U.S. District Court Judge, Michael W. Mossman Orders Port of Astoria To Finalize OLNG Lease

So, it wasn't an order, just a strong suggestion?

So, says OLNG's Peter Hansen?

From KAST-AM 1370 News and Talk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

LNG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC,
dba OREGON LNG,
No. CV 09-847-JE
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
PORT OF ASTORIA, an Oregon Port; DAN HESS,
an individual; LARRY PFUND, an individual;
WILLIAM HUNSINGER, an individual;
JACK BLAND, an individual; and FLOYD
HOLCOM, an individual,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On February 3, 2010, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation
("F&R") (#126) in the above-captioned case recommending that I GRANT plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (#101). Defendants filed objections to the F&R with a request for an
evidentiary hearing (#129) and plaintiff responded (#130).
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file
written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but
PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER
Case 3:09-cv-00847-JE Document 132 Filed 03/11/2010 Page 1 of 2
retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as
to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to
review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While
the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate
judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#126)
as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#101) is GRANTED as described
in Judge Jelderks's F&R. Defendants should take immediate steps to provide the additional thirtyyear
term specified in the sublease, and to make the land subject to that sublease available to plaintiff
LNG for its use.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of March, 2010.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court
PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER

9:00AM Today(March 11, 2010) On OPB - Controlling LNG: A Conversation On States Control OF LNG Decision Over FERC's Control

From: Daniel Serres dserres@gmail.com
Date: March 10, 2010 8:14:09 PM PST

Listen To A Complete Replay Think Out Loud's Presentation, Controlling LNG

Fifth Amendment, Pipelines, Energy Speculators And Eminent Domain

Eminent domain
The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for "public use". The Takings Clause, the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but the federal courts now hold that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, what constitutes "public use". The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of a government's enumerated powers.
The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. When determining the amount that must be paid, the government does not need to take into account any speculative schemes that the owner claims the property was intended for use in. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines "just compensation". If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest accrues (though the courts have refrained from using the term "interest").
The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial. The majority opinion, by Justice Stevens, found that it was appropriate to defer to the city's decision that the development plan had a public purpose, saying that "the city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and that if that was the case the plan might have been impermissible. In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment". A number of states, in response to Kelo, have passed laws and/or state constitutional amendments which make it more difficult for state governments to seize private land. Takings that are not "for public use" are not directly covered by the doctrine,[8] however such a taking might violate due process rights under the Fourteenth amendment, or other applicable law.
The exercise of the police power of the state resulting in a taking of private property was long held to be an exception to the requirement of government paying just compensation. However the growing trend under the various state constitution's taking clauses is to compensate innocent third parties whose property was destroyed or "taken" as a result of police action.[9]

Open House To Meet CCB0fC District-1 Candidate Scott Lee

OPEN HOUSE to meet SCOTT LEE
Candidate for District 1 Clatsop County Commissioner
Sunday, March 14 from 4-6 p.m.
1684 Irving Avenue
You don't have to live in District 1 to want the best people in county government - check out Scott! District 1 includes Hammond, Warrenton, and Astoria east to roughly 5th Street. The D1 Commissioner is Jeff Hazen, who has filed for re-election.
EVERYONE IS WELCOME - - PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL.

Huhtala Opts Out Of State House Race Against Witt To Run For Clatsop County Board Of Commissioners - District 3 Seat

To: All Media FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 8, 2010 Contact: Peter Huhtala (503) 468-8038
Press Release
Huhtala opts to run for Clatsop County Commission over House Seat

Astoria, OR. Native Astorian Peter Huhtala announced Tuesday that he will run for Clatsop
County Commissioner in the third district instead of pursuing a race for an Oregon House seat.

“The reality is that my heart is right here in Astoria and it’s where I think I can do the most
good,” said Huhtala, Executive Director of the Columbia River Business Alliance and a longtime
river and fisheries conservation advocate.

“For the last several months whenever I talked to people about the matters that were important to them it kept coming back to local issues. Unemployment, affordable housing, and the
environment are major concerns. These are things I know how to do something about at the
County level.”

Huhtala is running for the Commission with the primary goals of focusing attention on both
increasing jobs in the County and preserving the quality of life that makes this area a great place
to live and raise a family.

“The future of our economy is directly linked to our respect for the variety and abundance the
region affords its people,” said Huhtala, who has been an outspoken opponent of proposed
Liquefied Natural Gas terminals on the Columbia River.

“If the County just jumps on board with projects that would put jobs related to fishing, recreation and tourism at risk then we are damaging the long-term future of our economy.

We need to have a jobs strategy that is both aggressive and smart.”

The group of volunteers that were supporting Huhtala as a House candidate expressed support
for his decision to run for the County Commissioner position. “Peter’s experience and passion
makes him perfect for the County Commission,” says Phyllis Cook who is Peter’s volunteer
campaign coordinator. “I fear that some decisions made by the Commission in recent years,
however well-intentioned, may have unfortunate consequences.

We desperately need a vision for the future.

Peter has the temperament and integrity to bring transparency and a breath of
fresh air to County Government.

He will be responsive to the community.”