Yes to 14-67

Hood River News, October 23, 2019

Measure 14-67, if passed, would require a vote of the people before our city may sell a park. Narrowly tailored to require public vote only as to park dispositions, 14-67 would not otherwise limit council’s legislative discretion.
I support 14-67 for several reasons:
 
First, our council’s efforts to date to convert parks to housing has proven divisive and unproductive. Good elements of our community have been pitted against one another in a way we should not repeat. The city’s theory supporting park conversion has been adjudged “implausible” as inconsistent with its legal duty to “protect existing park sites”. The city’s administrative legal budget, from 2016-2020, totals $363,926. While that figure includes other work, we have little to show for our investment.

Second, 14-67 is not a threat to local democracy. In fact, it is local democracy at work. Supported by over 1,000 petitioning signatures, 14-67 offers an opportunity for voters to provide a check and balance. Indeed, because councilors are elected every other year in groups of three, seats are generally won by a mere plurality. This creates ambiguity in deciphering mandate. 14-67 may be the only path to identify a democratic majority.
 
Third, we have a park scarcity, particularly on the Westside. Land donors are needed. If dispositions must be approved by the people, donors would have peace of mind that their land grants will not be set aside by a simple vote of four councilors.

Fourth, the stated opposition by some within the city’s establishment seems to prove that park conversion is not a dead idea. Council has not taken steps to rezone Morrison Park as open space.
 
Fifth, 14-67 does not foreclose park conversion. It would only require a public vote, something available every May and November. If Morrison Park had been presented as a referendum, we could have avoided significant community strife.
 
Meanwhile, we can and should focus our low-income housing efforts by bold action on other fronts, such grant-leveraged land acquisitions, or even a housing bond measure referred to the people.

​Vote yes on 14-67.
 
Council Procedures Disclosure (§7.3): This constitutes personal, not council, opinion.

​Erick Haynie
Hood River
 
Editor’s note: Erick Haynie has been a member of Hood River City Council since January.

Voices

Yes on 14-67

Hood River News, October 19, 2019

Megan Saunders's "Another Voice" column opposing Measure 14-67 suggests that we deny people the right to vote to "protect our democratic process." Let's clarify the measure, describe why it will give a voice to all the people about the parks they own, and explain why it deserves a "YES" vote.
 
Ballot measure 14-67 asks: "Shall Hood River revise its charter to prohibit the disposal of any city parkland without a public vote?"
 
Hood River citizens already vote directly to elect government leaders, choose whether to pay additional taxes for schools, or assume significant debt through bond measures. We vote to approve or reject initiatives or referendums. Measure 14-67 amends the city charter to allow the people to authorize the sale of any city park. Every voter will be able to participate in the decision.
 
Opponents claim they provide extensive outreach to the public about issues, but few people attend most council meetings. Even packed public meetings or open houses attract a fraction of the community. School, church, and work often conflict with public meetings, so the same people on either side of an issue show up most often.  Measure 14-67 gives everyone an equal voice.

Megan claims this measure will "undermine democracy." Nonsense. If the city council decides to sell another park, lively debates, editorials, and community meetings will expose the pros and cons. Every voter will weigh the issues and cast their vote. It's what people in a democracy do best.

​We allow our representatives to make most decisions – but not all. Voter approval is required for bond measures, tax levies, referendums, and initiatives. As Megan says, "Our democratic system is strong enough to continue to improve the community into the future." Measure 14-67 trusts voters to make the right decisions about the city parks that they own and use.
 
Megan's argument about cost, time, and "unintended consequences" is a scare tactic. Assume the City Council wants to sell more of our city parks. Oregon has two each year in May and November. Other measures or candidates are usually on the ballot, so any required vote to authorize the sale of a city park will have a negligible additional cost.
 
The higher price would be the sale of an irreplaceable community resource without giving everyone a voice. When we lose a park, children lose a safe place to play. City residents lose green space, and a valuable asset vanishes forever. Approving Measure 14-67 will let the people choose whether to give up their local park.

Megan claims that the amendment will "make it hard for elected representatives to take advantage of new opportunities." That's also nonsense. Nothing in the measure affects the purchase of new land for parks. Measure 14-67 protects newly-acquired parks along with existing parks. Parkland donors will have the reassurance that their donation will be respected. We welcome more parks and want to protect them through Measure 14-67.
 
Don't be afraid to amend the city charter to give our residents decision-making power about parks. The strength of Oregon's city charters is in their reflection of local issues and values. Corvallis and West Linn residents use their charters to protect parks from sale without the people's vote. Ashland's charter funds its annual festival. Sandy's citizens vote to approve annexations. Pendleton residents keep solid waste transfer stations away from homes. Oregon's voter initiatives show a healthy respect for the will of the people and city charters reflect those values.
 
The parks belong to the people – old and young, from every background. Every voter should have a say in whether to keep or sell a park. Reject fear. Embrace the democratic process. Extend the vote to protect parks. Our initiative process gives you the right to vote to add park protection to our charter on November 5. Use your vote then to vote "YES" on Measure 14-67.

Tracey Tomasphol is chief petitioner of Measure 14-67, along with Brian Carlstrom.

YES on Measure 14-67: Remove the Temptation

Hood River News, October 19, 2019
​
The Oct. 12 article claims that this “changes our democratic system.” That’s just wrong. What could be
more democratic than a direct vote by affected citizens? The right to amend a city charter is granted by
the Oregon Constitution and Oregon law. Citizens amended our charter as recently as 2005. No
mushroom clouds rose into the air.The Oct. 12 Another Voice article on the Protect Our Parks ballot measure, Measure 14-67, contains
alarmist nonsense that requires response.

The operative text of the Protect Our Parks measure is simple. It amends the city charter to add this
sentence: “The City shall not dispose of City parks unless specifically authorized in a public vote by a
majority of City voters.”

That’s it. It’s not complicated. If the city council wants to sell or give away a public park, it must first
get permission from city voters.

---

​The article claims that changes to the charter are “forever.” This is untrue. The public has the right to
make changes by popular vote; and the public has the right to reverse those changes the same way. Who
can’t change it back are members of the city council.

The article claims that public votes on any proposed sales of city parks will be “costly.” That’s
nonsense. Public votes can happen twice any year. The cost of putting a measure on the ballot in odd-
numbered years is the cost of a quality television set. The cost in even-numbered years is nothing.

Compare that to the public cost of giving away a million-dollar-plus park for $1, a decision made by the
council in a closed-door meeting. Consider the evidence:
At noon on March 6, 2018, the city held an “executive session,” which by law excludes the public, to
consider “real property transactions.” On the same date, the city signed a contract to sell the 5-acre park
for $1. What do you think happened? We’re not stupid.

It’s illegal to make actual decisions in closed executive session. Decisions to sell public property first
require a formal public hearing under Oregon statute, but no such hearing has ever been held.
The article claims ability to “move quickly” to “take advantage of opportunities” will be lost with
Measure 14-67. That’s just as well. We see that rush-rush “opportunities” tempt officials to give away
public parks in closed-door sessions. A public vote to pre-authorize a proposed sale would avoid that
temptation.

The real risk to democracy is when well-meaning public officials are tempted to let the end justify the
means. That’s what abuses the democratic process and “changes our democratic system.”
Remove one temptation.
​
Our parks. Our vote. YES on Measure 14-67.

Parks Protection Measure: Let the people decide

Hood River News, Oct. 16, 2019

A city’s charter is like a constitution. It provides the fundamental principles that guide how the city is governed. On Nov. 5, City of Hood River voters will decide the fate of Measure 14-67, the Parks Protection Measure, a citizen initiative to change the city’s charter.

If passed, the Parks Protection Measure will amend the city charter to require voter approval before the life of a city park can be terminated. It encourages citizen involvement in important decisions about public parks.

This citizen-initiated measure is the embodiment of the democratic process. It enables voters to exercise a right constitutionally guaranteed in Oregon since 1902. That’s the year Oregon became the very first state to grant citizens the right to amend a constitution by initiative.
 
​As one who served as a full-time judge in this judicial district for almost 23 years, I have experience with laws created by citizens through ballot measures. That experience leads me to conclude that ballot measures that address citizens’ rights and create avenues for citizen involvement are generally good. 

Consider these examples of Oregon initiatives. Oregon is one of two states in which women gained the right to vote by citizen initiative. The 1999 Victims’ Rights initiative guaranteed the right of crime victims to be “notified of any critical phase in the [criminal] proceeding,” and the right “to be heard.” A 2014 initiative resulted in the constitutional grant of equal rights to all people. 

One might wonder, can’t we just rely on our elected public officials? Do we really need voter input on the question of the sale and disposal of city parks? Recent actions by the city have clearly shown us that the voter approval is needed. 

In a case brought by my wife Susan last year, the Oregon Court of Appeals told us that the city was woefully derelict in rezoning a million dollar city park for the purpose of selling it for one dollar to the Columbia Cascade House Corporation. 

The rezoning was based upon city ordinances. In ruling against the City, the majority of the Court of Appeals panel said bluntly, “[T]he city’s interpretation [of its own ordinances] . . . is implausible.” 
Let’s reflect on what that means. According to Webster’s, “plausible” means “apparently reasonable or worthy of belief.” In sum, the Court of Appeals found the city’s strained interpretation of its own law to be not reasonable and not worthy of belief. 

I like and respect many people on the other side of this issue. However, the court’s ruling is a verdict on the judgment of our elected city officials. Such lapses in judgment can happen when the one starts with a conclusion – we should give away this park – and then seeks to justify the conclusion despite evidence to the contrary. 

The City was trying to promote a low income subsidized housing development. That’s admirable. Having spent my legal career representing and working with people of moderate, low or no means, I truly get the idea of the need for housing. If this had all been handled far more appropriately, I may have supported gifting a park for housing. 
But this has boiled down to a rule of law issue. We’ve got laws that govern city decision-making. The council didn’t come close to following its own laws. 

Greater public oversight is an exercise of the democratic process. My vote is to let the people decide what should happen to their land. 
________________________________ 
Paul Crowley served as a District and then Circuit Court Judge in the Seventh Judicial District from 1991 until 2014. Since then he has served around the state as a Senior Judge and mediator. 

https://www.hoodrivernews.com/opinion/another-voice-parks-protection-measure-let-the-people- decide/article_f1c7be9c-ef65-11e9-bc53-537d8b29c95f.html ​

Hood River News, Oct. 16, 2019 
​
In her Another Voice opinion of Oct.12, Hood River City Councilor Megan Saunders wants readers to believe that changes to city charters are rare; they are not. In fact, the standard for putting an initiative like 14-67 on the ballot ensures that a charter change is possible, albeit difficult. In the case of 14-67, many citizens of Hood River determined, after careful consideration and participation in the process prescribed by law, that this is an appropriate time to pose this question to voters. The constitution she invokes allows this. The large number of signatures required were quickly gathered. It turns out that this simple, democratic process is popular.
 
She acknowledges that decisions should be made through “open public process” — that’s what supporters of 14-67 thought, too. At a hearing related to an issue that helped to inspire Initiative 14-67, 27 constituents appeared to testify in opposition to an ordinance that Ms. Saunders then voted for. Only one citizen, and two financial beneficiaries of the ordinance, appeared to speak in favor. The choice of city council to ignore this large majority is contributing to the widespread lack of confidence in council that exists among many Hood River citizens.

Ms. Saunders is also concerned about the cost and time of making decisions, if the public is consulted. Yet, as she has helped to demonstrate, an activist city council can cause the process to slow, inspire lawsuits, prevent the consideration of other solutions, and greatly increase the cost of doing public business. The process has been followed, appeals made, and her own decisions have been determined by the Oregon Court of Appeals to be “implausible.” Still, she persists.
 
We, the public, are not stupid. Voting to change the city charter does not change our democratic system. In fact, just the opposite is true; it is a critical part of it.
Brian Towey
Hood River