 |
|
2005-03-01 Alert
HB 2484 update
Well, folks - the drama continues to unfold. We still haven't gotten 2484 out of committee. Here's what's happened in the past 48 hours:
We got a call yesterday (Monday) from Rep. Garrard a couple hours before the second public hearing was to begin. He advised us of some major new developments, the biggest of which was that an agreement had been reached with the League of Oregon Cities that would:
A) Create the work group they'd been proposing to try to reach solutions to Oregon's annexation issues;
B) Impose a 2 - year moratorium on any annexations other than by double majority or via property owner request while the above work would be going on;
C) If no agreement could be reached, the moratorium would become permanent;
D) Language to address "island annexations" - basically Rep. Greenlick's -1 amendments, would be part of the package.
E) The amended bill would likely be passed out of the committee that afternoon.
Rep. Garrard wanted our feedback ASAP - there was no time to poll the board. I replied that the proposed changes aren't really what we were looking for, but I felt they did increase the bill's chance of passage. He agreed. Having the League drop out of opposition would have removed a major roadblock. I left that conversation with the understanding this is what would occur that afternoon.
No such luck. I was not able to attend, but OCVA Chairman Jim Thompson and several of our supporters and members from Washington County and elsewhere did so. Jim reports that 8 people testified in favor of the bill. They included Rep. Jerry Krummel who testified for the second time. 5 people, including the League rep and other public officials testified in opposition. I'll note for the record that Metro was not represented among them. Jim noted, "It was really disturbing to hear the few who testified in opposition trying to put so many barriers in the path of what is really a simple proposal: double-majority or not?"
The proposed agreement discussed above encountered opposition among some of the original bill's supporters. And I'm told there were nearly 9 pages of proposed amendments! None in our group got to see the details, so we don't know exactly what all they entailed. But that seems to be a moot point as we'll discuss shortly.
In any event, no action was taken on the bill, and things apparently got contentious at times among certain committee members. I had hoped to talk directly with Rep. Garrard today to get a better understanding of what's going on. This morning, we received a short message from Rep. Garrard's chief of staff. She said that Rep. Garrard wanted to advise us that the bill would be passed out of committee on Monday (presumably 3/7) with NO amendments (emphasis hers) PER THE SPEAKER (emphasis mine).
I was just telling a person who called me last night how things can do a 180 in Salem at a moment's notice. It's not all that uncommon. But the implication - if I have interpreted the message correctly - that House Speaker Karen Minnis has ordered all the amendments stripped and the bill passed out of committee as written is a shocker. Rep. Minnis was reportedly responsible for killing our HB 3211 (2484 clone) in the last session. So this is starting to look more like a Perry Mason mystery.
I truly believe that the proposed agreement with the League, while obviously not perfect, would have significantly increased the bill's chance of passing. You seldom, if ever, get what you want out of the Legislature. Usually, you're lucky to implement even a small part of your agenda, especially if it involves controversial issues. I know that some of our supporters did not like the proposed agreement - and I respect that. But I've been playing this game for a while and know it's better to gain SOMETHING than to lose everything - and you almost always have to give something in order to get something. That's "political reality" - and that's why I was disappointed with the announcement from Rep. Garrard's office this morning. I do not know what prompted the 180 and wish I did.
So - we shall see what happens Monday. Let's be very clear: IF we get the bill out of committee, that's just one step in the process. Reach a dead end at ANY step in the process, and you're done. So you have to look ahead and ask, "what steps will give us the best chance of gaining at least SOMETHING out of this effort?" I believe that our job just got a lot tougher. But we're up to continuing the battle to reform ORS-195, and I hope all of you are too.
Regarding island annexation reform, the best bet now appears to be with SB 887. It's in Senator Ringo's Environment & Land Use Committee. As of today, it had not been scheduled for a hearing.
Jerry Ritter
Secretary, OCVA
This page last modified on 2005-11-16 08:29.
 |
|
|
|