U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2021, 06:44 PM
 
2,249 posts, read 673,857 times
Reputation: 2996

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillpillpopper View Post
No, Only Oregon so far.....
Oregon and China.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2021, 09:00 AM
 
Location: In Transition
41 posts, read 28,162 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathlete View Post
Oregon and China.
LOL....Very true.
SoOoOoo...I'm trying to enjoy a box of Kung pow chicken...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2021, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Prairie Village, KS
476 posts, read 1,224,143 times
Reputation: 123
Bill is dead

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

Quote:
"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.”
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2021, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Gaston County, N.C.
354 posts, read 213,292 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
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...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2021, 03:56 PM
 
4,392 posts, read 8,434,439 times
Reputation: 5638
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGMI View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2021, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Salem, OR
14,929 posts, read 36,641,854 times
Reputation: 15336
Quote:
Originally Posted by sll3454 View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2021, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Portland OR
2,160 posts, read 3,187,612 times
Reputation: 3630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2021, 09:55 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
27,622 posts, read 37,342,938 times
Reputation: 59928
Quote:
......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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2021, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Salem, OR
14,929 posts, read 36,641,854 times
Reputation: 15336
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2021, 10:50 AM
 
Location: the Gorge
272 posts, read 319,401 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top