2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

It's important to remember that the state's own Energy Facility Siting Council has in the past approved large-scale pipeline projects that cross farmland -- e.g., NW Natural Gas pipelines originating in Columbia County -- over the objections of land owners concerning trespass, loss of value, etc.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

"Super-siting" of energy facilities -- i.e., taking authority away from local governments and giving it to the state or federal government -- has always had its supporters and critics. It represents a policy decision that siting of such facilities is too important to be left to local and/or state governments whose decisions often are based more on political considerations than on approval standards. Indeed, Oregon has set up "super-siting" for prisons for this very reason, and allows "super-siting" of energy generation and transmisson facilities through the Energy Facility Siting Council. It's more than a little hypocritical for Oregon to be complaining about federal preemption of LNG siting while we create and defend our own "super-siting" scheme as a better way to create good siting decisions. 

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I agree with Mr. Doell that Oregonians want more from their law enforcement and corrections systems. The problem is that Oregonians also have made clear they don't want to pay the cost of these systems. We have been struggling for years with unfunded criminal justice mandates resulting from initiatives that sound great but are not achievable without adequate funding -- that is, higher taxes. We have to come to terms with costs -- which is what Mr. Prins is talking about. That's not the "government perspective" as Mr. Doell calls it. That is reality.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

The bottom line is the Worthington's attorney did what he was paid to do -- create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury about the parents' responsibility for their daughter's death. But the jurors' comments indicate the faith healing defense is alive and well in Oregon, now called "empathy" for people who have "a different style of parenting." And the jury's acquittal of Mrs. Worthington on the basis of her subservient role in the marriage as dictated by her church is equally troubling. So how as a society do we protect the children of faith healing parents?  Surely over 21 preventable deaths of children in the Followers of Christ church is more than enough.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context