points out the truth you say they “sound desperate”. Showing that YOU are the liar, doesn’t make the other person sound desperate, it is what it is, showing YOU are a liar.

“This is Bradwood telling County what they have to do on various zoned properties,” NO, this is merely normal language used. It is the APPLICANTS job to write up what they propose the language to be. The county can chose to agree or disagree, add additional conditions and send the applicant back to the drawing board to recraft the proposal.

Once AGAIN, you are LIEING. This time about Bradwood supposedly telling the County how to word something. And this is why people should never, ever work with you on a project for anything. You lie and twist everything.

On Aug 24, 1:22 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

So, tell us Tami, exactly what it is that happened on that OPR zoning and with no qualification whatsoever on the part of BOCC.

Below is exactly what happened;

This, is a lie you say?

On Aug 24, 2:58 PM, Frank wrote:

Why do you demand people to answer your concerns when you never address other people’s concerns?

Tami, and others here, have pointed out numerous lies contained in the Common Sense campaign, their advertising and emails, you dodge each one with the agility of Betsy Johnson and throw out red herrings hoping that people will focus on them instead of the questions they are asking. No matter how many times someone asks you the same question you state, “What was that? I don’t understand? Could you clarify the question for me?” Dodge and red herrings. Damn, you are as shifty as Johnson and about as honest.

On Aug 24, 3:45 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
BRADWOOD LANDING LNG PROPOSAL
AND AMENDING THE CLATSOP COUNTY
COMBINED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ZONING MAP, THE TEXT OF THE CLATSOP
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
THE TEXT OF THE CLATSOP COUNTY
LAND AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND USE
ORDINANCE.

Does this read like a Variance to you?

On Aug 24, 4:58 PM, Huhtala wrote:

Again, the action was:

If you agree with this, fine. If not, vote no. I believe that the BOCC made a very poor decision during a complex series of decisions, and the people have the right to vote on this change to the Comprehensive Plan. No one has filed a complaint about false advertising or the like against supporters of this referendum. I fully expect all parties to comply with campaign finance disclosure requirements. It is unfortunate that Northern Star is hiding their expenditures behind a loophole, but if that is legal so be it.

On Aug 24, 5:15 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

I believe our Planning Commission and BOCC should have the right to review a request and grant or deny it on a case by case basis. The land in question is privately owned, and from what I understand, the landowner is fine with it.

If you vote NO, it will prevent the PC and BOCC from ever being able to grant a “CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT” thru any land zoned as OPR.

Voting yes is NOT going to set a precident to allow pipelines thru parks! Every single request will have to be reviewed individually.

Please spread the work - YES on the referendum! Let our PC and BOCC do their jobs!

On Aug 24, 5:19 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

And...I believe THIS situation calls for the zoning rules to be reviewed. Parks and Recreation is one thing, and I certainly wouldn’t want industrial stuff being built there!

But Open Space is another, and it should NOT be included under the Parks & Rec category.

Gee...I wonder if the land where the new Lum’s and Home Depot are being built is zoned as Open Space????

On Aug 24, 5:26 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 24, 5:19 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

And...I believe THIS situation calls for the zoning rules to be reviewed. Parks and Recreation is one thing, and I certainly wouldn’t want industrial stuff being built there!

But Open Space is another, and it should NOT be included under the Parks & Rec category.

Gee...I wonder if the land where the new Lum’s and Home Depot are being built is zoned as Open Space????

Does this read Like A Conditional Use to you AA?

This is amending the ordinance and County Comprehensive Plan

On Aug 24, 5:57 PM, Huhtala wrote:

Does anyone have any recollection of why the County originally decided that even small pipelines were inappropriate for passage through parks? They probably had a good reason, even though eight-inch natural gas pipes (with their own problems) might be all they anticipated. Larger pipes have had bigger problems, such as the 24-inch natural gas line that ruptured in New Mexico a few years back. A dozen campers died.

If property is improperly zoned OPR, there are procedures to change the zoning, which will still be available after this referendum. But what about a private landowner who expected that parts of his property zoned OPR would not be subject to eminent domain by the federal government to install a high-pressure pipeline? He’ll have no County support if this land use change sticks. Vote no for private property rights.

On Aug 24, 7:16 PM, Peter Huhtala wrote:

The opinion piece which encouraged this discussion included a sentence pulled from my blog. Here’s the paragraph to help with the context:

“If the Bradwood site goes into operation, is the choice is whether to create a police-state environment or to provide easy opportunities for arsonists and nutcases and lazy terrorists? Is there another way to manage risk that I’m just not seeing? Perhaps reduce the vulnerability of tankers through new designs; then only allow such ships to call on the facility? Given Richard Clarke’s analysis I’m not sure that would be realistic, but I’ll throw it out there for what it’s worth...”

The Richard Clarke work that I refer to is at: http://www.projo.com/extra/2005/lng/clarkereport.pdf

On Aug 25, 9:08 AM, OregonGuy wrote:

A Comment In Four Parts: Part I (Comments on this site are limited to 1000 characters. Please forgive the length of this comment.)

Far be it from me, that you would find me disagreeing with some of the rhetoric being produced on the side of opposition to LNG; whether it’s the various forms of natural gas, the methods of transporting natural gas, or even, the development of our natural resources to benefit us economically. It is true that natural gas can be found in both a liquid and gaseous state. It is true that if you have a lot of it, you will want to transport it. It is true that to do these things, investments will need to take place. Construction will have to take place. Unused land will need to be used. That is, we, as a result of living in Clatsop County will be the beneficiaries of the creation of new investments and jobs in Clatsop County. To some, this is unthinkable.
.

On Aug 25, 9:10 AM, OregonGuy wrote:

A Comment In Four Parts: Part II

If those that oppose this project would be willing to admit that they see no benefit to the community, we could be done with them after a single glance. Jobs, transportation, investment in Clatsop County. The kind of dream investments that communities crave.

Yet, the arguments, as I have seen them, seem to fasten upon the horrors of growth. From “Non Sequitors"--the eponymous blog--one reads, “As I recall LNG-spill expert Dr. Jerry Havens, in a visit to Astoria described a fire one-half mile in diameter resulting from a spill over water of about 3 million gallons (10% of the typical load on today’s ships). One mile from the edge of the fire we could expect bare skin to burn.”

Horror! The horror.
.

On Aug 25, 9:11 AM, OregonGuy wrote:

A Comment In Four Parts: Part III

Conveniently failing to mention that Portland has seven bulk oil terminals. “The facilities receive, store, blend, and transfer gasoline, fuel oils, lubricants and a variety of other petroleum and chemical products. Barges and ships, railroad tank cars, and pipelines deliver these products to the facilities. The companies load gasoline onto barges and boats and ship them primarily to destinations on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.” (News Release, Nov. 23, 1999, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.)

Now, just imagine Terrorists targeting one of those bulk gasoline carriers sliding under the Astoria-Megler Bridge! The horror! Gasoline killing fish, crawdads; burning flesh and burning cities!

But, there’s hope!

We can create a police state!

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
.

On Aug 25, 9:12 AM, OregonGuy wrote:

A Comment In Four Parts: Part IV

As you reduce the arguments of opposition to the development of the LNG site, you begin to see that there is “no there” there. If the goal is to promote hysteria, start with the gasoline carriers. Or the bulk chemical carriers. Imagine a phosphate fire! The horror!

If you want to complain about the destruction of parks, tell us how many park benches will be lost.

If you want to stop jobs and economic development, just say so. At least then we’ll be able to understand that to which you are truly opposed.
.

On Aug 25, 9:39 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Well said Tommy but, just exactly what is it you are saying in your 4 part musing...in context to 4-131, just to make sure we all understand?

On Aug 25, 10:13 AM, Huhtala wrote:

The vagaries of LNG certainly spawn some complex arguments. As for risk and risk management, I listen to experts such as Jerry Havens and Richard Clarke. The Oregon DEQ and experts at the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission give us a good idea of the environmental consequences of an LNG terminal at Bradwood. Perhaps your sources might contradict these findings.

You might also disagree with me that the bar is too low that permits the FERC to use eminent domain to route pipelines to serve this private speculation through the land of unwilling owners.

But I am going to have to agree with you that jobs are needed in our region. I believe that our local government entities are not doing an adequate job of attracting new businesses that are appropriate for this area. This needs to happen. I think about encouraging business development. I strategize solutions. I don’t do enough, but my intention is to do better. Perhaps we can cooperate in this regard.

On Aug 25, 10:21 AM, Huhtala wrote:

And furthermore:

I am clearly convinced that waiting around for wildly inappropriate development, such as LNG, will encourage the type of change that will drive jobs away as the quality of our life is diminished. I expect you’ll want an accounting of the lost tourism and fishing-related jobs; progressive businesses that will move elsewhere and the high-tech and alternative energy businesses that will scratch us off the their list. For now just understand that this is more than just a hunch.

But back to the pipeline measure. What about the expectations of the public and private landowners that no pipelines would run through OPR land? And why not re-zone some OPR parcels if the zone doesn’t make sense? A sweeping change for one short section of pipe seems like a blunt instrument.

On Aug 25, 10:49 AM, the rest of the story wrote:

Because of the Natural Gas pipeline problems on pipes 50-70 years old coming from our own natural gas facilities, causing these kinds of problems congress passed a new law that ALL pipelines must adhere to.

The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, which was signed into law on December 17, 2002, mandates significant changes and new requirements in the way that the natural gas industry ensures the safety and integrity of its pipelines. The law applies to natural gas transmission pipeline companies. Central to the law are the requirements it places on each pipeline operator to prepare and implement an “integrity management program,” which among other things requires operators to identify so-called “high consequence areas (HCA)” on their systems, conduct risk analyses of these areas, perform baseline integrity assessments of each pipeline segment, and inspect the entire pipeline system according to a prescribed schedule and using prescribed methods.

On Aug 25, 10:50 AM, rest of the story wrote:

Companies were required to identify all HCAs by December 17, 2004, and submit specific integrity management programs to the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Research and Special Projects Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. All pipeline segments within HCAs must be inspected and remediation plans (if required) completed by December 17, 2008, while non-HCA segments must be inspected by 2012. All segments must be reinspected on a 7-year cycle, with certain exceptions.

On Aug 25, 11:26 AM, tired of the hyperbole wrote:

Fear mongering that “eminent domain” is going to force some people to give up a 50 ft easement on their property “making it worthless” is hypocritical of these people. They think nothing of forcing Ken Leahy to make his 400 acres go dormant so they can have the joy of looking at it as they paddle by in a canoe, mind you! But they whine to high heaven at the thought of a pipeline, providing energy, jobs, lower prices, an equal playing field for us all, going through their backyard. It is the NIMBY attitude. It is the attitude of most of them as they protest, to warm themselves on NW natural gas that came to them via eminent domain gained pipelines through “someone else’s” property! Hypocrites.

On Aug 25, 11:53 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 25, 11:26 AM, tired of the hyperbole wrote:

Fear mongering that “eminent domain” is going to force some people to give up a 50 ft easement on their property “making it worthless” is hypocritical of these people. They think nothing of forcing Ken Leahy to make his 400 acres go dormant so they can have the joy of looking at it as they paddle by in a canoe! But they whine to high heaven at the thought of a pipeline, providing energy, jobs, lower prices, an equal playing field for all, going through their backyard. It is the NIMBY attitude. It is the attitude of most of them as they protest, to warm themselves on NW natural gas that came to them via eminent domain gained pipelines through “someone else’s” property!

The question?

Can we actually do better than this scheme?

What other use could Leahy’s land be put to that is cohesive with Lower Columbia if not LNG storage and transmission that would provide many more end jobs and near equal tax revenue?

On Aug 25, 11:54 AM, Ally wrote:

Who is “Tommy”? Another one of McGees jabs in the dark? Do you like your “new” name Oregon Guy?

Huhtala, of course we want an accounting of what’s going to be lost, and exactly how you come up with those numbers. I remember the PROMISES made when the aluminum plant was forced out. Promises that other industries would be brought in in its place. Hollow promises that never materialized. You can blame it on “leadership”. It wasn’t leadership that made the promises. It was the jerks that stopped the plant that promised to “do everything in our power” “we aren’t doing enough now, we realize that, but that will change” ... blah, blah,blah. Political LIES to get them support, just like now.

On Aug 25, 11:58 AM, tired of the hyperbole wrote:

Why do YOU get to decide what to do with a landowners private property? One minute you are decrying the fact of eminant domain making decisions for land owners and the next YOU are deciding what can be done with HIS property? SUCH HYPOCRISY!

For the record, Leahy WANTED to put a resort there but GUESS WHAT? That was blocked by the planning staff because it wasn’t MARINE INDUSTRIAL, per zoned usage of the property! The property would be WASTED on a resort!

On Aug 25, 12:40 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Well, there you go in support of the referendum argument, an invalid use of a zoned property.

You think it occured to Leahy or Johnson, at the time, to try for a rezone?

On Aug 25, 12:57 PM, tired of the hyperbole wrote:

Well there you go, you are an idiot. How is that “in support of the referendum”? Duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh, Don’t you think Leahy tried?

And where do you get off one minute griping about property owners loosing fifty feet of property to an easement for something they don’t want and the next YOU deciding what Leahy should or shouldn’t get to do with his property?

On Aug 25, 3:21 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 25, 12:57 PM, tired of the hyperbole wrote:

Well there you go, you are an idiot. How is that “in support of the referendum”? Duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh, Don’t you think Leahy tried?

Did Leahy try to rezone?

Do you know or are you just speculating?

Anyhting on record?

I simply asked if there were some other use for the Bradwood property that could put many people to work in permanent, cohesive to the community and environment, family wage jobs thatn the 50-60 speculated by NSNG’s “Forward Looking” statements.

What about Skipanon Peninsula’s 90-some acres projected for Oregon LNG/Pipeline?

On Aug 25, 10:21 PM, Huhtala wrote:

I supported allowing sand to be placed on Ken’s property. The dredge spoils might otherwise have harmed sturgeon and salmon habitat. Using the sand for private benefit also generates a fee for the Common School Fund. Between the quality of the sand and the cost of transport, it just didn’t pencil out at the time.

Put another industry on the Bradwood site? Northern Star claims 35-40 on-site jobs in their SSC filing. Seems like it would be pretty difficult to find even a small scale industrial user that would employ fewer workers. The larger footprint at the Skipanon Peninsula holds even more promise.

Amid all this speculation mine is that market forces will not favor the construction of either LNG site. So it’s a damn shame these properties are tied up, preventing other water-dependent uses. Ken of course went in with his eyes open. The lease at the Skipanon was IMHO a scam on its owners - the public.

On Aug 25, 11:34 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Peter Hutala:

I have a simple question: In your statement, you implied that we would “loose” prospective hi-tech companies because of a “lost in quality of life”.

Actually this is multiple questions.

Q1: How exactly would we have a lost in quality of life?
Q2: How am I going to be effected? The majority of us aren’t the tree-hugging environmentalist types.

Q3: What infrastructure do we have that is sufficient for hi-tech companies like Intel, Motorola or any other computer tech company?

On Aug 25, 11:40 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Q4: If we do/did, why don’t we have companies like EA, Techtronix, ect. with offices or even a manufacturing/productions plant here?

Q5: So, how do you propose to bring these companies?
Q6: If we don’t have the infrastructure sufficient, then how much time do these companies have to wait until we get the infrastructure established?
Q7: How much time will it take for us to get the infrastructure together while we fight every decision made?
Q8: Given historical context, we lost opportunities because we fight “change” and in turn lost many opportunities for family wage job, so how do we change this?

On Aug 25, 11:47 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Q9: Because we lost many opportunities to give people family wage jobs for minimum wage tourism-related jobs, how is that improving the quality of life for them?

Q10: Now that they have the $14,000/year job instead of the $50,000-100,000/year job - they barely meet ends meet and feed families. How do we address this?

Q11: Since many people realize that there is limited family-wage job opportunities , they move to greener pastures (bigger cities) to get their college education (either right out of high school or attending CCC) and get their job… So how are we going to retain our young men and women?

On Aug 25, 11:53 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Q12: What strategies do you have to making this a place that people can be born here, grow up here and live here their entire life with reasonable and respectable paying jobs without having to move out to Portland (for example) to get their Bachelor’s and Masters degree and their $50,000-100,000 per year job, get married and raise children for that 20-30 year period and then only move out here when their kids are off to college. (Oops, their kids aren’t moving here, they can careless about Astoria)

This is some of the common questions that you may hear and see if you look around.

On Aug 25, 11:59 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

From those 12 basic questions, you can see it opens up many more questions. You can also understand and realize that these people who live here have a tough and stressful life to be able to raise a family. Why is that and what are we GOING to do to help make their lives easier and less stressful and allow many of them the have more time with their children and BE good parents.

Life is more then the tourism bananza that we enjoy mostly during summer.

On Aug 26, 1:04 AM, Peter Huhtala wrote:

Rick -I congratulate you for an excellent series of questions. I apologize for not giving them proper attention. (I’m at a conference.)

Some of the infrastructure needed to attract business has already improved over the past decade. Businesses can locate based on amenities - such as clean air and water, good schools, natural beauty, recreational opportunities, and local government that values long-term sustainability while serving the needs of the present generation.

The LNG issue has security concerns that offend my privacy and freedom of movement more than frighten me with very low possibility scenarios. The environmental impact to salmon and other species hits harder, personally. Both the security and environmental stress contribute to a negative economic effect That is the worst of it, in my strongly held belief.

I have a lot of respect for you, Rick, but I’m right. Cheers.

On Aug 26, 1:28 AM, Nels wrote:

“The environmental impact to salmon and other species hits harder,” blatant lies. The salmon are not impacted in the least, and whatever species Huhtala infers to here can be the same species that are impacted wherever humans step. LNG security issues, where was the concern just last week when the Coast Guard escorted a ship up the river? What cargo was in that ship? Why weren’t the alarms going off? Where were the fire trucks running along the highway “just in case”? Why weren’t the fire support ships running along side to protect Astoria? Why wasn’t your “personal privacy offended?” Because you didn’t even notice the huge tanker nor its Coast Guard escort, nor were you aware of its cargo.

And that’s why you are wrong.

On Aug 26, 7:12 AM, Sally Salmon wrote:

PAH is a wannabe political hack, one of those shut-up we’ll tell you whats good for you. But to make matters worse his vision is blinded by SAF’s cheeks. When Rick asks serious questions, McGee and Huhtala usually say something nice but never answer the questions.

On Aug 26, 7:43 AM, I see smoke blowin' wrote:

High Tech companies are not clean companies...they make gases they can’t name....have explosive tanks of hydrogen on site....the ignorance about this campaign is getting thicker....I’m not against high tech either, but they have to adhere to safety standards as well as will Bradwood. Bradwood can name their gas.

On Aug 26, 8:03 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

I’ve asked this question to many, many times so far with no legitiamte answer and it works only in Bradwood/Northern Star - Oregon LNG/Pipeline’s favor still.......If no LNG, what?

Don’t tell me there are not Industry Consultant/Brokers out there that specialize in comuunites and busimesse together that balance each other.

Problem is nobody wants to mount up a task force to find them.

On Aug 26, 8:08 AM, More Smoke wrote:

So McGee,
Bradwood is a marine industrial use for marine industrial land...period, the BOCC would not consider changing it years ago when Leahy brought them the resort idea, and we have so little marine industrial it’s one of the few places that can be developed. A well built LNG terminal is an appropriate use of the Bradwood site. I bet any task force would tell you the same thing.

On Aug 26, 8:27 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Peter, I didn’t say that you are wrong. There is no real right or wrong answer. In terms of the questions, they are questions and I would like that you provide some answer to them - take note of them and answer them as soon as possible. If possible, you can email me your answers. In case this thread hits 100 or so messages.

There is 12 basic questions and I’ll accept answers to 3 at a time. Are you right? Yes in some areas. Are you wrong? Yes, in some other areas. We all are that way, my friend. I feel there is some oversight or even lack of consideration for some of the factors.

On Aug 26, 8:34 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

High tech companies varies in terms of cleanliness and age of facilities. Certainly, in many areas - tech companies have taken major steps in improving facilities or making new facilities that meets the DEQ regulations that meets the Clean Air Act as they are enforced. They look for infrastructure first. Then the beauty, clean water and air and nice community is second and is icing on the cake. It is where they set the priority so they can “make money” not waste time. If we want them, we need to get off our duff and stop fighting every decision to unbelief and literally fight every single company that proposes to move here.

On Aug 26, 8:36 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:08 AM, More Smoke wrote:

You bet?

Why, that’s just more speculation isn’t it?

You really have no idea since there was never any options to campare it to.

On Aug 26, 8:41 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Why? I don’t know. I must assume that they don’t want their young kids to have jobs and live and raise a family in this community.

Maybe that’s a wrong assumption. Anyway, the point being, that is the kind of message that is sent - if unintended.

We need to address these things but even with some improvement, it doesn’t come close or by the time we did this improvement we were already tooken off their list and they developed elsewhere and are not ready to build new facilities and look at us for again. Maybe, some of them are ready BUT they don’t know of the recent improvement.

We are working on an air service which would be #1 in terms of infrastructure.

On Aug 26, 8:45 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

The executive folks will not permit locating a facility that is not near an airport that will take them to the main airport in Portland for international flights OR to other big cities or to Portland where their other offices and facilities are located.

Since most facilities (whether it be a R&D;lab, productions plant, or pure office) includes some part that is office for executive/administration of the labs and they need to be able to meet at their local or other branch offices or labs/facilities for meetings and often on short notice.

On Aug 26, 12:33 PM, Nels wrote:

McGee proves the point that Bradwood LNG IS the best use of the land. He’s asked the question and NO ONE has been able to answer it, least of all him. And that is what happened when the aluminum plant was shut out of the area. A bunch of hollow promises that another industry/business would take its place and it didn’t. McGee can’t even answer his own question.

I don’t know that he gets the point. Why would those who WANT lng look for a different industry to take its place?

On Aug 26, 3:01 PM, ClearwaterII wrote:

It’s no secret that there are vast untapped oil deposits offshore of Oregon and Washington-the test wells were done a long time ago--we will see in our lifetimes those resources exploited and the Columbia River will be an important staging and supply area for the drilling platforms. This will bring massive economic growth and change to the area.

On Aug 26, 6:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 26, 12:33 PM, Nels wrote:

I don’t know that he gets the point. Why would those who WANT lng look for a different industry to take its place?

Did we even know what LNG was till it was thrust upon us?

Well, “The Betsy” was working on use of that land with Leahy well before NSNG and then, there it was.

On Aug 26, 7:35 PM, scott wrote:

Does anyone believe that Bradwood Landing would spend $30,000.00 plus to fight the referendum if they really believed that there would be “no meaningful impact” on their project?

They seem frightened to see the true sentiment of the voters. It seems that in the past few elections, the people of this county are rejecting the secrecy, manipulation and dishonesty of elected officials and companies that continue to force bad decisions upon us.

How much have they spent on what supposedly would have no effect?

- Legal fees associated with their attempt to kill it before we get to vote.

- Print ads, brochures, and many radio ads.

- Over $30,000.00 for the misleading push-polls that they have finally been forced to admit to.

See:

http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=53846

Anyone want to venture a guess as to the amount of money they’ve spent thus far?

On Aug 26, 7:51 PM, Elbridge Trask wrote:

How much money they’ve spent to counter the anti-LNG kooks isnt any of our concern. It’s their money-not ours.

What I am more concerned about is how the money the local anti-LNG skizzles out of the local population with their smarmy lies. That money doesnt stay in the community, it goes right down to California where it just so happens the majority of these kooks come from.

the real River people of our community want LNG terminals built here-we need the jobs and income

On Aug 26, 8:05 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 26, 7:51 PM, Elbridge Trask wrote:

How much money they’ve spent to counter the anti-LNG kooks isnt any of our concern. It’s their money-not ours.

What I am more concerned about is how the money the local anti-LNG skizzles out of the local population with their smarmy lies. That money doesnt stay in the community, it goes right down to California where it just so happens the majority of these kooks come from.

the real River people of our community want LNG terminals built here-we need the jobs and income

Care to share with us, Elbridge, exactly which lies it is you are referring to?

The “Real River People”?

We are all “River People” here and I am proud to be one, we just don’t share the same viewpoints.

Why is it Bradwood/NSNG is so active on this referendum with so much money if they have nothing to worry about in these silly Anti-LNGers?

On Aug 26, 10:06 PM, Miller Sands wrote:

, Patrick McGee wrote:

We are all “River People” here and I am proud to be one

tsk tsk tsk..more lies from McGee.
You’ve never made your living on the river or depended on the river traffic and maintainence for income. You’re just another rubber necked jaw flappin flat lander sticking his nose into other peoples business.
Real riverpeople laugh at clowns like you beause you’re so officious, yet know absolutely nothing about living on the river.

On Aug 26, 11:01 PM, Jenny wrote:

Huhtala, Reuter, McGee have all ignored the fact that the No on 4-131 LIED that each dollar contributed before July 6th would be matched. They refuse to acknowledge the LIE that the postcards say that LNG pipelines would be going through parks. Bradwood has been doing surveys for three years, taking the temperature of the community to see how people have felt towards LNG. It wasn’t a “push poll”. I was asked, “Do you support or oppose LNG in your area” I said I supported it. The pollster than asked, “Would you change your mind?” I replied, “No”. If the pollster is asking that to people WHETHER OR NOT they said they supported it, IT ISN"T A PUSH POLL! I am tired of the LIES that the anti force is telling everyone. They will prob win this election and I will laugh my ass off when they won’t be able to get a single cable to their windmills, solar plant, or hydro facilities. And I will campaign avidly against getting it repealed when you NEED it repealed, which you will.

On Aug 27, 6:32 AM, Best Guest wrote:

Does any one wonder why there isn’t any one on the No on 4-131 team that was born here? All out of towners telling the locals what’s best for them.

On Aug 27, 7:44 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

All of us that live here on the river make our living on it, contribute to it and because of it, in one way or another.

It’s the center of our focus everyday.

On Aug 27, 8:10 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 26, 11:01 PM, Jenny wrote:

No on 4-131 LIED that each dollar contributed before July 6th would be matched.(Where was this said?).... the postcards say that LNG pipelines would be going through parks.(It’s good that you admit the assumption that you know that the pipelines come fron a LNG facility going through OPR Zoned Property(Open Space, Parks And Recreation) It wasn’t a “push poll”. I was asked, “Do you support or oppose LNG in your area? The pollster than asked, “Would you change your mind?” If the pollster is asking that to people WHETHER OR NOT they said they supported it, IT ISN"T A PUSH POLL!(Define Push Poll) I am tired of the LIES that the anti force is telling everyone.....they won’t be able to get a single cable to their windmills, solar plant, or hydro facilities.(OPR allows for common utilities to the site) And I will campaign avidly against getting it repealed when you NEED it repealed, which you will.

On Aug 27, 8:46 AM, Push Poll wrote:

A public-opinion polling technique that is used to test possible campaign themes by asking very specific questions about an issue or candidate.
http://www.truecivics.com/2008/02/political-glossary.html

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push poll

a campaign technique in which a fake poll is used to alter the views of respondents. Push polls are generally viewed as form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to actual polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/push poll

On Aug 27, 9:03 AM, Here it is wrote:

Email from a listserve against LNG:

Date: 6/27/08
We expect a vigorous and well-funded opposition from NorthernStar, the promoter of the proposed LNG terminal and pipeline at Bradwood. But with your generous support, we will prevail.
The campaign ahead will not be easy. To succeed, we need your financial help today. With money for lawn signs, mailings, radio and newspaper ads, and other expenses, we can run an effective and informative campaign to reach voters county-wide. With $50, we can buy radio time; with $100, we can buy 30 yard signs; with $1000, we can do a mailing. No gift is too small; every dollar will help us keep LNG pipelines out of parks.

SUPPORT THE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN TODAY.
“"For every dollar you give through July 6, the campaign will receive a matching dollar, effectively doubling your contribution."”

Donate online at http://www.ClatsopCommonSense.org.

Or mail your check payable to:
Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense
PO Box 186
Warrenton 97146

On Aug 27, 9:11 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Can you,Here it is, confirm that it is not being done?

For this group to say this and not back it up is an acute violation, it would seem.

On Aug 27, 9:14 AM, Eddy Tank wrote:

On Aug 27, 7:44 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

All of us that live here on the river make our living on it, contribute to it and because of it, in one way or another.

It’s the center of our focus everyday.

More unctuous disengenuous drivel from the carpet bagging dog and pony show set.

On Aug 27, 11:06 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

On Aug 27, 9:14 AM, Eddy Tank wrote:

More unctuous disengenuous drivel from the carpet bagging dog and pony show set.

And how is it you earned your “Right” to live here Mr. Tank?

On Aug 27, 12:50 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

A person owns the right to live here by buying property and live here.

Ok, simple. The real question is not the right to live here. The question is, what did you do to earn the trust of the established community that was here when you arrive. In other words, what did you do to be accepted by the community?

Sure, I wasn’t born here. Many of even the long living members of our community weren’t “born here” or grew up a major part of their life where they were born.

I could say, I grew up from my teenage years. I consider this place home for me.

On Aug 27, 12:52 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Peter Huhtala, you can email your responses to my 12 questions to the following email address:

rickbalkins(at)gmail(dot)com

Replace (at) with @
Replace (dot) with the period -> .

On Aug 27, 3:15 PM, curious george wrote:

On Aug 27, 7:44 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

All of us that live here on the river make our living on it, contribute to it and because of it, in one way or another.

Please qualify how you make your living on the river and exactly what have you contributed to it?

On Aug 27, 3:34 PM, Peter Huhtala wrote:

For the record: I was born in Astoria, as was my father. I’ve fished, swam, boated and kayaked the Columbia. I don’t earn my living from the river, but I have great respect and affection for it. I’m a past president of Columbia Riverkeeper, now on the Advisory Board. I have little tolerance for those who would pollute or otherwise degrade the water quality of this fabulous stream. I favor sustainable uses of the river such as fishing and recreation, and believe that it is vital to support responsible shipping as well. I support and encourage new business and industry compatible with the area. What “compatible” means is different for each of us; that’s a dialogue we should continue.

On Aug 27, 3:44 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

For me, I had boated on the Columbia and have done some recreational fishing on it. I don’t earn my living on the river, either. I agree that uses on the river should be respected and held to high standards.

Not just this river but also the other rivers and streams in our community. I’m not the “tree-hugging environmentalist” type and look at improving job and education and recreational/entertainment opportunities for all people in our community. However, whatever development should respect our resources while also respecting the character and charm of our community (architecturally in particular.)

On Aug 27, 3:45 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

100th message: Whatever we do, we need to be progressive with respect to our resources, environment, ect.

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