Public figures that affect our daily lives should be held accountable for their claims: in real-time. Claim Certain gives them no option but to be honest with us about what they know and what they do not know. Sign up to be notified when we launch our service and help change politics forever.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thursday, December 08, 2011
City Of Astoria DUII Prosecution:Clatsop District Attorney And Oregon Attorney General Answers In Objection To Motion To Dismiss By City Attorney
Transcript Of Objection To Motion To Dismiss
CLATSOP COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
PlaintiffPlaintiff,
v.
CITY OF
ASTORIACITY OF ASTORIA,
DefendantDefendant.
Case No. 11-243011-2430
PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ORCP 21A)
Department of Justice
1162 Court
Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503)
947-4700 / Fax: (503)
947-4794
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS (ORCP 21A)
1.
Plaintiffs, Joshua Marquis in his capacity as Clatsop County
District Attorney, and the office of the Clatsop County District Attorney, by
and through counsel, Thomas Castle, Assistant Attorney General, respectfully
objects to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court should deny the motion
because:
•the Clatsop County District Attorney is the
real party in interest;
•the Complaint alleges facts that show a
justiciable controversy exists between the parties; and,
•there are no indispensable or necessary
parties whose absence prevents the Court
from
resolving the controversy.
Supporting this motion are the plaintiff’s declaration and
the Memorandum of Authorities.
MEMORANDUM OF
AUTHORITIES TC
"MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES" \f C \l "1"
2.
Introduction TC "Introduction" \f C \l "2"
Plaintiff, Clatsop County District
Attorney, asks this Court
to declare that the Clatsop County District Attorney has exclusive authority to
control and conduct the prosecution of all driving under the influence of
intoxicants (DUII) cases, and state-law criminal charges arising out of the same
criminal episode, that arise within the City of Astoria. Defendant mistakenly
believes that the controversy concerns whether DUII cases that arise in the City
of Astoria should be prosecuted in circuit court or municipal
court. The question,
however, is notwhere DUIIs should be prosecuted but rather who should control the prosecution. Based on this
misunderstanding, defendant argues (1) that the Clatsop County District Attorney is not the
“real party in interest”; (2) plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a
justiciable controversy because plaintiff has not alleged that it has standing to
bring this claim; and (3)
plaintiff’s complaint fails to name all necessary parties as
defendants.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss fails as a matter of law,
because this case presents a genuine controversy between plaintiffs and
defendant. Plaintiffs contend that the Clatsop County District Attorney has
constitutional and statutory authority to control and conduct the prosecution of
all DUIIs committed in Clatsop County — including those committed within the
City of Astoria. Defendant disagrees with that proposition and believes that it
has the sole authority to prosecute DUIIs committed in Astoria. Plaintiffs’
complaint for declaratory relief seeks a resolution to that dispute; therefore,
this court should deny defendant’s motion.
3.
In
ruling on a motion to dismiss based on the pleadings, a court must “liberally
construe the pleadings and consider as true the fact’s alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those
facts.” Especially in light of that deferential standard, this court
should deny defendant’s motion. First, plaintiffs are the real party in
interest. The complaint seeks a declaration delineating plaintiffs’
constitutional and statutory authority to prosecute criminal charges in the name
of the state; although the State of Oregon — as prosecutor — will be affected by
the outcome of the case, it is plaintiffs’ authority, status, and legal
relations with other parties that is directly implicated by this action.
Plaintiffs are the real parties in interest. Second, and for many of the same
reasons, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action; therefore, a justiciable
controversy exists. Finally, plaintiffs have named all necessary
parties as defendants to this action. Plaintiffs’ dispute is with only the City
of Astoria, because it is only the City of Astoria that refuses to allow
plaintiffs to control and conduct prosecutions of DUIIs committed within the
city.
4.
Joshua Marquis, in his capacity as the Clatsop County
District Attorney, and the Clatsop County District Attorney’s Office are the
real parties in interest in this action TC
"Joshua Marquis, in his capacity as the Clatsop County
District Attorney, and the Clatsop County District Attorney’s Office are the
real parties in interest in this action" \f C \l
"2" .
The
purpose of a declaratory relief action is “to settle and to afford relief from
uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal
relations.” A plaintiff
bringing a declaratory judgment action must have some direct involvement or
interest in the controversy; in other words, the plaintiff must be one whose
right, status, or legal relation will be affected by the
action. Declaratory
relief is appropriate to determine the statutory duties of a public
officer.
5.
Generally, if a defendant is not deprived of a defense or a
counterclaim, and a judgment in favor of the named plaintiff will fully protect
the defendant from future actions by other parties when discharged, the
defendant’s concern about the real party in interest is at an
end. A motion to dismiss
on “real party in interest” grounds is not the proper vehicle for challenging
the underlying allegations of a complaint.
6.
Here, the elected District Attorney of Clatsop County
and the office of the
Clatsop County District
Attorney are the
appropriate plaintiffs
because their authority,
status, and legal relations to
other entities and citizens are directly affected by the declaration sought. The Oregon
Constitution makes the elected district attorney the law officer for the state
in the county in which he or she is elected, and it provides for the legislature to designate
the district attorney’s duties. The legislature has provided that “[t]he district attorney
in each county is the public prosecutor therein,” and that he or she “shall attend the terms of
all courts having jurisdiction of public offenses within the district attorney’s
county, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, conduct, on behalf of
the state, all prosecutions of such offenses herein.” The question presented by this action, then, is what
specific authority does Article VII, section 17, and ORS 8.650 and 8.660 confer
on the district attorney when it provides that he or she shall “conduct” criminal prosecutions within the
county. The answer to
that question is one that will uniquely affect plaintiffs.
7.
Defendant’s argument that the State of Oregon is the real
party in interest is mistaken. Although it is true that the state — as criminal
prosecutor — will experience some indirect effects of any decision in this case,
it is not the state’s “rights, status, or legal relations” that will be
primarily affected by the prayed for declaration. Rather, this is a question
about which prosecutor —plaintiff or defendant — has authority to represent the state in the class of criminal proceedings
at issue here. More specifically, the question presented is whether the
district attorney has constitutional and statutory authority that trumps the
city’s authority to represent the state in such cases.
8.
Defendant cites several cases as authority for its argument
that the district attorney is not the real party in interest. None of those
cases, however, dictate the result defendant requests here. First, defendant
asserts that State Land Board v. Lee, stands for the proposition that “[i]f a suit is for the
benefit of the state, the state is the real party in interest.” (Mot 3).
Lee, of
course, was not interpreting the phrase “real party in interest” as it is used
in ORCP 26 A, and so provides no authority for this court on that question.
Moreover, Lee was
a case involving whether the State Land Board enjoyed the same immunity from a
statute of limitations defense as did the State as a whole. The Supreme Court
concluded that it did. Notably, however, the court did not suggest that the
action in that case had to be brought by “the State of Oregon” as opposed to the
State Land Board. State Land Board v.
Campbell, also
cited by defendant, provides a similar holding.
9.
Allen v. Craig, is also not to the contrary. There, the Supreme Court held
that a county assessor could not sue in his own
name to collect an unpaid
tax penalty, because the penalty owed belonged to the county. Here, of course,
plaintiff does not bring this action in his personal capacity. Rather, plaintiffs are Joshua
Marquis in his official capacity and the office of the elected District Attorney
of Clatsop County. The
question presented by this action is whether that office has particular
authority to direct the prosecution of all state law violations occurring within
the county. Certainly the office of the district attorney is the real party in
interest in that case.
CLATSOP COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
PlaintiffPlaintiff,
v.
CITY OF
ASTORIACITY OF ASTORIA,
DefendantDefendant.
Case No. 11-243011-2430
PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ORCP 21A)
Department of Justice
1162 Court
Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503)
947-4700 / Fax: (503)
947-4794
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS (ORCP 21A)
1.
Plaintiffs, Joshua Marquis in his capacity as Clatsop County
District Attorney, and the office of the Clatsop County District Attorney, by
and through counsel, Thomas Castle, Assistant Attorney General, respectfully
objects to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court should deny the motion
because:
•the Clatsop County District Attorney is the
real party in interest;
•the Complaint alleges facts that show a
justiciable controversy exists between the parties; and,
•there are no indispensable or necessary
parties whose absence prevents the Court
from
resolving the controversy.
Supporting this motion are the plaintiff’s declaration and
the Memorandum of Authorities.
MEMORANDUM OF
AUTHORITIES TC
"MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES" \f C \l "1"
2.
Introduction TC "Introduction" \f C \l "2"
Plaintiff, Clatsop County District
Attorney, asks this Court
to declare that the Clatsop County District Attorney has exclusive authority to
control and conduct the prosecution of all driving under the influence of
intoxicants (DUII) cases, and state-law criminal charges arising out of the same
criminal episode, that arise within the City of Astoria. Defendant mistakenly
believes that the controversy concerns whether DUII cases that arise in the City
of Astoria should be prosecuted in circuit court or municipal
court. The question,
however, is notwhere DUIIs should be prosecuted but rather who should control the prosecution. Based on this
misunderstanding, defendant argues (1) that the Clatsop County District Attorney is not the
“real party in interest”; (2) plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a
justiciable controversy because plaintiff has not alleged that it has standing to
bring this claim; and (3)
plaintiff’s complaint fails to name all necessary parties as
defendants.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss fails as a matter of law,
because this case presents a genuine controversy between plaintiffs and
defendant. Plaintiffs contend that the Clatsop County District Attorney has
constitutional and statutory authority to control and conduct the prosecution of
all DUIIs committed in Clatsop County — including those committed within the
City of Astoria. Defendant disagrees with that proposition and believes that it
has the sole authority to prosecute DUIIs committed in Astoria. Plaintiffs’
complaint for declaratory relief seeks a resolution to that dispute; therefore,
this court should deny defendant’s motion.
3.
In
ruling on a motion to dismiss based on the pleadings, a court must “liberally
construe the pleadings and consider as true the fact’s alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those
facts.” Especially in light of that deferential standard, this court
should deny defendant’s motion. First, plaintiffs are the real party in
interest. The complaint seeks a declaration delineating plaintiffs’
constitutional and statutory authority to prosecute criminal charges in the name
of the state; although the State of Oregon — as prosecutor — will be affected by
the outcome of the case, it is plaintiffs’ authority, status, and legal
relations with other parties that is directly implicated by this action.
Plaintiffs are the real parties in interest. Second, and for many of the same
reasons, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action; therefore, a justiciable
controversy exists. Finally, plaintiffs have named all necessary
parties as defendants to this action. Plaintiffs’ dispute is with only the City
of Astoria, because it is only the City of Astoria that refuses to allow
plaintiffs to control and conduct prosecutions of DUIIs committed within the
city.
4.
Joshua Marquis, in his capacity as the Clatsop County
District Attorney, and the Clatsop County District Attorney’s Office are the
real parties in interest in this action TC
"Joshua Marquis, in his capacity as the Clatsop County
District Attorney, and the Clatsop County District Attorney’s Office are the
real parties in interest in this action" \f C \l
"2" .
The
purpose of a declaratory relief action is “to settle and to afford relief from
uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal
relations.” A plaintiff
bringing a declaratory judgment action must have some direct involvement or
interest in the controversy; in other words, the plaintiff must be one whose
right, status, or legal relation will be affected by the
action. Declaratory
relief is appropriate to determine the statutory duties of a public
officer.
5.
Generally, if a defendant is not deprived of a defense or a
counterclaim, and a judgment in favor of the named plaintiff will fully protect
the defendant from future actions by other parties when discharged, the
defendant’s concern about the real party in interest is at an
end. A motion to dismiss
on “real party in interest” grounds is not the proper vehicle for challenging
the underlying allegations of a complaint.
6.
Here, the elected District Attorney of Clatsop County
and the office of the
Clatsop County District
Attorney are the
appropriate plaintiffs
because their authority,
status, and legal relations to
other entities and citizens are directly affected by the declaration sought. The Oregon
Constitution makes the elected district attorney the law officer for the state
in the county in which he or she is elected, and it provides for the legislature to designate
the district attorney’s duties. The legislature has provided that “[t]he district attorney
in each county is the public prosecutor therein,” and that he or she “shall attend the terms of
all courts having jurisdiction of public offenses within the district attorney’s
county, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, conduct, on behalf of
the state, all prosecutions of such offenses herein.” The question presented by this action, then, is what
specific authority does Article VII, section 17, and ORS 8.650 and 8.660 confer
on the district attorney when it provides that he or she shall “conduct” criminal prosecutions within the
county. The answer to
that question is one that will uniquely affect plaintiffs.
7.
Defendant’s argument that the State of Oregon is the real
party in interest is mistaken. Although it is true that the state — as criminal
prosecutor — will experience some indirect effects of any decision in this case,
it is not the state’s “rights, status, or legal relations” that will be
primarily affected by the prayed for declaration. Rather, this is a question
about which prosecutor —plaintiff or defendant — has authority to represent the state in the class of criminal proceedings
at issue here. More specifically, the question presented is whether the
district attorney has constitutional and statutory authority that trumps the
city’s authority to represent the state in such cases.
8.
Defendant cites several cases as authority for its argument
that the district attorney is not the real party in interest. None of those
cases, however, dictate the result defendant requests here. First, defendant
asserts that State Land Board v. Lee, stands for the proposition that “[i]f a suit is for the
benefit of the state, the state is the real party in interest.” (Mot 3).
Lee, of
course, was not interpreting the phrase “real party in interest” as it is used
in ORCP 26 A, and so provides no authority for this court on that question.
Moreover, Lee was
a case involving whether the State Land Board enjoyed the same immunity from a
statute of limitations defense as did the State as a whole. The Supreme Court
concluded that it did. Notably, however, the court did not suggest that the
action in that case had to be brought by “the State of Oregon” as opposed to the
State Land Board. State Land Board v.
Campbell, also
cited by defendant, provides a similar holding.
9.
Allen v. Craig, is also not to the contrary. There, the Supreme Court held
that a county assessor could not sue in his own
name to collect an unpaid
tax penalty, because the penalty owed belonged to the county. Here, of course,
plaintiff does not bring this action in his personal capacity. Rather, plaintiffs are Joshua
Marquis in his official capacity and the office of the elected District Attorney
of Clatsop County. The
question presented by this action is whether that office has particular
authority to direct the prosecution of all state law violations occurring within
the county. Certainly the office of the district attorney is the real party in
interest in that case.
10
Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because no statute specifically authorizes a district attorney to
seek a declaratory judgment. Defendant citesGortmaker v.
Seaton, for the
proposition that a district attorney lacks standing to seek a declaratory judgment.
Gortmaker v. Seaton was dismissed because the district attorney failed to assert
sufficient facts to establish a justiciable controversy. The Court never questioned the district
attorney’s legal authority to seek a declaratory judgment. Rather, the Court found that there was no jurisdiction
because the parties’ interests were not adverse – the parties sought an advisory
opinion. Declaratory judgment plaintiffs have standing if their
“rights, status or otherlegal relations” are affected by a particular law or
statute and if they have a “direct, substantial interest in the controversy.”
Marks v. City of Roseberg, 65 Or App 102, 106 (1983) citing Gaffney v.
Babb, supra at 50 Or App 623. The defendant has repeatedly denied the plaintiff’s authority
to conduct the prosecution of all DUIIs that occur within the City of Astoria.
The district attorney has a “direct, substantial interest” in that controversy
because he is being denied his legal authority to conduct the prosecution of all
criminal offenses that occur within his jurisdiction. The parties’ interests
are definitely adverse.
11.
Oregon’s courts permit state officers to seek declaratory
relief when there is a justiciable controversy between the parties’ rights,
status and legal relations TC "Oregon’s courts permit state officers to seek declaratory
relief when there is a justiciable controversy between the parties’ rights,
status and legal relations" \f C \l "2" .
Plaintiff argues that “state offices and officers” are not
“persons” with standing to seek declaratory relief. Courts hearing declaratory judgment actions
must always determine jurisdiction, including a plaintiff’s standing, before
reaching the merits. In Frohnmayer v. SAIF, 294 Or 570 (1983), the Oregon Supreme Court
decided a declaratory judgment proceeding on the merits brought by a state
officer, Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer. The Attorney General asked the court
to declare whether SAIF could employ outside counsel and institute legal
proceedings without authorization of the Attorney General. The Oregon Supreme
Court did not question the Attorney General’s standing to seek declaratory
relief. Instead, the Court implicitly found standing and ruled on the
merits. The statutory
scheme for determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction is not exclusionary –
the court may exercise its general powers in any case where a declaratory
judgment will terminate the controversy and remove any
uncertainty. Moreover,
the statutes are to be liberally construed to settle and afford relief from
uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal
relations. The
plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint to add Joshua Marquis in his official
capacity as theClatsop
County District Attorney as a named plaintiff. Plaintiffs believe this amendment
resolves the issue of whether the plaintiff is “a
person” under
ORS 28.130.
12.
The Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish the
existence of a justiciable controversy TC "The Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish the
existence of a justiciable controversy" \f C \l "2" .
Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim
for relief under ORCP 21A(8) because it does not “allege that any right of the
district attorney has been affected.” The
defense of failure to state a claim is not a proper defense in a declaratory
judgment proceeding. The
facts pled allege that Oregon law, specifically the Oregon Constitution and ORS
8.660, authorize plaintiff to conduct the prosecution of all public offenses
(with several limited exceptions not relevant here) that occur within Clatsop
County including DUIIs. The plaintiff has first requested then instructed the
defendant to turn over all DUIIs to his office for prosecution. Defendant has
either ignored the requests or expressly refused. Plaintiff seeks a declaration
that 1) he has exclusive authority to conduct the prosecution of all DUIIs, and state-law criminal
charges arising out of the same criminal episode, that arise within the City of
Astoria; and, 2) supplemental injunctive relief to enforce the requested
declaration. There is an actual and substantial controversy between parties
having adverse interests. There is an ongoing present dispute because defendant
refuses to allow the plaintiff to conduct all DUII prosecutions that arise in
the City of Astoria. The Court’s declaration will resolve any uncertainty and
settle the dispute.
13.
The plaintiff seeks a determination as to the scope of his
authority – not the rights of the public or others TC "The plaintiff seeks a determination as to the
scope of his authority – not the rights of the public or
others" \f C \l
"2" .
Defendant asserts that the Declaratory Judgment Act only
permits a plaintiff to seek a determination of “the person’s own
rights.” Defendant
correctly argues that Oregon law does not permit a declaration as to the rights
of others or as to some public right. The legislature invested the district
attorney with the authority to conduct the prosecution of all public offenses
that allegedly occur within the district attorney’s county. The defendant
disputes the plaintiff’s authority to conduct the prosecution of DUII’s that
arise within the City of Astoria. The Court’s decision will determine if the
scope of the district attorney’s authority includes the prosecution of all
DUII’s that allegedly occur in the City of Astoria. But the declaration will
not determine the rights of the public or others.
14.
There are no other indispensable or necessary
partieswho have or claim an interest in the subject matter of this
proceeding which would be affected the Court’s
declaration.TC
"There are no other indispensable or necessary parties that
claim an interest in the subject matter of this proceeding" \f C \l "2"
Defendant urges dismissal because plaintiff failed to include
as party-defendants all other Oregon cities with municipal
courts. ORS 28.110
requires that a plaintiff include as defendants “parties who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the declaration.” The dispute is solely between the Clatsop County District
Attorney and the City of Astoria. The issue is the plaintiff’s authority to
conduct prosecutions of cases that arise within defendant’s boundaries. No
other municipality will be affected by a declaration herein.
a.Other Clatsop County municipalities can not be joined because
their rights and interests are not adverse to plaintiff TC "a.Other Clatsop County municipalities can not be joined because
their rights and interests are not adverse to plaintiff" \f C \l "3" .
Oregon law limits plaintiff’s jurisdiction to Clatsop
County. The other cities
within Clatsop County already permit the plaintiff to conduct all DUII
prosecutions. While the
requested declaration may affect their rights or legal relations, those cities
could not be joined because their interests are not adverse to
plaintiff. There is no
dispute or controversy between plaintiff and the other Clatsop County
municipalities that would permit them to be joined in this proceeding. The
other Clatsop County cities do not “have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
declaration” ORS
28.110
b.Cities with municipal courts outside of Clatsop County do not
have any interest that would be affected by the declaration sought by
plaintiff TC
"b.Cities with municipal courts outside of Clatsop County do not
have any interest in that would be affected by the declaration sought by
plaintiff" \f C \l
"3" .
There
is no justiciable controversy between the Clatsop County District Attorney and
other cities with municipal courts that would permit those cities to be joined
in this proceeding. Plaintiff requests a declaration regarding his authority to
prosecute DUIIs that occur within the City of Astoria. An Oregon district
attorney does not have authority to conduct the prosecution of public offenses
outside of the county where he or she is elected. The Complaint asks the Court to declare the
scope of the Clatsop County District Attorney’s authority to conduct the
prosecution of DUIIs in Clatsop County. Cities outside of Clatsop County “do
not have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration”
anymore than all the other citizens of Oregon. If cities outside of Clatsop
County were joined as party-defendants, they could successfully argue that 1)
their interests are not adverse to plaintiff, because plaintiff does not have
authority to prosecute cases outside of Clatsop County; and, 2) there is no
controversy involving present facts that other cities and the Clatsop County
District Attorney, or any other district attorney. While other cities may have an opinion
regarding this proceeding, they are not involved in the controversy between the
Clatsop County District Attorney and the City of Astoria.
CONCLUSION TC "CONCLUSION" \f C \l "1"
This
case presents an ongoing and present dispute between plaintiffs and defendant
over what constitutional and statutory authority plaintiffs have to control and
conduct prosecutions of DUIIs (and crimes that arise out of the same criminal
episode) that occur within the city limits of Astoria. Plaintiffs contend that
the Clatsop County District Attorney has constitutional and statutory authority
to control such prosecutions; defendant contends that the city attorney — acting
at the direction of the city council — has authority that trumps the district
attorney’s authority. This dispute is between the district attorney (and his
office) and the City of Astoria. Consequently, the district attorney and his
office are the proper plaintiffs with standing in this case and the City of
Astoria is the only proper defendant in this case. Defendant’s belief that its
authority trumps that of the district attorney is not a reason to dismiss this
case at this point; rather, it is a reason to deny the motion to dismiss so this
court can resolve this ongoing dispute and declare authority, status, and legal
relations of the parties. Plaintiffs respectfully request this court to deny
defendant’s motion to dismiss.
DATED
this day of December, 2011.
jurisdiction because no statute specifically authorizes a district attorney to
seek a declaratory judgment. Defendant citesGortmaker v.
Seaton, for the
proposition that a district attorney lacks standing to seek a declaratory judgment.
Gortmaker v. Seaton was dismissed because the district attorney failed to assert
sufficient facts to establish a justiciable controversy. The Court never questioned the district
attorney’s legal authority to seek a declaratory judgment. Rather, the Court found that there was no jurisdiction
because the parties’ interests were not adverse – the parties sought an advisory
opinion. Declaratory judgment plaintiffs have standing if their
“rights, status or otherlegal relations” are affected by a particular law or
statute and if they have a “direct, substantial interest in the controversy.”
Marks v. City of Roseberg, 65 Or App 102, 106 (1983) citing Gaffney v.
Babb, supra at 50 Or App 623. The defendant has repeatedly denied the plaintiff’s authority
to conduct the prosecution of all DUIIs that occur within the City of Astoria.
The district attorney has a “direct, substantial interest” in that controversy
because he is being denied his legal authority to conduct the prosecution of all
criminal offenses that occur within his jurisdiction. The parties’ interests
are definitely adverse.
11.
Oregon’s courts permit state officers to seek declaratory
relief when there is a justiciable controversy between the parties’ rights,
status and legal relations TC "Oregon’s courts permit state officers to seek declaratory
relief when there is a justiciable controversy between the parties’ rights,
status and legal relations" \f C \l "2" .
Plaintiff argues that “state offices and officers” are not
“persons” with standing to seek declaratory relief. Courts hearing declaratory judgment actions
must always determine jurisdiction, including a plaintiff’s standing, before
reaching the merits. In Frohnmayer v. SAIF, 294 Or 570 (1983), the Oregon Supreme Court
decided a declaratory judgment proceeding on the merits brought by a state
officer, Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer. The Attorney General asked the court
to declare whether SAIF could employ outside counsel and institute legal
proceedings without authorization of the Attorney General. The Oregon Supreme
Court did not question the Attorney General’s standing to seek declaratory
relief. Instead, the Court implicitly found standing and ruled on the
merits. The statutory
scheme for determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction is not exclusionary –
the court may exercise its general powers in any case where a declaratory
judgment will terminate the controversy and remove any
uncertainty. Moreover,
the statutes are to be liberally construed to settle and afford relief from
uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal
relations. The
plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint to add Joshua Marquis in his official
capacity as theClatsop
County District Attorney as a named plaintiff. Plaintiffs believe this amendment
resolves the issue of whether the plaintiff is “a
person” under
ORS 28.130.
12.
The Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish the
existence of a justiciable controversy TC "The Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish the
existence of a justiciable controversy" \f C \l "2" .
Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim
for relief under ORCP 21A(8) because it does not “allege that any right of the
district attorney has been affected.” The
defense of failure to state a claim is not a proper defense in a declaratory
judgment proceeding. The
facts pled allege that Oregon law, specifically the Oregon Constitution and ORS
8.660, authorize plaintiff to conduct the prosecution of all public offenses
(with several limited exceptions not relevant here) that occur within Clatsop
County including DUIIs. The plaintiff has first requested then instructed the
defendant to turn over all DUIIs to his office for prosecution. Defendant has
either ignored the requests or expressly refused. Plaintiff seeks a declaration
that 1) he has exclusive authority to conduct the prosecution of all DUIIs, and state-law criminal
charges arising out of the same criminal episode, that arise within the City of
Astoria; and, 2) supplemental injunctive relief to enforce the requested
declaration. There is an actual and substantial controversy between parties
having adverse interests. There is an ongoing present dispute because defendant
refuses to allow the plaintiff to conduct all DUII prosecutions that arise in
the City of Astoria. The Court’s declaration will resolve any uncertainty and
settle the dispute.
13.
The plaintiff seeks a determination as to the scope of his
authority – not the rights of the public or others TC "The plaintiff seeks a determination as to the
scope of his authority – not the rights of the public or
others" \f C \l
"2" .
Defendant asserts that the Declaratory Judgment Act only
permits a plaintiff to seek a determination of “the person’s own
rights.” Defendant
correctly argues that Oregon law does not permit a declaration as to the rights
of others or as to some public right. The legislature invested the district
attorney with the authority to conduct the prosecution of all public offenses
that allegedly occur within the district attorney’s county. The defendant
disputes the plaintiff’s authority to conduct the prosecution of DUII’s that
arise within the City of Astoria. The Court’s decision will determine if the
scope of the district attorney’s authority includes the prosecution of all
DUII’s that allegedly occur in the City of Astoria. But the declaration will
not determine the rights of the public or others.
14.
There are no other indispensable or necessary
partieswho have or claim an interest in the subject matter of this
proceeding which would be affected the Court’s
declaration.TC
"There are no other indispensable or necessary parties that
claim an interest in the subject matter of this proceeding" \f C \l "2"
Defendant urges dismissal because plaintiff failed to include
as party-defendants all other Oregon cities with municipal
courts. ORS 28.110
requires that a plaintiff include as defendants “parties who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the declaration.” The dispute is solely between the Clatsop County District
Attorney and the City of Astoria. The issue is the plaintiff’s authority to
conduct prosecutions of cases that arise within defendant’s boundaries. No
other municipality will be affected by a declaration herein.
a.Other Clatsop County municipalities can not be joined because
their rights and interests are not adverse to plaintiff TC "a.Other Clatsop County municipalities can not be joined because
their rights and interests are not adverse to plaintiff" \f C \l "3" .
Oregon law limits plaintiff’s jurisdiction to Clatsop
County. The other cities
within Clatsop County already permit the plaintiff to conduct all DUII
prosecutions. While the
requested declaration may affect their rights or legal relations, those cities
could not be joined because their interests are not adverse to
plaintiff. There is no
dispute or controversy between plaintiff and the other Clatsop County
municipalities that would permit them to be joined in this proceeding. The
other Clatsop County cities do not “have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
declaration” ORS
28.110
b.Cities with municipal courts outside of Clatsop County do not
have any interest that would be affected by the declaration sought by
plaintiff TC
"b.Cities with municipal courts outside of Clatsop County do not
have any interest in that would be affected by the declaration sought by
plaintiff" \f C \l
"3" .
There
is no justiciable controversy between the Clatsop County District Attorney and
other cities with municipal courts that would permit those cities to be joined
in this proceeding. Plaintiff requests a declaration regarding his authority to
prosecute DUIIs that occur within the City of Astoria. An Oregon district
attorney does not have authority to conduct the prosecution of public offenses
outside of the county where he or she is elected. The Complaint asks the Court to declare the
scope of the Clatsop County District Attorney’s authority to conduct the
prosecution of DUIIs in Clatsop County. Cities outside of Clatsop County “do
not have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration”
anymore than all the other citizens of Oregon. If cities outside of Clatsop
County were joined as party-defendants, they could successfully argue that 1)
their interests are not adverse to plaintiff, because plaintiff does not have
authority to prosecute cases outside of Clatsop County; and, 2) there is no
controversy involving present facts that other cities and the Clatsop County
District Attorney, or any other district attorney. While other cities may have an opinion
regarding this proceeding, they are not involved in the controversy between the
Clatsop County District Attorney and the City of Astoria.
CONCLUSION TC "CONCLUSION" \f C \l "1"
This
case presents an ongoing and present dispute between plaintiffs and defendant
over what constitutional and statutory authority plaintiffs have to control and
conduct prosecutions of DUIIs (and crimes that arise out of the same criminal
episode) that occur within the city limits of Astoria. Plaintiffs contend that
the Clatsop County District Attorney has constitutional and statutory authority
to control such prosecutions; defendant contends that the city attorney — acting
at the direction of the city council — has authority that trumps the district
attorney’s authority. This dispute is between the district attorney (and his
office) and the City of Astoria. Consequently, the district attorney and his
office are the proper plaintiffs with standing in this case and the City of
Astoria is the only proper defendant in this case. Defendant’s belief that its
authority trumps that of the district attorney is not a reason to dismiss this
case at this point; rather, it is a reason to deny the motion to dismiss so this
court can resolve this ongoing dispute and declare authority, status, and legal
relations of the parties. Plaintiffs respectfully request this court to deny
defendant’s motion to dismiss.
DATED
this day of December, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN
R. KROGER
Attorney General
THOMAS CASTLE #890321
Assistant Attorney General
Trial Attorney
Tel (503)
947-4700
Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis: Oregon Governor Should Respect The Rule Of Law On Death Penalty
By JOSH MARQUISClatsop County District Attorney
December 8, 2011
The state's district attorneys are responsible for ensuring that we are in fact a society that observes the rule of law.For that reason, many of us are profoundly disturbed by Gov. John Kitzhaber's abrupt pronouncement that no jury's verdict of death will be carried out during his term.
Kitzhaber's personal opposition to capital punishment has never been a secret, and yet when he ran for governor, some of us who are in favor of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment endorsed him. That was in part because the governor had respected the rule of law when it came to the execution of Douglas Franklin Wright in 1996, saying he (the governor) was "sworn to uphold the law and could not and would not intervene."That was the right decision legally and morally, and it respected the will of Oregonians, who twice in the past 30 years - in 1978 (by 64 percent of the vote) and then again in 1984 (by 75 percent of the vote) - have voted to reinstate capital punishment.
Gary Haugen, who was hoping for just this act by the governor, is not on death row for his first murder, but for his second murder, that of an inmate Haugen killed while doing a life sentence.
Sentencing someone to prison should not mean a sentence to "gladiatorial combat," and, yet, surely there are other sociopaths in prison who now have little to fear from committing another murder, of a corrections officer or inmate.
The governor cited a "broken system" that he called a "perversion of justice." No one on Oregon's death row has ever made a credible claim of actual innocence. No one has ever been removed from death row for police or prosecutorial misconduct.
He cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision a few years ago that banned the execution of murderers who committed their crimes before the age of 18. Oregon has never allowed such executions.
The governor cited problems in other states that have functionally abolished capital punishment without any input from voters. In 2006 voters in Wisconsin ap-proved an advisory measure to bring back the death penalty, which had not existed there since before the Civil War. The Legislature ignored their vote. In fact, the last time voters abolished the death penalty was in 1964 - here in Oregon.
Oregon voters made very clear their support of the death penalty in 1978 and, after the state Supreme Court overturned that vote, again in 1984. Since then, polls have shown even greater support for the option of death for certain killers who commit the worst kind of murder.
Look at the people who populate Oregon's death row and you'll understand why the editorial board of The Oregonian has distinguished Oregon from other states. We host Jesse Caleb Compton, who in 1997 sexually assaulted and murdered 3-year-old Tessalyn O'Cull. Conan Hale tortured and killed three young teenagers. Dayton LeRoy Rogers is a serial killer of women. All of those killers, and everyone else on death row, received excellent representation, often two or even three lawyers as well as a team of investigators, mitigation specialists and psychologists.
Studies show Deterrent Evidence-Based studies referenced by former University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, now a member of President Obama's Cabinet, show that there is both a specific deterrent to capital punishment (Ted Bundy will never again kill a young woman) and also a general deterrent.
Statistics from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics show that while use of the death penalty increased by 26 percent in the first decade of the new millennium, the murder rate went down 22 percent in the same time period over the previous decade.
Oregonians are entrusted to make the most important decisions about their laws, from sentencing to end-of-life issues, and Oregon has a long tradition of listening to the voters when they make their will clear, so long as it does not violate the state or federal constitution.
Both state and federal courts have ruled that Oregon's capital punishment laws pass constitutional muster. Oregon prosecutors rarely ask for the death penalty, and jurors even more rarely impose it.
The "conversation" about the death penalty that the governor now wants has been ongoing for years. It can and should continue without casting aside the extraordinarily difficult decisions made by jurors, such as those who voted for death for Joshua and Bruce Turnidge, who intentionally exploded a bomb that murdered two police officers and grievously crippled a third. Or for Angela McAbulty the first woman sent to Oregon's death row in half a century, for the horrific torture murder of her own daughter. Or, for the fourth time in 22 years, for Randy Guzek, for the 1987 execution of Lois and Rod Houser.
The unique intersection of democracy and justice that is the death penalty must be respected
The Case Of Crystal Cox - "BLOGGER"!
Crystal Cox, Oregon Blogger, Isn't a Journalist, Concludes U.S. Court--Imposes $2.5 Million Judgement on Her
By Curtis CartierTue., Dec. 6 2011 at 6:00 PM
A U.S. District Court judge in Portland has drawn a line in the sand between "journalist" and "blogger." And for Crystal Cox, a woman on the latter end of that comparison, the distinction has cost her $2.5 million.Speaking to Seattle Weekly, Cox says that the judgement could have impacts on bloggers everywhere.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
State Of Oregon Asks FERC To Revoke Jordan Cove License Application
Published: Monday, December 05, 2011, 2:14 PM
Updated: Monday, December 05, 2011, 3:05 PM
By Ted Sickinger - The Oregonian
The state of Oregon has asked federal regulators to revoke their approval of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Coos Bay and reopen the record so the state can submit evidence that a revised terminal proposal is not in the public interest.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conditionally approved the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal project and the associated, 234-mile Pacific Connector pipeline in December 2009.
Updated: Monday, December 05, 2011, 3:05 PM
By Ted Sickinger - The Oregonian
The state of Oregon has asked federal regulators to revoke their approval of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Coos Bay and reopen the record so the state can submit evidence that a revised terminal proposal is not in the public interest.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conditionally approved the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal project and the associated, 234-mile Pacific Connector pipeline in December 2009.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Northwest Coast's Readiness For Oil Spills Drops, Risks Increase
(Bogdan Kocemba Photo In Marine Traffic.com) OPB
Ashley Ahearn - Seattle
December 5, 2011
Every year, vessels carry more than 15 billion gallons of oil and fuel through Pacific Northwest waters, putting Washington and Oregon at constant risk of spills that could cripple parts of their economies and devastate marine life and environmentally sensitive shorelines.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
The Hickson Heist!(Updated)10-21-2011 Daily Astorian Regrets Errors In Publication Of Story!
(Daily Astorian Photo)Hickson Article Erred
Posted: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:53 am
The Daily Astorian published an article on Oct. 7, 2011, relating to a decision by the Port of Astoria to transfer a contract for ship servicing from Anchorage Launch Services to a vessel called the Hickson, owned by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The article appeared under a headline that read, “The Hickson heist.”
The word “heist” in that headline was rhetorical hyperbole and was meant in a figurative sense. The Daily Astorian is not aware of any evidence that any person or entity named in the article engaged in any criminal activity in connection with the Port’s decision, and The Daily Astorian did not intend to suggest that there is any such evidence.
The article also stated that Port Commissioner Floyd Holcom “contacted the tribe and suggested its members could benefit from the business.” According to Holcom, he did not initiate any contact with the tribe in connection with this matter. Rather, he says, it was Dennis Lucia, general manager of Nisqually Aquatic Technologies, who contacted Holcom about the matter. The Daily Astorian has no information to the contrary.
Finally, the article quoted an email from Lucia to Port Director Jack Crider, in which Lucia stated that “Floyd advised me that the Hickson might be put to use for line handling.” Holcom denies that he made any such statement to Lucia. According to Holcom, he told Lucia that he did not know anything about line handling and that Lucia should call Crider.
The Daily Astorian regrets publication of the errors.
(Update)Holcom;"There Was No Heist"
Posted: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:53 am
The Daily Astorian published an article on Oct. 7, 2011, relating to a decision by the Port of Astoria to transfer a contract for ship servicing from Anchorage Launch Services to a vessel called the Hickson, owned by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The article appeared under a headline that read, “The Hickson heist.”
The word “heist” in that headline was rhetorical hyperbole and was meant in a figurative sense. The Daily Astorian is not aware of any evidence that any person or entity named in the article engaged in any criminal activity in connection with the Port’s decision, and The Daily Astorian did not intend to suggest that there is any such evidence.
The article also stated that Port Commissioner Floyd Holcom “contacted the tribe and suggested its members could benefit from the business.” According to Holcom, he did not initiate any contact with the tribe in connection with this matter. Rather, he says, it was Dennis Lucia, general manager of Nisqually Aquatic Technologies, who contacted Holcom about the matter. The Daily Astorian has no information to the contrary.
Finally, the article quoted an email from Lucia to Port Director Jack Crider, in which Lucia stated that “Floyd advised me that the Hickson might be put to use for line handling.” Holcom denies that he made any such statement to Lucia. According to Holcom, he told Lucia that he did not know anything about line handling and that Lucia should call Crider.
The Daily Astorian regrets publication of the errors.
(Update)Holcom;"There Was No Heist"
Posted: Friday, October 7, 2011 12:04 pm Updated: 10:46 am, Sun Oct 9, 2011.
The Daily Astorian
For two decades, in fair weather or foul, tiny vessels operated by Anchorage Launch Services chugged out from their Astoria waterfront moorings to service the giant ships that sail across the Columbia River bar and seek refuge on the south bank.
A phone call changed everything.
It came from the Port of Astoria. And it had the effect of a pink slip: Anchorage’s line-handling services were no longer required
Read Full Article
The Daily Astorian
For two decades, in fair weather or foul, tiny vessels operated by Anchorage Launch Services chugged out from their Astoria waterfront moorings to service the giant ships that sail across the Columbia River bar and seek refuge on the south bank.
A phone call changed everything.
It came from the Port of Astoria. And it had the effect of a pink slip: Anchorage’s line-handling services were no longer required
Read Full Article
Occupy Astoria? Occupy What?
(HipFish Monthly Photo)The Daily Astorian tells us…..“The next Occupy Astoria action will take place noon Saturday. Protesters will walk through downtown Astoria, starting at the Astoria Post Office, to support small, local businesses.
For more information, call (503) 440-0978 or visitwww.occupyastoriaoregon.org”
There was a time when the "Hippie Movement" in America was just getting under way, there were actually people that worked all week in their coats and ties in their conservative, hum-drum everyday jobs until Friday and Saturday nights when they would actually dress-up in fresh "Hippie" attire and trendy new long-haired wigs and go out for a weekend of experiencing what that movement brought and then on Monday morning get back to the "Rat Race".
Sometimes lately, in trying to figure out just exactly what this "Occupy Movement" is all about, that image of those part-time "Hippies" passes across my mind's eye as it seems the players in this effort appear to take it no more seriously than that...."Activism For The Hoot"?
Chazz Lake,on "Occupy Astoria's" Facebook page, has it right....You want to occupy Astoria and demonstrate for effective change in a public agency that seems to have become an island unto itself with no sense of accountability to whom it serves, then you are looking at a prime candidate in The Port of Astoria, in my view and its recent history over the last 5 or 6 years proves it out but, our “Astoria Occupiers” want to go frolicking up and down Commercial street on a Saturday pimping the patronization of our local businesses which most of us do anyway and besides, shouldn't that be the duty of "The Astoria Downtown Historic Development Association"?
Come On!
If this group wants to really effect change and in addition to “The Port”, let them go down and stand vigil at the "Other Flavel House" and demand somebody save that place before it rots to the ground as we have no historic preservation group willing to stand-up and be heard on the subject.
This group wants to effect change, let them go down to City Hall and demand that we send a "Task Force" out into this world and sell what we have to offer to clean, compatible and cohesive industry that fits within the fabric of and will support the workforce of this community to put thousands of us to work instead of sitting around waiting for schemes such as Liquefied Natural Gas and Ship Breaking to wedge their foots in our door and force themselves on us while our leadership conveniently turns their heads to, in essence, just let it happen to put just a few people to work and in the public perception, prosper their own agendas.
I guess my point is and I truly support the general concept as a counter to the attempted insurgency and usurpation of other fringe movements on our political political system,...If the "Occupy Movement" is going to clog-up our streets, do it for actual purpose and change that will truly, positively impact the life quality of all of us in our community or knock it off.
It may help also if the local leaders of this movement would lay off the speeches on the dreaded "Military/Indutrial Complex" and find a true explanation of exactly what "The Occupy Movement" is truly about for us lesser intellectuals that still don't really get it.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Clatsop County To Sponsor Two Films On Fisheries And Ocean Management December 15
Friday, Dec. 2, 2011
OCEAN, FISHERIES
FILMS SET FOR DEC. 15 SHOWING
Clatsop County is
sponsoring a public showing of two films on fisheries and ocean management
Thursday, Dec. 15 in Astoria.
OCEAN, FISHERIES
FILMS SET FOR DEC. 15 SHOWING
Clatsop County is
sponsoring a public showing of two films on fisheries and ocean management
Thursday, Dec. 15 in Astoria.
The event begins at 6
p.m. at the Fort George Brewery’s Lovell Tap Room, 1483 Duane St. Admission is
free.
“Oregon’s Ocean
Fisheries: A Conservation Story,” takes the audience along to watch ocean
fishermen harvest seafood. The film illustrates how fishermen and scientists
have teamed up to ensure that Oregon’s seafood fisheries are
sustainable.
“People who have seen
the film report the documentary gave them an entirely new perspective on
Oregon’s ocean,” said Onno Husing, executive director of the Oregon Coastal Zone
Management Association.
The second movie,
“Ocean Frontiers,” is a new documentary from Green Fire Productions that
explores the challenges facing our ocean and chronicles successful strategies
being implemented across the country to address them. It examines seaports and
watersheds around the United States – including the fishing industry of Port
Orford, Oregon – to introduce unlikely allies embarking on new courses of
cooperation.
The movie event
coincides with the Dec. 15-16 meeting of the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory
Council (OPAC) and Territorial Sea Plan Working Group in Astoria.
OPAC is a 24-member advisory panel to the Governor representing fishing and conservation interests, local governments, tribes and state agencies with stakes in management of
Oregon’s marine environment. The council is currently updating the management
plan for Oregon’s Territorial Sea, which extends three nautical miles from
shore.
Go to www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC for agendas and more
information on the Territorial Sea Plan Working Group and OPAC meetings.
Go to www.oczma.org/themove.php for more information
on “Oregon’s Ocean Fisheries,” and www.ocean-frontiers.org for more on “Ocean
Frontiers.”
Released by:
Tom Bennett
Community Relations Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Clatsop County Board Of Commissioners November 30, 2011 Regular Meeting Highlights
Clatsop County Board of Commissioners
Highlights Wednesday, Nov. 30,
2011 regular meeting
Highlights Wednesday, Nov. 30,
2011 regular meeting
Official minutes
available once approved by board
Jail Architect
Selected
The board of
commissioners voted to select DLR Group to provide architectural and engineering
services for the proposed remodel and expansion of the Clatsop County Jail, and
to direct staff to negotiate a contract with the firm. The company was the top
choice of a county selection committee that reviewed seven bid proposals for the
project.
The work will involve drawing up detailed schematic plans and cost estimates for adding up to 100 beds
to the 69-bed facility in downtown Astoria. Once the plans and estimates are
completed, the board of commissioners will consider whether to seek voter
approval next year for a bond measure to fund the expansion project.
available once approved by board
Jail Architect
Selected
The board of
commissioners voted to select DLR Group to provide architectural and engineering
services for the proposed remodel and expansion of the Clatsop County Jail, and
to direct staff to negotiate a contract with the firm. The company was the top
choice of a county selection committee that reviewed seven bid proposals for the
project.
The work will involve drawing up detailed schematic plans and cost estimates for adding up to 100 beds
to the 69-bed facility in downtown Astoria. Once the plans and estimates are
completed, the board of commissioners will consider whether to seek voter
approval next year for a bond measure to fund the expansion project.
In October the board
voted to make available up to $100,000 from the county’s Special Projects Fund
for the schematic and cost estimate work.
Sheriff Tom Bergin said DLR Group is recognized nationally for its work on correctional facilities
and is well prepared to take on the county project.
Circus Ordinance To
Ballot
The Board of
Commissioners voted to place an ordinance banning displays of elephants and
exotic animals on the May 2012 primary election ballot.
Ordinance 11-13 would prohibit the display of elephants and exotic animals in circuses and other
entertainment venues. The ordinance exempts 4-H and FFA events, rodeos and horse
shows and educational events from the ban.
Four citizens spoke in favor of the ordinance Wednesday. The ban was originally proposed by a county resident over concerns about treatment of animals in traveling circus
shows.
Other
Business
In other business the
board:
-Voted to approve a
zone change application to the City of Warrenton by the Lower Columbia Youth
Soccer Association for county-owned property leased to the association for its
Warrenton soccer facilities on Ridge Road. The application requests a change
from Low-Density Residential to Open Space-Institutional for four tax lots. In
January, at LCYSA’s request, the county amended the legal description of the
property to add additional property for the association – the zone change is
necessary to allow LCYSA to use the added land for playing fields and
parking.
-Approved a
$48,486.75 contract with Big River Excavating for clearing and grubbing the
route for Ensign Lane in the North Coast Business Park in Warrenton.
Construction of the road, slated for 2012-13, is vital for the future
development of the park. Funding for the contract will come from the Industrial
Development Revolving Fund, which holds proceeds from the $8.6 million sale of
the 75-acre highway-front commercial section of the business park.
-Took no action on
two letters proposed to be sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality over the proposed listing of a local
business, Astoria Marine Construction Company, under the federal Superfund
National Priorities List pollution cleanup program. County Manager Duane Cole
presented the board with a letter from Oregon Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden
to the regional EPA office dated Nov. 30 that asks the agency to provide more
time for the company to identify funding sources to pay for cleanup planning at
the site. Cole said the county will wait on the EPA’s response to the senators’
letter before taking action.
-Discussed proposed
new rules for the board of commissioners in a work session. The rules, which
cover basic board operations such as chair and vice-chair selection,
agenda-setting and meeting protocol, committee appointments and travel policies,
will be brought back to the board for final action Dec. 14.
-Approved an
adjustment of the 2011-12 budget to account for the delay in construction of a
new boathouse for the County Sheriff’s Office, which was originally scheduled
for completion in the 2010-11 budget year. The new boathouse replaces a facility
destroyed in the December 2007 windstorm.
-Voted to accept the
deed to a piece of property on Lewis and Clark Road. The narrow strip of land
lying between the road and the Lewis and Clark River is part of a larger parcel
owned by Linda Holton, who requested the deed transfer to the county to remove
an encumbrance on the property title and allow a pending sale of the larger
parcel to proceed. The transferred property is part of the road right-of-way and
is maintained by the county road division.
-Appointed Thomas
Duncan, Paul Gillum, Mel Jasmin, Bob Link, Duane Mullins and Paul Olheiser to
the Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee. The county recently re-activated
the committee to lead an update of the Ambulance Service Area Plan.
Tom Bennett
Community Relations Coordinator
(503) 325-1000 ext. 1312
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Clatsop County Sheriff's Office Offers Youth ATV Safety Classes December 29th & 30th At County Fairgrounds!
The Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office is making available ATV Safety classes to Clatsop County youth. By January of 2012 all youth riding ATV's on public lands in Oregon will be required to have completed a "hands on" class. We present the ATV Safety Institute Ridercourse, a four hour ATV safety course, and the OSU/4H Youth Rider Evaluation Program, a two hour session designed for those youth who already possess riding skills beyond the basic level.
The classes take place indoors at the Clatsop County Fairgrounds on Walluski Loop.
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 10:00 AM we will be conducting the OSU/4H evaluations. To register, go online to OregonATVSafety.com. There is a $20.00 fee for the evaluation which will be collected online when registering.
Students registering for this program will be required to have obtained the Oregon ATV Safety Education Program card prior to enrolling. To obtain this card go to rideatvoregon.org and complete the on line training. This training is free.
On Friday, December 30, 2011 two ATV Safety Institute Ridercourse classes will be conducted, also at the fairgrounds. The 9:00 AM class will be for youth 6 to 11 years old, and the 2:00 PM class will be for youth 12 to 15 years old. To register for these classes call 1-800-887-2887. There is a $55 fee for these classes, but Oregon residents are eligible for a $50.00 subsidy making the cost to the student only $5.00. Be sure to request this subsidy when registering.
There will be one 50cc and one 90cc loaner ATV available for each scheduled session. To request a loaner for the Saturday session contact the instructor at 503-791-4978. For the Sunday sessions request the loaner when registering.
Additional information is available on the internet at www.atvsafety.org, OregonATVSafety.com, or www.rideatvoregon.org.
Contact for questions: Deputy Michael Nelson, 503-791-4978
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Clatsop County To Form Partnership With Oregon Healthy Kids Program!
Monday, Nov. 28, 2011
HEALTHY KIDS PROGRAM
SEEKS COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Partners and
stakeholders are invited to help the effort to make health coverage available to
all Clatsop County children.
Earlier this year,
Clatsop County and Oregon’s Healthy Kids program formed a partnership to support
Healthy Kids, Oregon’s no-cost and low-cost health coverage program for kids and
teens 0-18 years of age. Part of the Oregon Health Authority’s first
initiatives, Healthy Kids helped bring health coverage to more than 100,000
children statewide, cutting the rate of uninsured kids in Oregon by half – from
11.3 percent in 2009 to 5.6 percent today.
“In Clatsop County,
we know there are still gaps in coverage for our children,” said Judi Mahoney,
Healthy Kids Outreach and Enrollment Worker for Clatsop County. “By bringing
together representatives from all sectors of our community, we can reach out and
begin closing those gaps.”
The creation of the
Clatsop County Healthy Kids Coalition addresses the need to increase access to
health coverage for kids and teens in the county. The coalition held their
first meeting on Nov. 2 with 24 representatives of various county agencies,
advocacy organizations and business groups.
Among the first
attendees were Danielle Sobel from the Office of Healthy Kids, community leaders
representing local hospitals, Clatsop County, the American Legion, many county
school districts, Head Start among other children’s centers, Healthy Start, the
Department of Human Services, the local Housing Authority, Suzanne Elise
Assisted Living Community and OSU Extension’s Family and Community Health
program.
The coalition will
meet every six to eight weeks to collaborate on outreach opportunities, and
brainstorm new ideas to bring coverage to kids.
Right now, the
coalition is seeking community partners and stakeholders to assist in outreach
efforts and promote Healthy Kids among their clients and networks.
The next meeting will
be held on Tuesday, Jan. 10 from 3 to 4:30 p.m. at the DHS building in Astoria;
450 Marine Drive, 2nd floor conference room. For more information on
the coalition or joining the coalition, please contact Judi Mahoney at (503)
358-2333. Families seeking assistance enrolling their children in Healthy Kids
are encouraged to contact Judi.
Families can also
apply for Healthy Kids coverage by calling 1-877-314-5678 or by visiting http://www.oregonhealthykids.gov/.
Released
by:
Tom
Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
HEALTHY KIDS PROGRAM
SEEKS COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Partners and
stakeholders are invited to help the effort to make health coverage available to
all Clatsop County children.
Earlier this year,
Clatsop County and Oregon’s Healthy Kids program formed a partnership to support
Healthy Kids, Oregon’s no-cost and low-cost health coverage program for kids and
teens 0-18 years of age. Part of the Oregon Health Authority’s first
initiatives, Healthy Kids helped bring health coverage to more than 100,000
children statewide, cutting the rate of uninsured kids in Oregon by half – from
11.3 percent in 2009 to 5.6 percent today.
“In Clatsop County,
we know there are still gaps in coverage for our children,” said Judi Mahoney,
Healthy Kids Outreach and Enrollment Worker for Clatsop County. “By bringing
together representatives from all sectors of our community, we can reach out and
begin closing those gaps.”
The creation of the
Clatsop County Healthy Kids Coalition addresses the need to increase access to
health coverage for kids and teens in the county. The coalition held their
first meeting on Nov. 2 with 24 representatives of various county agencies,
advocacy organizations and business groups.
Among the first
attendees were Danielle Sobel from the Office of Healthy Kids, community leaders
representing local hospitals, Clatsop County, the American Legion, many county
school districts, Head Start among other children’s centers, Healthy Start, the
Department of Human Services, the local Housing Authority, Suzanne Elise
Assisted Living Community and OSU Extension’s Family and Community Health
program.
The coalition will
meet every six to eight weeks to collaborate on outreach opportunities, and
brainstorm new ideas to bring coverage to kids.
Right now, the
coalition is seeking community partners and stakeholders to assist in outreach
efforts and promote Healthy Kids among their clients and networks.
The next meeting will
be held on Tuesday, Jan. 10 from 3 to 4:30 p.m. at the DHS building in Astoria;
450 Marine Drive, 2nd floor conference room. For more information on
the coalition or joining the coalition, please contact Judi Mahoney at (503)
358-2333. Families seeking assistance enrolling their children in Healthy Kids
are encouraged to contact Judi.
Families can also
apply for Healthy Kids coverage by calling 1-877-314-5678 or by visiting http://www.oregonhealthykids.gov/.
Released
by:
Tom
Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
CCBofC Seeks Public Input On November 30 For Proposed Ordinance On Animals In Circuses And Other Entertainment Events!
Monday, Nov. 28, 2011
COMMISSIONERS HOST
PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 30 ON CIRCUS ANIMAL ORDINANCE
GRP: Well, the easy answer is that there are plenty of Animal-Free and very entertaining Cirsuses out there these days but tell us.... where is the line and justifiable criteria to actually exempt Rodeos and 4-H/FFA events from the same ordinance? Are not all animals domesticated or controlled by man forced to bend under his will of forced domination?
The Clatsop County
Board of Commissioners is seeking public input on a proposed ordinance banning
public displays of elephants and exotic animals within the county.
The board will hold a
public hearing on the ordinance at its Wednesday, Nov. 30 meeting beginning at 6
p.m. at the Judge Guy Boyington Building, 857 Commercial St.,
Astoria.
Following the public
hearing the commissioners will consider whether to place the ordinance before
county voters in the May 2012 primary election.
Ordinance 11-13 would
prohibit the display of elephants and exotic animals in circuses and other
entertainment venues. Rodeos and horse shows, 4-H and FFA events and educational
displays would be exempt from the ban. The ordinance would cover only the
unincorporated portion of the county.
For more information,
including the full text of the proposed ordinance, view the Nov. 30 board agenda
at http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/.
Released
by:
Tom
Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
COMMISSIONERS HOST
PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 30 ON CIRCUS ANIMAL ORDINANCE
GRP: Well, the easy answer is that there are plenty of Animal-Free and very entertaining Cirsuses out there these days but tell us.... where is the line and justifiable criteria to actually exempt Rodeos and 4-H/FFA events from the same ordinance? Are not all animals domesticated or controlled by man forced to bend under his will of forced domination?
The Clatsop County
Board of Commissioners is seeking public input on a proposed ordinance banning
public displays of elephants and exotic animals within the county.
The board will hold a
public hearing on the ordinance at its Wednesday, Nov. 30 meeting beginning at 6
p.m. at the Judge Guy Boyington Building, 857 Commercial St.,
Astoria.
Following the public
hearing the commissioners will consider whether to place the ordinance before
county voters in the May 2012 primary election.
Ordinance 11-13 would
prohibit the display of elephants and exotic animals in circuses and other
entertainment venues. Rodeos and horse shows, 4-H and FFA events and educational
displays would be exempt from the ban. The ordinance would cover only the
unincorporated portion of the county.
For more information,
including the full text of the proposed ordinance, view the Nov. 30 board agenda
at http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/.
Released
by:
Tom
Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
Monday, November 28, 2011
Hunter Discovers Skull Near Nicolai Mountain. Clatsop County Sheriff Seeks Help With Any Information!
November 28, 2011
On November 25, 2011, an elk hunter made a discovery, while traversing a drainage near Nicolai Mountain. After crossing a small stream over a log jam, the hunter stepped over an odd object which caught his eye. The hunter examined more closely and recognized the object to be a human skull. The hunter and his father contacted the Sheriff’s Office to report their find.
That afternoon, Deputies and Dr. Stefanelli, investigator with the District Attorney’s office, met with the hunters who led the law enforcement team back to the scene. The skull was recovered and secured waiting to be sent to the State Medical Examiner’s Office.
The following morning of November 26, Clatsop County Search and Rescue returned to the scene to search for additional clues. The team located additional skeletal remains and clothing items along the stream bed. No source of identification was found during the search. Clothing found include blue BDU style pants and a 2XL, black, Addias brand shirt.
Evidence will be sent to the Oregon State Police Crime lab and the State Medical Examiner’s Office for identification.
If you have any information regarding this case or a missing person possibly not from the North Coast area please contact Detective Jama Hulon or Sgt. Matt Phillips at the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office.
(503)325-8635.
Tom Bergin
Clatsop County Sheriff
Cell 503 791-0072
Desk 503 338-3651
Friday, November 25, 2011
Ann Baldwin: 1948 - 2011
(Photo By: Kathy Patenaude)Ann Baldwin of Chinook, Wash., died in Chinook.
Hughes-Ransom Cremation & Mortuaries in Astoria is in charge of the arrangements.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Clatsop Emergency Services Office Issues Coastal Flood Watch
Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011COASTAL FLOOD WATCH
ISSUED FOR REGION WEDNESDAY
Runoff from this week’s strong Pacific storm is expected to combine with high tides today,
Wednesday, to bring potential flooding to coastal and estuary areas around
Clatsop County.
County officials continue to coordinate with local emergency agencies on the response to the
storm, which knocked out power to several communities and blocked some roads
with downed trees Tuesday.
storm, which knocked out power to several communities and blocked some roads
with downed trees Tuesday.
As of Wednesday morning, Highway 202 was restricted to one lane by downed trees. LoukasLane was also reported to be blocked by downed power lines.
Electrical service was out for customers in Cannon Beach, Arch Cape and Warrenton/Hammond, as well as in other scattered areas of the county. Most areas were expected to be
restored by noon Wednesday, according Pacific Power.
restored by noon Wednesday, according Pacific Power.
The National Weather Service has issued a coastal flood advisory for northwest Oregon and southwest
Washington through 2 p.m. Wednesday. High tide scheduled for 11 a.m. Wednesday,
combined with storm runoff, is forecast to reach 11 feet, posing a risk of
flooding to some low-lying areas. Motorists are advised to look for high water
on roadways.
High water has prompted the Oregon Department of Transportation to restrict traffic on U.S.
Highway 101 south of Seaside at Beerman Creek. Only trucks and other
high-profile vehicles were being allowed as of Wednesday morning.
A second but weaker storm front is expected to hit the northwest coast on Thursday, bringing
additional rain and wind gusts of up to 60 mph.
For weather updates,
go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr.
additional rain and wind gusts of up to 60 mph.
For weather updates,
go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr.
For up-to-date road
conditions, go to http://www.tripcheck.com/ or call the travel
info hotline at 511.
conditions, go to http://www.tripcheck.com/ or call the travel
info hotline at 511.
To receive weather
advisories from the National Weather Service, sign up with the ClatsopALERTS!
emergency notification system at http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/ or (503) 338-3656.
Released by: Tom Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
advisories from the National Weather Service, sign up with the ClatsopALERTS!
emergency notification system at http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/ or (503) 338-3656.
Released by: Tom Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
New Emission Standards For Oregon Customer-Owned Utilities Companies Goes Into Effect November 23, 2011
New rules for emission standards going into effect November 23, 2011
By SARAH ROSSSALEM, Ore. – Oregon Capital News
By SARAH ROSSSALEM, Ore. – Oregon Capital News
New rules governing how customer-owned utility companies are supposed to implement Oregon’s greenhouse gas emission standards for power generation went into effect Tuesday.The rules stemmed from a 2009 piece of state legislation requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to create such rules. Investor-owned utilities will be under similar guidelines being developed by the Oregon Public Utility Commission.Specifically, the rules include an output-based method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions, how electricity with no identified generation source is to be addressed, a process for determining when a utility can be designated as a “low-carbon resource,” and how utilities can meet greenhouse gas standards.The state’s greenhouse gas emission standard, which includes only carbon dioxide emissions, is set at 1,100 pounds of emissions per megawatt-hour of electricity produced by the utility company.If a utility company wishes to become a low-carbon resource company, it must submit a plan to the DOE. That agency then decides if the plan includes enough technical documentation to prove that the company will be a low greenhouse gas producing facility within seven years of opening.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber Puts Moratorium On Death Penalty Until The End Of His Term
U.S. NEWS/WALL STREET JOURNAL/ASSOCIATED PRESS
NOVEMBER 22, 2011, 5:34 P.M. ET
SALEM, Ore.—Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber on Tuesday imposed a moratorium on the
death penalty for the remainder of his term, saying he is morally opposed to
capital punishment and has long regretted allowing two men to be executed in the
1990s.
Mr. Kitzhaber's term ends in January 2015. He has not said whether he would
run for re-election.
The Democratic governor's decision gives a temporary reprieve to a
twice-convicted murderer who was scheduled to die by lethal injection in two
weeks, along with 36 others on death row. It makes Oregon the fifth state to
halt executions since 2007.
Mr. Kitzhaber said he has repeatedly questioned and revisited his decisions
to allow convicted murderers Douglas Wright and Harry Moore to be executed in
1996 and 1997.
"I do not believe that those executions made us safer, and certainly they did
not make us nobler as a society," Mr. Kitzhaber said. "And I simply cannot
participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong."
Mr. Kitzhaber is a former emergency-room doctor who still retains an active
physician license with the Oregon Medical Board, and his opposition to the death
penalty has been well-known. He was elected last year to an unprecedented third
term as governor after eight years away from public office.
Oregon has a complex history with capital punishment. Voters have outlawed it
twice and legalized it twice, and the state Supreme Court struck it down once.
Voters most recently legalized the death penalty in 1984. Since then, two men
have been executed, both of whom voluntarily gave up their appeals during Mr.
Kitzhaber's first administration.
Prison officials had been preparing for the Dec. 6 execution of Gary Haugen,
who also had waived appeals. Mr. Haugen was serving a life sentence for fatally
bludgeoning his former girlfriend's mother when he was sentenced to death for
the 2003 killing of a fellow inmate, who had 84 stab wounds and a crushed
skull.
Mr. Kitzhaber said he had no sympathy or compassion for murderers but
Oregon's death penalty was "an expensive and unworkable system that fails to
meet basic standards of justice."
Over a three-decade political career, Mr. Kitzhaber has built a reputation
for charting his own course, sometimes to the frustration of fellow Democrats
and others to the chagrin of legislative Republicans.
Mr. Kitzhaber's moratorium means Oregon joins, at least temporarily, four
other states that have halted executions, according to the Death Penalty
Information Center. Illinois this year outlawed the death penalty after the
discovery of wrongful convictions. New Mexico voters abolished it in 2009, two
years after New Jersey's Legislature and governor did the same. A New York
appeals court struck down a portion of the death-penalty statute.
NOVEMBER 22, 2011, 5:34 P.M. ET
SALEM, Ore.—Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber on Tuesday imposed a moratorium on the
death penalty for the remainder of his term, saying he is morally opposed to
capital punishment and has long regretted allowing two men to be executed in the
1990s.
Mr. Kitzhaber's term ends in January 2015. He has not said whether he would
run for re-election.
The Democratic governor's decision gives a temporary reprieve to a
twice-convicted murderer who was scheduled to die by lethal injection in two
weeks, along with 36 others on death row. It makes Oregon the fifth state to
halt executions since 2007.
Mr. Kitzhaber said he has repeatedly questioned and revisited his decisions
to allow convicted murderers Douglas Wright and Harry Moore to be executed in
1996 and 1997.
"I do not believe that those executions made us safer, and certainly they did
not make us nobler as a society," Mr. Kitzhaber said. "And I simply cannot
participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong."
Mr. Kitzhaber is a former emergency-room doctor who still retains an active
physician license with the Oregon Medical Board, and his opposition to the death
penalty has been well-known. He was elected last year to an unprecedented third
term as governor after eight years away from public office.
Oregon has a complex history with capital punishment. Voters have outlawed it
twice and legalized it twice, and the state Supreme Court struck it down once.
Voters most recently legalized the death penalty in 1984. Since then, two men
have been executed, both of whom voluntarily gave up their appeals during Mr.
Kitzhaber's first administration.
Prison officials had been preparing for the Dec. 6 execution of Gary Haugen,
who also had waived appeals. Mr. Haugen was serving a life sentence for fatally
bludgeoning his former girlfriend's mother when he was sentenced to death for
the 2003 killing of a fellow inmate, who had 84 stab wounds and a crushed
skull.
Mr. Kitzhaber said he had no sympathy or compassion for murderers but
Oregon's death penalty was "an expensive and unworkable system that fails to
meet basic standards of justice."
Over a three-decade political career, Mr. Kitzhaber has built a reputation
for charting his own course, sometimes to the frustration of fellow Democrats
and others to the chagrin of legislative Republicans.
Mr. Kitzhaber's moratorium means Oregon joins, at least temporarily, four
other states that have halted executions, according to the Death Penalty
Information Center. Illinois this year outlawed the death penalty after the
discovery of wrongful convictions. New Mexico voters abolished it in 2009, two
years after New Jersey's Legislature and governor did the same. A New York
appeals court struck down a portion of the death-penalty statute.
Monday, November 21, 2011
National Weather Service Cautions Strong Pacific Coast Storm Forecast Monday Night
Monday, Nov. 21, 2011STRONG PACIFIC STORM
FORECAST TO HIT COAST MONDAY NIGHT
A Pacific storm front
is expected to bring high winds and possible flooding to area rivers and streams
this week, according to the National Weather Service.
The agency has issued
a high wind warning and flood watch for the north and central Oregon Coast and
south Washington Coast beginning Monday night. Sustained winds of up to 50 mph
with gusts of up to 80 mph are forecast for beaches and headlands, with winds in
coastal communities of 40 mph-sustained and 70 mph-gusts. High winds are
expected to last through Tuesday night, potentially causing downed trees and
power lines.
The storm is also
forecast to bring several inches of rain to the Oregon Coast Range and Willapa
Hills in Washington between Tuesday morning and Wednesday morning, potentially
causing flooding in creeks and small rivers in Tillamook and Clatsop counties
and southwest Washington counties.
A high surf advisory
is also in effect for early Tuesday morning into Tuesday night.
For updates, go to www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr. For
information on winter storm preparation, go to http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/.
To receive weather
advisories from the National Weather Service, sign up with the ClatsopALERTS!
emergency notification system at http://www.co.clatsop.or.us/ or (503) 338-3656.
Released
by:
Tom
Bennett
Community Relations
Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
Astoria City Council To Hear Resolution To Amend And Adopt, On Recommendation Of City Staff, Implementaion Of Rules Regarding Government Markers!
At tonight's November 21, 2011 Astoria City Council meeting(7:00 PM at Guy Boyington Building, 857 Commercial St., Astoria), a resolution amending and permitting the use of bronze Government Markers at Ocean View Cemetery as furnished to veterans together with miscellaneous revisions to standards for marker placement and finishing. City Staff recommends that Council adopt to proposed resolution implementing these amendments.Friday, November 18, 2011
A Look Back - 07/01/2009: A New, More Militant Tom Freel?
The Sky: Will It Fall?
Ask any of the anti-LNG crowd and the answer isn't just "yes" it's a resounding "hell yes".After all, it's very important to keep fear alive when you are battling a big energy company that has the nerve to go through years and years and years of being roasted over a slow fire just to bring in a billion dollar project that will shore up our faltering local economy. The fear factor is vital if you plan to unseat local and state office-holdersThe same people who brought you a Port Commissioner who couldn't even complete her term is positioning itself to take more (apparently temporary) control of local and state politics and the LNG issue. I can't wait for the Peter Hutula campaign for state rep to kick into full swing. I wonder who will be angling for the County Commission?
Posted by Tom Freel at 10:13 AM
GRP:That's some very aggressive language coming from KAST's morning voice and of late, one of the biggest noises supporting NSNG/Bradwood even to the point of suggesting a local restaurant is the headquarters of environmental radicals and sitting quietly by while his loyal audience of anonymous posters discourage doing business with the place.
For Tom's 'Coastwatch Blog' it truly appears the ideal of the saw "Freedom of the press is a wonderful privilege, especially when you own it" is in play here at one of New Northwest Broadcasters broadcasting centers as any challenge to his musings will never see the light of day.
Then, again, it seems, over recent history, that Mr. Freel gets a little more vocal in defense of LNG Speculation in our community when a controversy arises that may threaten its now, even shakier, future in this part of the world and coincidentally we have another Clatsop County Board of Commissioners hearing on a couple of LUBA Issues impacting Bradwood Landing's future coming up so, guess what, a whole lot of noise coming out of NNB Headquarters including another blitz of those Brandwood Landing endorsement/commercials.
Ask any of the anti-LNG crowd and the answer isn't just "yes" it's a resounding "hell yes".After all, it's very important to keep fear alive when you are battling a big energy company that has the nerve to go through years and years and years of being roasted over a slow fire just to bring in a billion dollar project that will shore up our faltering local economy. The fear factor is vital if you plan to unseat local and state office-holdersThe same people who brought you a Port Commissioner who couldn't even complete her term is positioning itself to take more (apparently temporary) control of local and state politics and the LNG issue. I can't wait for the Peter Hutula campaign for state rep to kick into full swing. I wonder who will be angling for the County Commission?
Posted by Tom Freel at 10:13 AM
GRP:That's some very aggressive language coming from KAST's morning voice and of late, one of the biggest noises supporting NSNG/Bradwood even to the point of suggesting a local restaurant is the headquarters of environmental radicals and sitting quietly by while his loyal audience of anonymous posters discourage doing business with the place.
For Tom's 'Coastwatch Blog' it truly appears the ideal of the saw "Freedom of the press is a wonderful privilege, especially when you own it" is in play here at one of New Northwest Broadcasters broadcasting centers as any challenge to his musings will never see the light of day.
Then, again, it seems, over recent history, that Mr. Freel gets a little more vocal in defense of LNG Speculation in our community when a controversy arises that may threaten its now, even shakier, future in this part of the world and coincidentally we have another Clatsop County Board of Commissioners hearing on a couple of LUBA Issues impacting Bradwood Landing's future coming up so, guess what, a whole lot of noise coming out of NNB Headquarters including another blitz of those Brandwood Landing endorsement/commercials.
Wonder who's going to take the lead at NNB for the Oregon LNG advertising campaign when/if that project gets any traction. Somebody's going to have to do some fine tippy toeing on that one. How's that going to work?
And let's not even get into the discussion that the Western Natural Gas and coalition Pipeline Industries say that the flow of Natural Gas, for many years to come, in the Western Markets will not be impacted in the least by the lack of any LNG Speculation and Development whatosever even from Alaska which has its own overland pipeline slated, with a MidWest terminus and just announced and endorsed by its Governor Sarah Palin.
I'm thinking now the "Fear Mongering" is indeed pointless as a more poignant issue has arisen...the simple need for this LNG Process maybe just isn't there in the first place and our efforts may be better spent attracting cohesive and compatible industry to our community that will put thousands of us to work for years to come.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Seaside Shooting Incident Warrants Arrest, Jailing And Charges Of Menacing And Unlawful Use Of A Firearm
On 11/11/2011, at 0459hrs, Timothy Schwanke (DOB 09/24/84),
called 911 to report Jason Ames (DOB 2/20/88) was threatening to shoot him.
While Schwanke was on the line with the dispatcher, shots were fired. Schwanke
ran from the area and was uninjured. Deputies immediately responded to the area
with the assistance of a Seaside Police Sergeant. The events occurred on Bear
Rd. near the Elderberry Inn in the Elsie area.
Deputies surrounded the Ames residence until daylight. The
residence was called and Ames surrendered to Sheriff’s Deputies peacefully.
Eight empty .22 caliber shell cases were recovered on Bear Rd. near the Ames
residence. Also seized was the semi-automatic rifle and ammunition used during
the shooting. Ames was lodged in the Clatsop County Jail and charged with
Menacing and Unlawful Use of a Firearm. Additional charges may be filed later.
Any additional details please
call.
Sheriff Bergin
503 791-0072
Janet L. Perschek
Support Division Supervisor
Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office
called 911 to report Jason Ames (DOB 2/20/88) was threatening to shoot him.
While Schwanke was on the line with the dispatcher, shots were fired. Schwanke
ran from the area and was uninjured. Deputies immediately responded to the area
with the assistance of a Seaside Police Sergeant. The events occurred on Bear
Rd. near the Elderberry Inn in the Elsie area.
Deputies surrounded the Ames residence until daylight. The
residence was called and Ames surrendered to Sheriff’s Deputies peacefully.
Eight empty .22 caliber shell cases were recovered on Bear Rd. near the Ames
residence. Also seized was the semi-automatic rifle and ammunition used during
the shooting. Ames was lodged in the Clatsop County Jail and charged with
Menacing and Unlawful Use of a Firearm. Additional charges may be filed later.
Any additional details please
call.
Sheriff Bergin
503 791-0072
Janet L. Perschek
Support Division Supervisor
Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office
From Time.Com: Greening This Old House; Saving Money And The Environment By Upgrading Older Homes
Greening This Old House
By Bryan Walsh - Time Magazine
By Bryan Walsh - Time Magazine
Photo By - Viktor Koen - For Time
Thursday, Apr. 23, 2009
Thursday, Apr. 23, 2009
Would Abraham Lincoln have gone green? Frank Milligan thinks so. Milligan is the director of President Lincoln's Cottage, a Gothic Revival mansion on a breezy hill a few miles from the White House, where Lincoln and his family sought relief from the summer heat during the Civil War.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Clatsop County Board Of Commissioners November 9, 2011 Meeting Highlights
Clatsop County Board of CommissionersHighlights
Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011 regular meeting
11-09-2011 Work Session Audio Transcript
11-09-2011 Regular Meeting Audio Transcript
Official minutes available once approved by board
Sirens, generator accepted
The board voted to accept ownership of 20 emergency sirens formerly part of the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in eastern Oregon. The equipment – 19 stationary sirens, one mobile siren plus spare parts – is being provided to the county by the Oregon Military Department free of charge. The county Emergency Management Division plans to install the sirens in coastal communities from Arch Cape to Warrenton, as well as Miles Crossing, to improve early warning capabilities for citizens and visitors in the event of tsunamis, floods and other disasters.
Emergency Management Director Dean Perez noted that while the meeting agenda included a map of proposed siren locations, the county will work with cities, unincorporated communities and the state parks department to select particular sites for each device with the assistance of a siren expert. The county hopes to begin erecting the sirens in April 2012.
The board also accepted a 40-kilowatt diesel generator from the chemical stockpile program. The generator, valued at $20,000, will be donated to the Elsie/Vinemaple Rural Fire Protection District to provide back-up electricity to the station during power outages.
Social gathering ordinance approved
The board approved an ordinance establishing a Social Gathering Permit. The permit will be required of certain events involving more than 1,000 people lasting more than eight hours.
County Manager Duane Cole explained that the new permit was prompted by two events, an outdoor “rave” music festival last year and an annual motorcycle gathering in Jewell. While organizers of both events cooperated with county officials and no problems were experienced with either event, it was decided that the county needed a permit for large events of less than 3,000 people; gatherings larger than that are regulated by state law.
Permit applicants will be required present plans for handling parking, traffic, waste disposal and safety measures, and to make a deposit to cover any county staff time connected with the event. Permit applications will be reviewed and approved by the board of commissioners.
The board also approved amendments to two existing permits. The Park Special Use Permit, which formerly required board approval, can now be handled by the county Park Superintendent. The ordinance for the County Road Event Permit was changed to allow the county to act as the sole permitting agency on behalf of local fire districts for the annual Hood to Coast Relay event.
Business Park CCRs approved
The board approved a set of covenants, conditions and restrictions covering future development at the county-owned North Coast Business Park in Warrenton. The CCRs, which apply to the 190-acre Phase 2 portion of the park, call for the formation of an Owners Association Board of Directors to review plans for construction and alteration of buildings and other improvements, landscaping and stormwater management. The conditions also prohibit certain businesses such as slaughterhouses and asphalt plants, and spell out requirements for preservation of natural areas.
CEDR presentation
During a work session the board heard a report from Clatsop Economic Development Resources (CEDR) director Kevin Leahy. The agency, which promotes economic development with funding from the county, cities, Clatsop Community College, private donors and the federal Small Business Administration, has created 48 jobs and retained another 19, hosted 35 training events and offered 1,090 hours of business counseling to 404 clients.
Non-profit allocations approved
The board approved the disbursement of $30,000 in county funds to local non-profit social service agencies. The allocations were made under a new policy approved by the board in September that gave the Clatsop County Commission on Children and Families the task of choosing the funding recipients. The new process allows the CCF to combine the county dollars with its own funding to better meet the county’s and commission’s goals of supporting vulnerable local populations.
The county funds allocations are:
- Clatsop Court-Appointed Special Advocates - $11,279
- Helping Hands - $11,278
- Clatsop Community Action - $7,443
The CCF’s $57,864 in funding is allocated to:
- Sunset Empire Parks and Recreation District - $4,000
- Clatsop County Juvenile Department youth programs - $25,000
- Hope House/Lutheran Community Services NW - $19,300
- Clatsop County Action - $9,564
Other Business
In other business the board:
-Approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon State Radio Project for funding for the new Emergency Operations Center communications wing at Camp Rilea. The state agency will provide $83,000 of the project’s $500,000 cost; the federal government will cover $250,000 and the county will pay for the remaining $167,000.
-Approved an agreement with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for a $141,000 grant to fund improvements to the adult fish holding pond at the South Fork Klaskanine Fish Hatchery operated by the county’s Select Area Fisheries Enhancement program.
-Re-appointed Commissioner Patricia Roberts as the county’s representative on the Council of Forest Trust Land Counties. Commissioner Scott Lee was chosen as the alternate.
Tom Bennett
Community Relations Coordinator
(503) 325-1000 ext. 1312
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
City Of Astoria Responds To Clatsop District Attorney's Office DUII Lawsuit By Asking Clatsop Circuit Court To Dismiss.
Citing the Clatsop County District Attorney's Office lacks standing over the State of Oregon, Astoria City Attorney Blair Henningsgaard has filed a motion to dismiss the DUII lawsuit against the city by District Attorney Josh Marquis.
The lawsuit was filed in September by Oregon Attorney General John Kroger on behalf of Marquis, claiming the city needs to turn over the cases to Circuit Court and cease handling misdemeanor DUIIs in Municipal Court.
This is ORS 8.660 that clearly states the position of a County District Attorney. Use This Law in Balance with your reading City of Astoria's "Dismiss Motion" in shaping your thinking
Attending court and prosecuting offenses
(1) The district attorney shall attend the terms of all courts having jurisdiction of public offenses within the district attorney’s county, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, conduct, on behalf of the state, all prosecutions for such offenses therein.
(2) A district attorney shall not conduct prosecutions under this section when:
(a) A city attorney is prosecuting a violation under ORS chapter 153;
or (b) The district attorney is prohibited from appearing in a violation proceeding under the provisions of ORS 153.076 (Conduct of trial). [Amended by 1975 c.451 §170; 1981 c.626 §1; 1981 c.692 §6a; 1999 c.1051 §116]
Friday, November 04, 2011
Special Election Ballots Due Back Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Friday, Nov. 4, 2011BALLOTS DUE BACK TUESDAY, NOV. 8 SPECIAL ELECTION
Time is running out to return ballots for the Nov. 8 special primary election.
Ballots for the election must be returned by 8 p.m. Tuesday in order to be counted. To ensure their ballots arrive on time, voters are advised to bring completed ballots to one of the approved drop sites. Ballots placed in the mail before the deadline but not delivered until after will not be counted.
Completed ballots can be dropped at the following sites:
· Clatsop County Clerk’s Office, Public Services Building, 820 Exchange St., Astoria -or- 24-hour drop box in front of office.
· Cannon Beach City Hall, 163 Gower St., Cannon Beach
· Gearhart City Hall, 696 Pacific Way, Gearhart
· Seaside City Hall, 989 Broadway, Seaside
· Warrenton City Hall, 225 S. Main Ave., Warrenton
· Knappa High School, 41535 Old Highway 30, Knappa
· Mist-Birkenfeld Fire Hall, 12525 Oregon Highway 202
· Clatskanie Library, 11 Lillich St., Clatskanie
For more information contact the Clerk and Elections Office at (503) 325-8511 or go to the Clatsop County website, www.co.clatsop.or.us and click on “Nov. 8, 2011 Special Primary Election.”
Released by:
Tom Bennett
Community Relations Coordinator
(503) 338-3622
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)