House Bill 2238: Any Concerns? (area, problems, people)

[mathlete]

Originally Posted by Chillpillpopper

No, Only Oregon so far.....

Oregon and China.

[Chillpillpopper]

Originally Posted by mathlete

Oregon and China.

LOL....Very true.
SoOoOoo...I'm trying to enjoy a box of Kung pow chicken...

[OneKC]

Bill is dead

https://ktvz.com/news/oregon-northwe...n-emergencies/

"In fairness, I think folks have misunderstood exactly what the bill would and would not do," Wilde said.

Wilde’s office explained in a summary sent to NewsChannel 21 that the bill relates to the state’s eminent domain authority, which can be used to condemn property after a written offer, if it’s needed due to “an emergency that poses a threat to persons or property exists and that the immediate possession of the property is necessary.”

The background notes that such seizures are “often temporary, for example, using a farmer’s field for a fire camp.”

“Under this current law,” the summary stated, “there is a problem with disaster profiteering by landowners, because the state is required to make an offer as if (it plans) the taking of the land permanently during a time of emergency. This process can also delay … the state’s use of the land in an emergency to combat a fire, respond to an earthquake, etc. Also, the current law (is) unclear as to the impact if the courts are closed because of the emergency.”

The proposed legislation "removes the state’s requirement to file a condemnation action during an emergency if the taking of the property is only temporary,” the summary stated, stressing that the measure “does not remove anyone’s constitutional right … to just compensation for property taken for public use.”

If the owner is entitled, the state still would have to offer fair compensation and pay any damages. And as they can now, the owner can decline an offer they feel is inadequate and file what's called an "inverse condemnation" lawsuit.

But the summary concluded by stating that “HB 2238 is not moving forward this session.”

[SGMI]

The proposed legislation "removes the state’s requirement to file a condemnation action during an emergency if the taking of the property is only temporary,”

Only temporary and in emergencies... that's comforting.

Reminds me of how Paraguay's dictator Alfredo Stroessner held power. It was by a 90 day emergency legislative decree... that was routinely renewed before expiration again and again for 30+ years...

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by SGMI

Only temporary and in emergencies... that's comforting.

Reminds me of how Paraguay's dictator Alfredo Stroessner held power. It was by a 90 day emergency legislative decree... that was routinely renewed before expiration again and again for 30+ years...

A year ago there might not have been such "political opposition" to this bill. A year ago we were innocent and naive.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by sll3454

A year ago there might not have been such "political opposition" to this bill. A year ago we were innocent and naive.

No, there would have been opposition because it is poorly worded and vague.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

No, there would have been opposition because it is poorly worded and vague.

I read thre article quoting the Democrat who sponsored the bill.
He blames bill's death on (paraphrasing) - misunderstanding and mischaracterization by political opponents. Hhahaha

Whenever a Democrat (or any politician for that matter) uses terms like:
"public good" over "private profiteering," smart people's radar should go off.

For any Democrat to claim they care about the taxpayer's dollar is a charade, - especially in Oregon.

These are just power hungry people - nothing more.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

......often temporary, for example, using a farmer’s field for a fire camp.”

“Under this current law,” the summary stated, “there is a problem with disaster profiteering by landowners, because the state is required to make an offer as if (it plans) the taking of the land permanently during a time of emergency. This process can also delay … the state’s use of the land in an emergency to combat a fire, respond to an earthquake, etc. Also, the current law (is) unclear as to the impact if the courts are closed because of the emergency.”.....

Well if that is all it is about, that would be how the law was written. That the state could confiscate temporary use of open fields for fire fighting staging when there was an emergency wild fire. That is absolutely not what the law says.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

I read thre article quoting the Democrat who sponsored the bill.
He blames bill's death on (paraphrasing) - misunderstanding and mischaracterization by political opponents. Hhahaha

Whenever a Democrat (or any politician for that matter) uses terms like:
"public good" over "private profiteering," smart people's radar should go off.

For any Democrat to claim they care about the taxpayer's dollar is a charade, - especially in Oregon.

These are just power hungry people - nothing more.

I understand the intent of what the legislator was thinking, but it was an incredibly poorly worded "clarification" to the bill that would be open to vast interpretation which is never good.

Honestly, when wildfires are raging, that really isn't the time to be negotiating with property owners to set up fire camps to battle the fires. There just needs to be a process or some sort of prearranged agreement with those property owners for access for those kinds of emergency situations. It isn't like we don't know which properties abut forestland. They could pre-negotiate access and put it on the deed like an emergency easement.

We know fires will be an ongoing issue, so the government should be proactive and negotiate access for future events. I don't need to resort to over-exaggeration to understand the intent of a differing opinion. That isn't helpful in my opinion, but I'm kinda done with the demeaning and hateful rhetoric.

[JackieLovesSun]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

I understand the intent of what the legislator was thinking, but it was an incredibly poorly worded "clarification" to the bill that would be open to vast interpretation which is never good.

Honestly, when wildfires are raging, that really isn't the time to be negotiating with property owners to set up fire camps to battle the fires. There just needs to be a process or some sort of prearranged agreement with those property owners for access for those kinds of emergency situations. It isn't like we don't know which properties abut forestland. They could pre-negotiate access and put it on the deed like an emergency easement.

We know fires will be an ongoing issue, so the government should be proactive and negotiate access for future events. I don't need to resort to over-exaggeration to understand the intent of a differing opinion. That isn't helpful in my opinion, but I'm kinda done with the demeaning and hateful rhetoric.

exactly. you would think people would be more interested in solving problems than in fighting.