SHARE THIS SHOW:

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

Measures 63 and 64

AIR DATE: Wednesday, October 29th 2008

Download the mp3 for this show.

What would you like to ask anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore?

Bill Sizemore, known by many as an anti-tax activist, has five offerings on the ballot this November, including Measures 63 and 64. You may have heard something about measure 64 -- it's getting a lot of TV ad play -- but Measure 63 has gotten much less attention (for or against) in the leadup to the election.

Measure 63 would allow Oregonians to make up to $35,000 in certain home improvements each year without getting a permit. This is a new measure from Sizemore, who says it will bring legal safeguards to a practice that's already common among homeowners across Oregon. Opponents of the measure say it will lead to unsafe construction and a loss of important government revenue.

Measure 64 would prohibit public employees from using state resources to collect money for political purposes. Critics of the measure say this will prevent working class Oregonians from having a say in the political arena. Sizemore argues it will stop the problem of "commingling": using taxpayer funds to collect political funds.

How would these measures affect you? Are you a public employee who currently uses voluntary payroll deduction to donate to charities and organizations? Or a charity that currently benefits from those donations? Would you like to be able to do certain renovations without a permit? (And would you like your neighbor to be able to, as well?) Are you a firefighter who already sees non-permitted home improvements? Do you buy the arguments about safety?

Guests:

Bill Sizemore, author of measures 63 and 64

Tim Birr, Retired division chief of the Tualatin Fire Department

Leslie Frane, Executive Director of SEIU Local 503

Tagged as: bill sizemore · law · tax · union

One of the possible unintended consequences of measure 64 is to put the Waterfront Blues Festival on the chopping block. As written, Oregon Food Bank qualifies as a "political organization," and would prohibit OFB from holding it's primary fundraising event on the "public property" of Waterfront Park.
The '08 event was attended by over 120,000 people, raised more than half a million dollars and over 90,000 pounds of food. The 21-year-old WBF has become internationally recognized as a premier blues event, draws A-list acts to Portland and it's the largest blues fest west of the Mississippi.
I'd like to hear Bill's response to the impact on Portland, OFB, and the blues community of this consequence of Measure 64.

J. Crecraft — Tue Oct. 28th 5:34p.m.

Unintended consequences and the limited information provided by the mail propaganda demonstrate the need for law making be left to the law makers. The system of lobbying is also broke, but it is apparent the measure system doesn't necessarily meet our needs.

zulakp — Wed Oct. 29th 12:13p.m.

Measure 63 is a horrible idea, simply put. Beyond the obvious safety risks it opens up, the measure creates liability for homeowners. That liability follows them even after they've sold the home.
The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, along with every other HBA in the state, strongly opposes this measure. Consider for a moment that the HBA usually fights hard to reduce the amount of needless fees, process and bureaucracy that go into home building and remodeling, and we're opposed to this measure. We all would like a simpler process, but tossing the permit provision for remodeling work is like making cars less expensive by building them without brakes.

bradinsherwood — Tue Oct. 28th 6:26p.m.

Given that Webster defines politics as "the art or science of government" isn't measure 64 just further polluting the language by reducing the meaning to a certain set of activities.

Also, even though the measure states it's not intended to stifle speech, given that the contributions considered are volutary, it would seem subject to legitimate question as to whether or not freedom of speech rights are being violated.

And finally how would this effect other activities like collecting monies for special license plates or fees for special uses of state-owned parks or other facilities? Will enforcement require more expense?

gourleyr — Tue Oct. 28th 7:51p.m.

If public employees are effectively deprived of a meaningful voice in the political process, won't that leave the field open to high rollers like Mr. Sizemore's chief sponsors, Loren Parks and Dick Wendt? Measure 64 feels a lot like big guys picking on little guys.

Mt. Tabor Maven — Tue Oct. 28th 7:59p.m.

Yes, Mt Tabor Maven, having been among the public employees fighting off Bill Sizemore since before 1995, I can tell you it sure feels like the big guys picking on the little guys. Bill Sizemore never seeks to control the freedoms of corporate folks, and measure 64 would leave the playing field wide open for them to have even more influence on politics. (OMG!) Attached is a commentary, written by me, that sheds a bit more historical light on the enigma known to many of us as simply Sizemore.

star085 — Wed Oct. 29th 1:34a.m.

Measure 63 simply throws away all we've learned about building safety over the years. For instance, you can build an addition for $35,000 that mistakenly allows concealed wall cavities to communicate with the attic. Fire builds up and engulfs the attic before anyone in the house is aware of a problem, and there's little chance of escape. Every inspector requires those spaces to be fireblocked many times day because people simply don't know that it should be done. Also, firemen/women will stop climbing onto roofs, an important fire fighting technique. They will no longer know if those roofs can support their weight. Bottom line, if this bill passes, people are going to die as a direct result, and there will be much property damage. It's inevitable. Also, homeowners insurance rates will increase for us all.
Measure 64 is a classic case of misrepresentation. "Co-mingling?" C'mon. I'm sure it costs a few pennies per year to add automatic payroll deductions, but nothing more. It's an incidental expense, and one that is 100% voluntary from each employee. This way the little guy gets a chance to pool their money and have their voice heard. Bill Sizemore wants it silenced. What kind of democracy is that? It also wipes out payroll contributions to charities from public employees. Also, this bill forbids any public space to be used for any political gathering, or any organization that has any political component, such as lobbying for environmental protection, muscular dystrophy research, ranchers rights, anything! It prohibits free assembly!

buckeichler — Tue Oct. 28th 11:43p.m.

Mr Eichler is right on both Measures 63 and 64. Those, along with other Bill Sizemore initiatives, seem designed with pure public vandalism in mind. If it has Sizemore's name on it, I am very, very wary.

broadway — Wed Oct. 29th 10:48a.m.

Those who keep abreast of Oregon politics have known for some time that Sizemore's primary goal is to force unions to focus resources on defeating his ballot measures and away from supporting candidates. This election cycle will be the 4th time Sizemore has presented Ballot Measure 64. His continued presentation of 64 makes four statements: 1. He does not respect the decisions of Oregon voters, 2. He believes he is smarter/wiser than Oregon voters. 3. A high percentage of people who sign his petitions lack a full or complete understanding of what they sign. 4. He is running out of ideas for measures unions cannot ignore. The reality is that even if Sizemore disappears the people who back Sizemore would soon find a replacement. And its not just Parks and Wendt who back him. It is really sad that such people who preach less government intrusion into private lives of citizens who advocate government intrusion into private voluntary decisions for political gain.

MeanMachine2 — Wed Oct. 29th 3:17a.m.

No - Sleasmore's primary goal is to line his personal pockets. Any other goal is secondary. It's too bad that the state of Oregon has to spend or lose so much money (in lost revenue, expenses in opposing, and expenses incurred as a result of these measures) - just so that Bill can milk some of the money out of the process. He makes his living off of the backs of Oregon taxpayers.

I'll stop now. If I let myself go, I could rant about this man all night. He is among the worst human beings residing in the state of Oregon and dirties the word "Oregonian".

DreamTheEndless — Wed Oct. 29th 10:01p.m.

I will vote YES for both 63 and 64. I believe we should be able to do home improvements to a certain dollar limit. I agree in the premise of 64. If you want to donate political funds do so directly.

marko3 — Wed Oct. 29th 4:42a.m.

It might be OK to make small home improvements such as a short fence or small, on-the-ground deck without a permit. That said, we recently added 350 square feet to the second story of our house, including new plumbing and a new electrical panel for less that $35,000 We did some of the work ourselves, and I was glad to have a knowledgeable inspector come to to assure us that everything was safe and up to code. And when we sell the house, the new owner will be sure of it, too... Would you want to buy a house without knowing how safe it was?

patrold — Wed Oct. 29th 12:12p.m.

Following your belief this prohibition should also extend to voluntary payroll deductions from corporations and small businesses. You would also be willing to accept the consequences related to the loss of revenue by private non-profit organizations such as United Way, Oregon Food Bank, Humane Society, and a host of agencies who provide viate social and other services to communities all across Oregon. Larger numbers of people without enough food, more abandoned animals (that's ok as your taxes will provide more animal control resources), asistance for the disabled (more tax dollars you will happily provide, no doubt), less drug treatment programs (more of your tax dollars at work as well as more property crimes as more addicts attempt to find the money to feed their habit. But why do you stop at political funds ? People use payroll deduction for a wide range of needs such as pre-tax child care payments, medical, insurance, savings, etc. A ballot measure to completely eliminate payroll deductions would make a clean sweep. No doubts TOL can provide you with contact information for Sizemore. Good Luck

MeanMachine2 — Thu Oct. 30th 1:58a.m.

This response was intended for "Marshwiggler" below. "Marshwiggler" whether sincere or tongue in cheek ranted about their wish for a constitutional amendment to do away with government which prohibited people freedom to do what they want.

MeanMachine2 — Sat Nov. 1st 9:50a.m.

Measure 64, like almost all Sizemore stunts, is an attempt to silence the voices of working families in Oregon. Sizemore trots these oinkers out year after year, and they are defeated every time.

What sort of respect does that show Oregon voters? Sizemore isn't capable of taking "No" for an answer.

The real agenda behind these Sizemore initiatives is to divert resources from progressive issues. Sizemore works for big corporate interests who have a major stake in driving down working conditions for Oregon's working families.

Let's tell him "No" one more time.

broadway — Wed Oct. 29th 11a.m.

I fully agree with broadway, Mr. Seizmore is continually disrespectful to Oregon voters, Anti-Tax to my ears says Anti little guy.

jimmi118 — Wed Oct. 29th 11:59a.m.

Regarding Measure 63:

I'm a remodeler and handyman who understands the premise behind this measure--that people should be entitled to do what they want with their property--but that ignores the reality that homes are later sold. Building codes ensure safety and are a vital form of consumer protection.

Many of my repair projects are the result of do-it-yourselfers who didn't follow building codes. Someone took shortcuts and substitutions, resulting in leaks and structural problems that are very costly to repair. These are usually HIDDEN. And they've usually been passed on from a previous owner to my customers.

Supporters argue that a full disclosure statement will take care of this. I doubt very much that do-it-yourselfers will think ahead to that day when they claim all improvements were done according to codes...and clearly when the time comes for a house to be sold, the person who did the improvements may have passed on or forgotten.

Amhurst — Wed Oct. 29th 12:09p.m.

I am amused by the logic that if the law is often disobeyed so, therefore lets do away with the law

jimmi118 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:14p.m.

How would this new measure (63) affect the income local governments receive from the fees they collect from these permits?

bowerman61028 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:14p.m.

Measure 63: We have done substantial DIY remodeling both with and without permits. We are conscientious people who disclosed all work to our buyers. We were not always so lucky when we were buyers, having had to repair sloppy or downright unsafe work done by other diy-ers. Permits are a good thing and this measure is wrong. They are about safety, plain and simple. All these Sizemore issues are about nothing more than getting more measures on the ballot because that's how he gets paid. He does not care about the consequences, intended or unintended.

On a side note, with all the dirt coming up on VP candidate Sarah Palin, it has been noted widely that as mayor of Wasilla, AK, she did away with building permits just before her $550,000 DIY home was built, coincidentally at the same time as the multibillion dollar hockey arena just down the road. Conveniently, permits would have provided a paper trail to show that the house was or was not built with the same labor and/or materials used on the arena. Permits can serve many functions...

mbbuffum — Wed Oct. 29th 12:14p.m.

Bill Sizemore is incorrect when he says it is more costly to run 220 to a hot tub when a permit is required. I had 220 run to a sauna and the electrical company had it done in 2 hours and they had the inspector come out later that day to check it. $200 and done right!

Safety is Priority.

LauraT — Wed Oct. 29th 12:18p.m.

Oregonians should vote YES for measure 63. If I want to build an unsafe addition on my own home that puts my narrow-minded pea brain at risk of death, than so be it!

Come to think of it: Measure 63 does not go far enough!! I want a constitutional amendment that prohibits all government! Yes! All government! Zippo! End of story! We don't need it!

marshwiggler — Wed Oct. 29th 12:19p.m.

Following your belief this prohibition should also extend to voluntary payroll deductions from corporations and small businesses. You would also be willing to accept the consequences related to the loss of revenue by private non-profit organizations such as United Way, Oregon Food Bank, Humane Society, and a host of agencies who provide viate social and other services to communities all across Oregon. Larger numbers of people without enough food, more abandoned animals (that's ok as your taxes will provide more animal control resources), asistance for the disabled (more tax dollars you will happily provide, no doubt), less drug treatment programs (more of your tax dollars at work as well as more property crimes as more addicts attempt to find the money to feed their habit. But why do you stop at political funds ? People use payroll deduction for a wide range of needs such as pre-tax child care payments, medical, insurance, savings, etc. A ballot measure to completely eliminate payroll deductions would make a clean sweep. No doubts TOL can provide you with contact information for Sizemore. Good Luck

MeanMachine2 — Sat Nov. 1st 9:51a.m.

Concerning measure 63:

I get the distinct feeling that the city of Portland actively discourages homeowners from doing their own work. I can see where the city wants to make us create jobs by hiring people.

My experience with Portland building permits:

1) Went to get a building permit. They said I couldn't get one unless I hired a contractor.

2) Hired a plumber to do minor work. He obtained permit. But no inspector ever came to inspect work.

3) Hired a plumber to do major work. Inspector came to inspect, but only spent about 5 minutes. Didn't catch errors that even I could see.

4) Went to get a building permit. The cost of the permit was likely to be as much as the whole job I wanted to do (cost of building permit is a percentage of what a contractor would charge for the job-- if I do my own work, the job would cost far less, since I'm not paying for labor).

mikejb — Wed Oct. 29th 12:20p.m.

Isn't there an argument to be made for green living innovation in regard to this measure. Removing the financial and bureaucratic impediments to individuals renovating their own homes has the possibility to promote "green" innovation on a grassroots level. It seems to me that restrictive and sometimes proscriptive codes and permit requirements keep builders (DIY'ers or otherwise) from doing innovative and possibly beneficial forward thinking things such as strawbale and cob structures and lead us instead to continue to reproduce stifling, conventional, and unsustainable homes. We shouldn't let the personal arguments about Bill Sizemore from objectively considering the validity of measure 63.

AndrewJohn — Wed Oct. 29th 12:21p.m.

AndrewJohn makes a good point. Proscriptive codes do tend to stifle innovation, especially innovation that doesn't involve a large corporation making money. But I don't think that this measure solves that problem. It seems to me that adapting our development/permitting process to allow for innovative alternatives to conventional building practices would be much more effective than just sidestepping the permit process altogether. Perhaps an alternative permitting route could be offered to those who have found ways to satisfy the intent of a specific code, though they don't conform to the letter of the code.

Regarding the cost and confusion of the permitting process, it helps when the various municipal agencies and departments involved with development and construction have a clear framework for communicating with each other, and a clear system for homeowners to navigate the permitting process. I don't know about other cities in Oregon, but Portland has a pretty decent system, and perhaps should be looked to as an example.

Courtney S. — Wed Oct. 29th 4:36p.m.

I am curious who determines the $35,000 value and how often is a homeowner allowed to do $35,000 worth of remodeling to one home?

AmyinSalem — Wed Oct. 29th 12:21p.m.

I'm sick and tired of racketeer Bill Sizemore bringing his poorly-conceived ideas to Oregon voters. Oregon voters are smarter than to fall for his schemes that have failed numerous times already. Sizemore and his out-of-state sugar daddy Loren Parks should stop abusing Oregon's ballot system. Working Oregonians deserve to have a voice. Measure 64 would silence their voices.

nefargo — Wed Oct. 29th 12:22p.m.

Requiring building permits help ensure safety and are HUGE sources of revenue generation for the municipality. I think we have strong support for the safety value of the building code & permit process, but the revenue issue is what most struggle with... By getting a permit for everything, I am forced to pay a fee AND I'm telling the tax collector about an improvement to my home (which may result in increased property taxes due to the improvement adding to home value).

Claytonx — Wed Oct. 29th 12:22p.m.

Even though I don't support these measures, or any of the measures that Bill Sizemore has authored, I appreciate that Mr. Sizemore has been invited to be a part of this discussion and speak for himself. Thanks for bringing opposing voices into this respectful, intelligent discussion.

Courtney S. — Wed Oct. 29th 12:22p.m.

The land lord unintentionally points out the importance of permits in preventing shoddy work on rental units rented by unsuspecting families. Although he sounds resonable I am sure other rental owners are not so well meaning

jimmi118 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:23p.m.

On Measure 63, I'm hearing Bill SIzemore say that since people are already illegally making additions without permits, therefore we should legalize it... I'm wondering does that logic apply to drugs as well? Does Bill support the legalization of marijuana and other drugs?

Thomas Paine — Wed Oct. 29th 12:23p.m.

Great point! Perhaps the author will spend some time at a freeway rest stop, talk to some folks about whether or not they like or obey speed limits, and we'll get some more interesting fare for the next election ...

bradinsherwood — Wed Oct. 29th 3:21p.m.

What about the rights of a neighbor living next to a do-it-yourselfer? Codes and permits exist in part to protect neighbors' property, as well, and this measure seems to ignore this issue. This seems incredibly foolish in light of the home in Portland's Southwest hills which slid into its neighbors a few weeks ago. Wouldn't this measure allow, for example, a homeowner to install a sprinkler system in their yard without a permit? Improper installation of a sprinkler system causes all kinds of drainage problems, especially in hilly areas, and was cited as a potential cause of the accident on Terwilliger Blvd.

Bottom line: My rights as a landowner do not trump the rights of my neighbors to own and enjoy their land, too.

aaron ray — Wed Oct. 29th 12:23p.m.

Obviously safety is the #1 concern with Measure 63. A homeowner may do quality work on his or her home, but what about the neighbor or the previous owner of the home? Each home cannot be viewed in a vacuum; it is part of a neighborhood that shares electricity, sewage, water, etc. There are several other damaging consequences to Oregonians:
1. Un-permitted work will DECREASE the property value of homes. In the current housing market, this is the last thing homeowners need. Un-permitted and un-inspected work is not documented, verified, and therefore often not trusted. Any realtor or insurer will tell you this.
2. Along that same line, insurance rates for homes with un-permitted work will increase because the work is more of a liability.

Additionally, and electrical caveat is not the only concern; what about structural problems, gas leaks, sewage spills and crumbling foundations.

mBolstad — Wed Oct. 29th 12:24p.m.

Maybe you trust your own work, but what about the work of the Yahoo you just bought your house from? My last house had some shady work obviously done without permit. This is setting up having unsafe structures for generations.

jonestim — Wed Oct. 29th 12:25p.m.

I believe in the inspections. I also believe that the permits are necessary to ensure that the builder/installer is aware of rules and regulations. But I also believe that the process has become quite burdensome, to the point that it has become the norm to just bypass the system and proceed without a permit. In addition, I don't see that the inspections are adequate, which makes one wonder why bother if the inspection is going to be glossed over anyway. I voted against the measure because I believe it is to broad, but I hope it is a wake up call that the system needs to be revamped.

mftovey — Wed Oct. 29th 12:26p.m.

All the examples I've heard for the validity of this measure are for very inexpensive improvements. Why $35,000? If the limit was set at $1000 or $2000 that would cover most of the "ridiculous" permitting needs. Is there a non-greedy reason to go higher than that?

JoePurkey — Wed Oct. 29th 12:27p.m.

Even though I don't want The Man stomping around MY prop'ty telling me what I can and can't do, I realize my desire to be "free" has to be balanced with my responsibility to the public's safety. I do much of my own work. The stuff I don't know how to do, like electrical, plumbing and structural, I hire out to professionals and get permits. Common sense should prevail. (And greased pigs should fly upside down in formation.)

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:28p.m.

I understand that it is an additional cost and inconvenience to have to get permits for most improvements but Mr. Sizemore overestimates a lot of peoples ability or desire to do improvements properly. Like deregulated business which will usually be self serving and not do the 'right' thing, people will try to cut corners if they don't have to prove the improvement has been done properly. This measure is a bad idea.

Stormyinportland — Wed Oct. 29th 12:28p.m.

As a renter, I'm concerned about what protects me from a landlord that is not qualified to make improvements. It seems to me building permits are a protection to me since I am not an owner and have no way of knowing if a landlord is doing safe work to the home I am renting.

weeblewobble — Wed Oct. 29th 12:30p.m.

This definitely affects renters the same as homeowners, except you are more at the mercy of your landlord who will not live in the consequences of the work.

mBolstad — Wed Oct. 29th 12:33p.m.

Some do it yourself-ers are very capable. But some are not!

To see real code violations view this:

http://www.newportlandhome.com/HOME_INSPECTION_NIGHTMARES/page_1850523.html

Pacific Land — Wed Oct. 29th 12:31p.m.

Again with the faulty logic if the home owner is ill-equipped to price their remodel at $5 or $6 thousand how are they equiped to judge $35,000

jimmi118 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:32p.m.

Great. Yet another republican looking to deregulate. Why are we in the financial mess we are in right now? Mostly deregulation or lack of regulation.

I know it is a pain to get a permit but the reality is many people who do not get permits now, probably don't follow code and the work is below standard.

A guest on today's show (a landlord) said he felt his tenants were "like family"; many don't.

Don't use drugs or drunk driving to prove a point, how about parking, speeding and overloading trucks?

Alfatipo — Wed Oct. 29th 12:32p.m.

Bill Sizemores' version of the "Nanny State" is living off the Nevada citizen, Loren Parks, monetary teat, making his living writing measures to attack the people of Oregon.

You know how all the children of Prairie Home Companions' Lake Woebegone are "above average"? Sizemore and his Sizemoreons grew up somewhere else, they are the "below average".

Tom D Ford — Wed Oct. 29th 12:32p.m.

As a firefighter and former contractor I see both sides of the issues. The code is there for a reason, life safety. Unfortunately, the permitting process is difficult and expensive. Local government uses permits as a source of revenue. Their cost are based on the value of the work, not the actual cost incurred by government to perform the inspection. As an example, I paid over $600 for a permit to install solar panels on my home due to the cost of the panels. The actual inspection took less than 15 minutes. If we are truly concerned about safety, make the process easy to navigate and reasonable in cost.

Andy Louden — Wed Oct. 29th 12:33p.m.

You make a good point, if the cost of the permit is driving people away from obtaining them then the costs should be reduced (free?). The benefits of safe construction should be borne by the entire community.

Alfatipo — Wed Oct. 29th 1:21p.m.

re 64:

I am a union member and would love for this measure to pass. As a rank and file member there is very little accountability of the union leadership to the rank and file. An interesting case in point was in early 2008 when my union due almost doubled. The reason given was that it was to support political efforts on a national and local level. There was no discussion about the amount of dues increase, and the only discussion was how to implement it. I was curious on how and for what political movements my dues being spent and repeatedly asked our shop stewards and local council for this information. I was essentially blown off.

My only recourse was to opt out of the "political" contribution which amounted to about 25% of my dues. Since the dues just went up 80%, my conclusion is that despite the opt out I am still contributing to political actions.

Measure 64 would give me the union member, much more ability to demand an open process by giving me the option to withhold dues until inquiries are answered. Right now I have no options. I find it offensive that all the commercials against 64, which are paid for by my dues, totally officiate the issues and tries to mislead the public by making it a matter of public safety.

Thanks for your attention

mtnboy — Wed Oct. 29th 12:34p.m.

I think you answered your own concern. Opt out of the political contribution.

If 64 passes you will have to write weekly or monthly checks. You want that cost and aggravation? Vote for 64.

Alfatipo — Wed Oct. 29th 2:02p.m.

The permit process is too onerous and expensive.
I had permitted electrical work being inspected and was ?caught? repairing my existing deck.

It cost me another $250 extra to get permits on my existing deck.
My feeling is that it just cost me extra time and money. No one is safer.

I voted yes.

alpha ape — Wed Oct. 29th 12:37p.m.

Worthy hassle to know that you are doing safe work for your family, neighbors, and future owners. Often, the best things in life are not the easiest.

mBolstad — Wed Oct. 29th 12:43p.m.

Onerous? Irritating maybe, but the benefits to us all are worth any extra time on the homeowners part.

Permits should be free (or a nominal cost) when the homeowner is doing the work themselves and/or the value is less than a certain amount. Permits should not be a source of revenue.

The permitting process should also be available online.

Alfatipo — Wed Oct. 29th 2:09p.m.

Yes indeed ONEROUS. Webster?s second denotation of onerous: (2) Law.
[i]Entailing obligations that exceed advantages. [/i]

In my cases, I was already making repairs to make my deck safer; replacing dry rotted support beams and decking. My own self-protective instinct had kicked in. No nanny or big brother was telling me what needed to be done.
Yet, I had be PERMITTED to engage in this activity and spend time drawing diagrams; conferring with officials, waiting for inspections, and re-inspections, writing checks.

The concrete blocks that had served well for 16 years was deemed inadequate. Concrete footings were required. The result is now I have an over built deck ? I am certain it would support two stories. I could have spent this money on more quality materials and my time on something useful.

That's not the end of my nightmare. The last inspector who did approve my handiwork did not file the form to close my case. Of course I find this out after the permit period has expired. This means more fees and more inspections.

Tell me what the added value of the $250.00 I spent on the PERMIT is?
Am I safer, more healthy, or just poorer and more cynical?

alpha ape — Thu Oct. 30th 1:07p.m.

I wonder if Mr. Sizemore can point to an example of a single city or county with a population greater than 10,000 that has eliminated permit requirements. It seems pretty obvious that building regulations are specifically designed for the needs of a growing population. But perhaps there's a "Libertyville" somewhere that has dropped all such regulations, instead allowing its residents freedom to endanger their fellow citizens with impunity.

danblaker — Wed Oct. 29th 12:43p.m.

I lived in such a town with no codes and no inspections. Some people had no clue about structural integrity, safe wiring, etc. etc.

surfdnet — Wed Oct. 29th 1:10p.m.

Re: 64

Ask Ms. Fraine which industries spend more on lobbying than the public employees unions. There are none.

I generally oppose initiatives as a bad way to govern. The problem being that, when a good one comes, it has no credibility.

I think there is a conspiracy* concealing the overwhelming power the public employees unions (which is not to disrespect the employees) have for campaigns and lobbying. Their interests are put well ahead of the taxpayers and the citizens receiving government services.

* - In trying to research Union lobbying expenditures, I found articles highlighting Oregon's lax reporting of lobbying expenditures. The elected officials that benefit from PE Union campaign contributions and lobbying support, are protecting them from scrutiny.

Bill Swindells — Wed Oct. 29th 12:44p.m.

Though I have yet to listen to an archive of the show, I would like to make a couple of points in regard to conspiracy and public employees interests being put well ahead of the taxpayers and citizens who receive government services.

I am one of those public employees, and my role as an officer (who volunteers) for SEIU 503 puts me in regular contact with Leslie Frane and many other labor leaders who seek to advance progressive causes on behalf of all working people. I am among the transparent and proud who want Justice For All.

By the way, we are all taxpayers, and large numbers of us actually receive the services that are being provided. Besides that we are the service providers, and among our ranks are some pretty strong advocates for, as I said before, all working people.

For example in the spring of 2008, SEIU 503's participation was key to the State's adoption of new nursing home staffing requirements, which in turn meant improvements in resident care. These standards, recommended by a gubernatorial commission established after SEIU 503 prepared a ballot measure to mandate staffing increases, went into effect March 1, 2008. And by the way, the ballot measure was pulled, because the problem was solved without it.

Did workers benefit from these standards being changed? Yes!
Did residents benefit from these standards being changed? Yes!
(and this is just one example.... which is explained in depth at the link below)

http://www.seiu503.org/OR_Adopts_Nursing_Home_Standards.aspx

star085 — Wed Oct. 29th 5:15p.m.

Another point I failed to mention, but only because I had to rewrite from memory a short essay that I lost by hitting the wrong button, it is unions that are at the forefront of a cause that cuts across party lines: Health Care For All.

We, the unions (all types, not just public employees) are the strong voice that cries out in the political realm on behalf of the 46,000,000 who do not have health insurance.

Corporate insurance enterprises and drug companies would probably prefer we not be involved in this sort of effort, that we be silenced, but that would not be in the public's best interest, now would it?

star085 — Wed Oct. 29th 5:27p.m.

I was a public school teacher in Oregon for 23 years.....this is a question I always wanted to ask Sizemore....was there something that happened to you while you were in school that makes you dislike teachers so much? For over 20 years we have dealt with Sizemore....every single election it was something against the teachers...measure 5...you name it....so...why does Bill dislike public school teachers so much? what happened?

JAMISON LEE — Wed Oct. 29th 12:44p.m.

All arguments to and for aside, 64 failed three times before, perhaps it is time for Mr.Seizmore to let it go and save the voters some valuable time (which I have heard is money)

jimmi118 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:47p.m.

As Ms Frane pointed out, a single, out of state donor like Millionaire Loren Parks can cut a check for a million bucks to Bill Sizemore for his ridiculous plots.

When union members VOLUNTEER to pay for political funds, Sizemore wants to forbid us to make our little donations through payroll deductions.

We've told Sizemore NO at least THREE TIMES.

What part of NO don't you understand, Mr. Sizemore?

broadway — Wed Oct. 29th 12:48p.m.

What about millionare liberals who do the same thing. George Soros and MoveOn.org

mtnboy — Wed Oct. 29th 12:53p.m.

What same things please show examples

jimmi118 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:55p.m.

We're not talking about millionaire liberals with this measure. We are talking about millionaires silencing the voices of WORKING PEOPLE.

Vote NO on Measure 64!

broadway — Wed Oct. 29th 12:58p.m.

I hired a "licensed" electrical contractor to rewire my house. He quit in the middle of the project. Had to hire another contractor to finish the project. Months of aggravation. Contractor hired a sub contractor to reroof my house. The roofers did the crappiest job imaginable. I'm still cleaning up and repairing their mistakes. Called a contractor to install two windows. They said they would provide an estimate but never called me back. I seldom have excellent work done by licensed contractors so I end up doing it myself. 63 isn't going to help me acquire excellent quality work at a fair price.

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 29th 12:49p.m.

You can contact the Oregon Construction Contractors Board to research contractors prior to hiring them. Also, licensed contractors are bonded, so you can file a claim to recoup money paid for crappy work.

surfdnet — Wed Oct. 29th 1:03p.m.

In the past the initiative process in Oregon gave us some groundbreaking laws. But now that it has been hijacked by Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix, it just keeps legislators, judges and voters dealing with a bizarre laundry list of poorly-written measures over and over again. Is it time to rewrite or even get rid of the initiative process to rid Sizemore of the ability to make a comfortable living keeping us from dealing with real problems?

watsonjk — Wed Oct. 29th 12:51p.m.

I oppose Measure 63 because:
1) A home owner today can do work on their own home.
2) Permits assure that all work is inspected and therefore done properly and safely.
3) If a landlord wants to repair/remodel a property, then they can obtain an Oregon contractors license.
4) I used to live in a small town in Iowa that had no building codes and no inspections. I was repeatedly amazed at construction that was problematic done by people who were more concerned with saving a few dollars than with creating a home with lasting value.

Suggestion:
I would support a measure (not Measure 63) that a landlord to repair/remodel his own rental property without having a contractors license if he/she obtained appropriate permits. The purpose of the Oregon contractors license is to protect the homeowners from shoddy workmanship. A landlord who fixes his own rental properties is not contractor doing work for another homeowner. However, if this is a concern, then perhaps this measure could prohibit these landlords from selling such properties for 12-24 months to prevent fix & flips.

surfdnet — Wed Oct. 29th 12:55p.m.

As a retired educator and formerly active in the PAT and OEA I know that OEA's political contributions are totally voluntary. Members are required to fill out a separate form from their membership dues to indicated their participation in the organization's political activities. Bill Sizemore's measure 64 is spurious in itself.

janet starosciak — Wed Oct. 29th 12:57p.m.

How many of us reflexively vote no on Sizemore's or Mannix's measures? Has there ever been a good Sizemore measure? I suppose that depends on what your definition of "good" is, but every Sizemore initiative sets my spider senses a-tingle.

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 29th 1:01p.m.

The simple fact is that Measure 64 is unclear and unfair. I am an employee of Oregon Food Bank and we are extremely concerned about the unintended consequences of this Measure. Oregon Food Bank is a public charity that serves over 200,000 hungry people every month. But under this measure?s flawed definition we would be considered a ?political organization? because we take positions on select ballot measures when they directly impact our organization or hungry Oregonians. Because of our involvement in this work, Oregon Food Bank would be prohibited from raising money on public property like schools, parks, and libraries. Last year alone, Oregon Food Bank raised more than $350,000 and 750,000 pounds of food through the State Employee Food Drive. We are very concerned that our other major fundraiser, the Waterfront Blues Festival, would be prohibited since it is held on a public park. Other charitable gifts through the Charitable Check-Off Program would also be prohibited. Measure 64?s unclear language would make it harder to give to Oregon charities and shut out our voices in the public arena. Why should we be punished because of this measure's flawed definitions?

Stephanie T-S — Wed Oct. 29th 1:13p.m.

re:64
Think Out Loud moderators missed an opportunity to ask guest Leslie Fraine why ads against 64 appear to claim that Bill Sizemore is a convicted racketeer when that is not true. That seems to be a gross oversight at best, and at worst another check mark against the claimed neutrality of OPB/NPR reporting.

libertarian — Wed Oct. 29th 2:09p.m.

Bill S. was found guilty of racketerring and fraud in a civil court, not criminal, and was fined millions of dollars which he has not paid.

buckeichler — Wed Oct. 29th 10:09p.m.

It was classic Sizemore - Gina says her contribution via payroll deduction was voluntary, and Sizemore argues with her - as if he knows better.

gourleyr — Wed Oct. 29th 2:52p.m.

Consider that if the ideas behind these initiatives are so good - how come it's only Sizemore and his bankrollers that keep submitting them?????

TunaTime — Wed Oct. 29th 3:52p.m.

It cannot be emphasized enough, considering the consequences folks are beginning to experience, the destruction of the public sector by folks like Sizemore is really going to hurt. I wonder how far it has to go before folks get the picture. Are we all going to have to hire our own personal police force, food tasters, fire fighters, etc. - and those who can't get by the best they can? Measure 64 singles out the public sector for this treatment, in effect muzzling the folks who are looking out for the public's interest.

Get rid of public oversight of Wall Street, and the effect trickles down - upon you.

gourleyr — Thu Oct. 30th 9:11a.m.

I was appalled by your clearly biased viewpoint and how you intentionally assasinaqted Sizemore's character in your program. I understood that OPB claimed to provide a balanced viewpoint on your programming and that is how you portray yourselves to the public from whom you ask donations. Because of your obvious attempt to sway voters away from these measures rather than offer a balanced approach, I am inclined to vote for the measures - not only because I think they have merit but because of your cowardly attempt at manipulating the voters of this State. I will also not be a contributer to OPB and I will not do my business with the Tire Factory or any other business that advertises with your program. Emily, you ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Daniel R — Thu Oct. 30th 5:04p.m.

I do not see in this comment the same outrage over Sizemore's insistance that Gina didn't know what she was talking about when she said her payroll deduction was voluntary. Obviously how someone spends their hard earned money, whether at the "Tire Factory" or otherwise, is their choice. But Sizemore would argue otherwise. This is not your choice, you are somehow compelled in making this choice. Opponents to this point of view also oppose measure 64, preferring a democracy to a dictatorship.

gourleyr — Fri Oct. 31st 11:52a.m.

Comments are now closed.