Bloggers Beware, You're Liable To Commit Libel!!!

Posted by Steve Tobak

These days, everybody and his dog has a blog. Unfortunately, almost nobody has a clue about their responsibility under defamation law. And if the dog has a clue, he ain't talkin'.
Most professional writers and members of the media are familiar with this stuff, but chances are, you're not. If you write, host, or even comment on a blog, you need to be. That's because, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, we all have the same rights and responsibilities under defamation law.
Now, I confess to not being a lawyer. But I am a blogger who would like to stay out of court. I've also run marketing for a few companies and have spent way too much time with lawyers, so I do know a fair amount about this stuff.
Since legalese can be intimidating, I thought I'd attempt a plain-English overview of the subject. I'd also like to invite those more knowledgeable than me to comment. Keep in mind that this is intended to open your eyes, not provide legal advice, which I'm certainly not qualified to do.

Seal of U.S. Supreme Court
First, people usually ask the wrong question: "Can a blogger be sued for defamation?" The sad truth is that almost anybody can sue you for almost anything these days. So, don't ask that question; it's dumb. What you want to know is your responsibility under the law, and therefore, how best to protect yourself from successful litigation.
To prove libel, which is the same thing as written defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the blogger published a false statement of fact about the plaintiff that harmed the plaintiff's reputation. Let's break that down.
"Published" means that at least one other person may have read the blog. That's right, just one.
A "false statement of fact" is a statement about the plaintiff that is not true. Truth is the best defense against libel. An opinion is also a defense against libel. But, depending on the context, the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact can be remarkably gray. Context is a big deal in determining defamation.
One thing to watch out for: simply inserting the words "in my opinion" in front of a statement of fact doesn't magically make it an opinion.
Satire and hyperbole can also be defenses against libel, but again, very gray.
Then there's the matter of "harming the plaintiff's reputation." It's one thing to say that a false statement harmed your reputation, but if you can't demonstrate damages, the suit may be effectively worthless. Damages would include, for example, losing X customers that represent Y income, suffering emotional distress and so on. Also, if your damages are minimal, you may have a hard time finding a lawyer to take the case. They're a greedy lot. (That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.)
If the plaintiff is your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill person or company, then negligence is sufficient to prove libel. That means that a reasonable person would not have published the defamatory statement. If the plaintiff is a "public figure," however, then the plaintiff must prove actual malice--a higher burden of proof. That means that the blogger knew that the statement wasn't true or didn't care.
Then there's the question of who's responsible for comments on a blog. Whoever publishes the Web site is responsible for content on the site. That includes comments. However, many bloggers have independent agreements to indemnify the site that publishes their blog. That may or may not include comments.
Plaintiffs can certainly sue everybody in the chain and see what sticks, though they will likely go after those with the deepest pockets. You can avoid the entire question by turning comments off.
To make matters worse, this is the Internet, so there are individual state and national laws to consider. I'm going to stick with California and U.S. law, and hope for the best.
You may be able to get insurance for this sort of thing. I was able to get a quote for what's called media liability insurance, but it was expensive and had a high deductible. It also took lots of time and and paperwork just to get the quote. In any case, a business insurance broker should be able to quote you a policy from one of their carriers.
Well, those are the basics. Check out this EFF site on defamation for FAQs and examples. You can probably spend a lifetime understanding different scenarios and studying case law.
As for me, I'm planning to play it safe. I mean, how hard can it be to say nice things about people?

From The Oregonian - N.W. Natural Gas Stock Holders Meeting Disrupted By Anti-LNG Protesters

NW Natural's shareholders meeting is disturbed by anti-LNG protest

The company shakes up its leadership and closes its meeting to the public

Friday, May 23, 2008

TED SICKINGER The Oregonian

Thursday was unusually chaotic for a normally dull gas monopoly as Northwest Natural Gas Co. announced major leadership changes, heard loud protests outside its Portland headquarters and got hit with a lawsuit from landowners who oppose its efforts to bring liquefied natural gas to Oregon.
The company was so put out by the hubbub that it took the unusual step of closing its annual shareholder meeting. Executives said they were worried that their normally placid recital of financial results for a group of elderly shareholders was about to erupt into a carnival of protest in front of TV cameras. So they barred media representatives and anyone else but registered shareholders.
"We made the call for the safety of the people in the room," said Gregg Kantor, the company's president.
Inside, the company shared a significant piece of information: Kantor, 51, will succeed Chief Executive Mark Dodson when Dodson retires at the end of the year.
Meanwhile, opponents of proposed LNG terminals and associated pipelines were outside, locking themselves to the building's entrance, urging the company to "stop pimping LNG" and waving placards that called the imported fuel "NW Nasty Gas."
Also Thursday, landowner groups said they filed suit against the joint venture.....For Complete Story Click On Ttitle above.

From The Daily "A" - Bank Of Astoria To Foreclose On Taggart Building

By CASSANDRA PROFITA - he Daily Astorian

The Bank of Astoria is foreclosing on the Pier 1 building constructed by former Port of Astoria Commissioner Glenn Taggart and could soon put it up for sale.The bank is seeking the Port of Astoria's consent to the sale of the building, Port Interim Executive Director Ron Larsen told the Port Commission at a special meeting Tuesday.Since last year, the Port, which owns the land under the building and leases office and storage space inside, has been making lease payments to the bank, which assumed control of the building and its rent payments after Taggart's companies failed to repay nearly $2 million in loans.Taggart's company, Astoria Bay LLC, also owes the Port about $8,000 in unpaid bills.The Pier 1 building stirred controversy at the Port in 2006 when critics accused Taggart of misusing his position as commissioner to get the Port to lease space inside his building. Taggart resigned from the commission in September 2006. When Port Commissioner Larry Pfund raised questions about the building's safety when it was up for sale in April 2007, real estate agents involved in the sale said he scared off interested buyers......For Full Story Click On Main Title Of This Thread

Jewell School Board - Two Board Members Likely Ousted And Now A New Retaliatory Complaint Filed By Former Contract Employee

Complaint filed against Jewell School Board. Former employee says members violated public meetings laws

By KARA HANSEN - The Daily Astorian

JEWELL - A former contracted employee of the Jewell School District has filed a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission that accuses Jewell School Board members of violating public meetings laws over the past two years.The ethics commission confirmed it received the complaint but would release no other information.Lauren Jacobsen, a past board member who lives in Birkenfeld, named the current school board lineup in her grievance as well as those in positions before May 2007's election. That list includes Ulrich "Oly" Schockelt, who has led a recall campaign against the present board's leaders, Chairman Karl Meier and Vice Chairwoman Ann Samuelson. Jewell-area voters will decide whether the two keep their seats in today's special election.Past director Carrie Thompson, who helped organize the recall effort, was also named......See full story by clicking on above Title.

From The Daily Astrorian - The J.J Neikes Affair

Friday, May 16, 2008
Detective probes incident involving Astoria county commission contender Neikes
By JOE GAMM The Daily Astorian
Friday, May 16, 2008

The Tillamook County Sheriff's Office has investigated an incident involving James "Ace" Neikes and a Clatsop County employee that allegedly took place Tuesday.
Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin said he referred the case to Tillamook County so there would be no question of conflict of interest concerning his office.
Neikes is one of four men seeking to be appointed as a county commissioner Wednesday following the recall of Richard Lee.
A report released today said the Tillamook detective, Troy Jackson, responded Thursday to a report of menacing against Gregg Bonham, a Clatsop County employee.
In his duties as a county employee, Bonham was directed to inspect a property at 37906 U.S. Route 30. Bonham thought the property belonged to a brother of Neikes, who he had worked with in the past.
Bonham reported that he'd been asked by his office not to have any contact with Neikes, but after 10 minutes Neikes parked a vehicle behind Bonham's, blocking him in.
Jackson reported that Bonham told him Neikes stepped out of his vehicle and said, "Now that I have you blocked in, you are not going anywhere."
Bonham reported speaking with Neikes about a previous incident involving an old log landing property. He told detectives Neikes said Bonham "... needed to do a better job of making planning decisions in A/F-zoned lands."
Bonham reported that although Neikes never raised his voice, he said, "People sure could disappear down under my new road and not be found."
Bonham told the detectives he thought that statement was directed at him.
The detectives' report didn't include conversations they had with Neikes, but did include a conclusion.
"After conferring with Detective Garcia, and based on interviews and the history of Neikes, we believe that Neikes' behavior, although disturbing and unprofessional, were not criminal in nature," the report said. "It was our opinion that any further investigation was unwarranted and would possibly inflame the situation between the Neikes' and the county Planning Office.
After discussion with Sheriff Bergin, he agreed.
"It is however known to us that Neikes is on formal probation with the Clatsop County, a copy of this report should be forwarded to his probation officer for their review and any action they feel is warranted."
Commissioners are scheduled to appoint Lee's replacement during a special session at 6 p.m. Wednesday in Courtroom 300 of the Clatsop County Courthouse. The replacement will serve out the final three years in Lee's term without facing election.
The Daily Astorian recently reported that Neikes pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault and strangulation Nov. 9 for an incident involving his wife. He is on probation for those convictions.
Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis said this morning that his office would not pursue charges against Neikes, but he doesn't know what effect it would have on Neikes' probation. "That's up to his probation officer," Marquis said.


Neikes disputes report's version of events in latest investigation
By JOE GAMM The Daily Astorian
Monday, May 19, 2008

James "Ace" Neikes said today that an incident involving him and a Clatsop County assessor didn't happen the way police investigators reported it.
The Daily Astorian reported receiving copies of a report Friday by the Tillamook County Sheriff's Office about an alleged menacing of a Clatsop County employee Tuesday. Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin said he referred the case to Tillamook County so there would be no question of conflict of interest involving his office.
Neikes is one of four men seeking to be appointed as a county commissioner Wednesday following the recall of Richard Lee. Neikes said the investigators never even interviewed him or witnesses to the alleged incident.
The investigator released two pages of testimony from Gregg Bonham, an assessor for Clatsop County. The only other reference to interviews came in the investigator's conclusion, when he wrote, "After conferring with Detective Garcia and based on interviews and the history of Neikes, we believe that Neikes' behavior, although disturbing and unprofessional, were not criminal in nature."
Bonham told investigators that a statement Neikes made - saying people could disappear under Neikes' new road and never be found - was directed at him.
Neikes said no threat was made toward Bonham. He said there was a witness standing two feet away and no one interviewed him.
In fact, he said Bonham didn't even have business on Neikes' property.
"They don't come out and appraise something when it's not finished - there's no reason to appraise it because it's not finished," Neikes said.
Neikes said the "appraisal" was politically motivated. He said, "Mr. Bonham came out because he knew he could get a reaction out of me."
There is a pattern of Bonham treating Neikes unfairly in appraisals, Neikes said. An example Neikes gave was that he traded $6,000 parcels of property with Weyerhaeuser and then suddenly Bonham appraised Neikes' parcel at $170,000.
"The connecting property is assessed at 1/10 of what my property is," Neikes said.
He also said he has an "unbuildable" lot, which was assessed at $99,000. Next door is a property with a house on it, assessed at $77,000.
Litigation is imminent, Neikes promises.
"Have you ever heard when there's an investigation by two counties, it's in The Daily Astorian within 72 hours?" he asked.
"We're going to bring that out in the depositions.This has got to be the fastest judge, jury and execution in the history of man."

Private Property Rights - What Philosophy Do You Follow?

Property Rights
by Armen A. Alchian

One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. For decades social critics in the United States and throughout the Western world have complained that "property" rights too often take precedence over "human" rights, with the result that people are treated unequally and have unequal opportunities. Inequality exists in any society. But the purported conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage—property rights are human rights.
The definition, allocation, and protection of property rights is one of the most complex and difficult set of issues that any society has to resolve, but it is one that must be resolved in some fashion. For the most part social critics of "property" rights do not want to abolish those rights. Rather, they want to transfer them from private ownership to government ownership. Some transfers to public ownership (or control, which is similar) make an economy more effective. Others make it less effective. The worst outcome by far occurs when property rights really are abolished (see The Tragedy of the Commons).
A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism. If the resource is owned by the government, the agent who determines its use has to operate under a set of rules determined, in the United States, by Congress or by executive agencies it has charged with that role.
Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. Thus, for example, the owner of an apartment with complete property rights to the apartment has the right to determine whether to rent it out and, if so, which tenant to rent to; to live in it himself; or to use it in any other peaceful way. That is the right to determine the use. If the owner rents out the apartment, he also has the right to all the rental income from the property. That is the right to the services of the resources (the rent).
Finally, a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If I am not allowed to buy some rights from you and you therefore are not allowed to sell rights to me, private property rights are reduced. Thus, the three basic elements of private property are (1) exclusivity of rights to the choice of use of a resource, (2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and (3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms.

Hammond/Warrenton Street Scapes 1962 - What's Strikingly Obvious In These Photos?

Hammond Buildings 1962

Warrenton Street Scape 1962?

Is It Time To Unify All Clatsop County Schools?

My Answer?

Yes! Absolutely!

Northwest Property Rights Coalition Calls For FERC Pipeline Siting Reforms!

May 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact: Marc Auerbach, 503.755.2415, marc@nwprc.org

Northwest Property Rights Coalition Calls for Reforms in Six Areas of FERC Pipeline Siting Process

(Molalla, OR)Today the Northwest Property Rights Coalition (NWPRC) released a plan for reform of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) process for siting interstate, natural gas pipelines (www.nwprc.org/reform). The reforms grow out of direct landowner experience in Washington and Oregon where 3 liquefied natural gas plants and four pipelines are proposed. “The system as set up now is lopsided, seriously flawed, and in dire need of reform,” says Paul Sansone of Sansone & Associates, an affected landowner in Gales Creek, Oregon. The report addresses these flaws with dozens of specific reforms that fall into six broad categories:

1. Makes the initial “baseline route” a corridor; not a line.
2. Asks FERC to create more written policies, procedures and criteria for route changes, right-of-way agreements, etc.
3. Requires compensation for landowners during the “limbo period.”
4. Requires eminent domain not be granted as a matter of course, but only if mandatory negotiations and arbitration fail.
5. Engages a third party to monitor landowner satisfaction and pipeline company performance.
6. Change FERC’s approach to licensing by applying open market principles before the application phase instead of during or after the approval process.

The reforms seek to cure obvious discrepancies between the theory of pipeline siting as seen by FERC in Washington, D.C. and the reality on the ground. For example, FERC knows that the pipeline route will vary from the initially proposed route, yet the notification and initial maps only reflect a specific route. In fact NWPRC has documented that even FERC’s “final” route is subject to change. Reform number one makes the initial “baseline route” a corridor; not a line.

From a FERC policy report, “FERC staff has been asked to offer assistance early in the process to support all stakeholders. Earlier and more productive involvement will lead to better project designs and less contentious applications to FERC and other agencies.” In reality “FERC’s” policies and procedures for dealing with landowner concerns seem ad hoc and arbitrary,” states Susan Hansen, NWPRC board member from Molalla, Oregon. Reform number two addresses several ways the process can be made more fair and useful.

“It has already been eight months since the Palomar and Oregon LNG pipelines were proposed, and it could be several years before the regulatory process is complete. During that time, our small business – our farm – is at a serious competitive disadvantage, since we are dealing with terrible uncertainty. We don’t know whether to go ahead and invest in our planned improvements now, or wait until we are sure our land won’t be torn up to accommodate this fossil fuel pipeline,” reports Anne Berblinger, Gales Creek, Oregon. NWPRC calls for compensation for landowners for the very real impacts of living for an indeterminate time in the crosshairs of a pipeline. We refer to this time as the limbo period.

FERC has been granted the awesome authority to grant eminent domain power to private companies, yet it leaves landowners to battle for their rights in state condemnation court; if the claim exceeds a paltry $3,000, then it moves to federal court. “The deck is absurdly stacked against the small private landowner of limited resources, in favor of corporations with their vast resources and expertise,” notes Brent Foster, Executive Director Columbia Riverkeeper. NWPRC seeks reforms, such as an arbitration option, to help level the playing field.

Who monitors landowner satisfaction with FERC? FERC asks the pipeline companies. We think this should change. Gayle Kiser, an NWPRC board member, notes, “We here in Washington State are protected by the Washington Utilities and Transportations Commission, who were granted the authority to oversee pipeline installation following the 1999 disaster in Bellingham involving the Olympic pipeline. Such protection should be available to all citizens of the United States. We shouldn't have to rely on a private contractor to hold the installer to the letter of the law.”

FERC chairman Kelliher takes pride in allowing the free market to determine which projects sink or swim. “Kelliher’s so called ‘market’ is one composed on enslaved properties, forcibly conscripted from landowners,” says Marc Auerbach, Chair NWPRC. “We call on FERC to move to an auction system to apply market forces up front to limit the damage caused by FERC’s current irresponsible approach.”

Although packed with reforms, the report is a concise 8 pages and may be found at www.nwprc.org/reform. NWPRC plans to work with congressional representatives to craft implementing legislation.

The Northwest Property Rights Coalition (NWPRC) was formed by landowners in 2007 in response to proposals for three LNG terminals and four pipelines in the northwest.

Grass Roots People Endorses Rohne - District 4 And Scheller - District 2

Define "Private Property Rights In Land"!

Oregon Department Of Energy:LNG Is Not Needed In Oregon!!!

Agency : Oregon doesn't need imported LNG
Posted by Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian May 09, 2008 14:11PM
In a potentially fatal blow to three proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals in Oregon, the state Department of Energy released a report Friday stating that imported LNG isn't needed, would be more expensive and polluting than domestic natural gas, and would come at a higher environmental cost than alternative proposals to ship more gas in from Wyoming.
Also Friday, Gov. Ted Kulongoski sent a letter to federal energy regulators asking them to go through an entirely new environmental analysis of the Bradwood Landing LNG project, as significant new information has become available, and the scope of the terminal project, located 30 miles upriver from Astoria, has changed substantially since the last review was undertaken.
Kulongoski's energy policy director, Mike Carrier, said the letter and report did not mean that the governor was adopting a hardened position against the terminals, but that he wanted to see the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission address the state's concerns before issuing its licensing decision.
The Department of Energy report "raises some really troubling issues about what the introduction around LNG would do" in terms of energy prices and environmental impacts, Carrier said. The governor believes this report is credible, it looks like they did a very professional and thorough job, and it immediately got his attention ... It certainly is going to be part of what forms his position on this."
-- Ted Sickinger: tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com

Northern Star Natural Gas To Argue Referendum Legal Challenges May 9, 2008 At 9:00 Am - Clatsop County Court House!!!

Hello anti-LNGers:NorthernStar has brought two legal challenges to our Clatsop County referendum and there is a hearing before a judge on the 9th in Astoria.

Columbia Riverkeeper Staff Attorney Brett Vandenheuvel will be there to argue our side and he has suggested that it would be beneficial to have a presence of concerned community members in the courtroom. There will be no opportunity for audience members to speak, but it would have some impression on the judge and would offer support to Brett. This is just one of many avenues for chopping off the head of the snake and we hope that the court will rule in our favor. If folks are available and want to come support our efforts to set up road blocks all along the way for these terrible companies then they should come to:

Clatsop County Courthouse
749 Commercial Street in Astoria
May 9th at 9AM
The hearing will likely last about an hour and is titled Nyberg v. Neal.Thanks for your time and energy everybody!-Olivia

From Ashland Daily Tidings - Oregon Ethics Laws Too Burdensome For Oregon Officials?

March 27, 2008

By Michele Mihalovich

Ashland Daily Tidings

Every member of the Elgin Planning Commission recently resigned rather than comply with new state ethics laws requiring them to disclose financial information. Ashland officials do not anticipate a ripple effect occurring here.

Ashland City Recorder Barbara Christensen said she was rather shocked by the bold move in Elgin, a small town east of Pendleton, because the changes were not much different from previous law.

State law requires municipal court judges, elected officials, city administrators and planning commissioners, as well as relatives or members of their households, to report where income above $1,000 comes from. The forms do not request an actual dollar amount.

Christensen said the forms requested the same information in previous years. The only significant differences are the dollar amounts of gifts, what constitutes a gift and the number of times the forms have to be submitted, she said.

The yearly gift amount from a "single source" with a legislative or administrative interest decreased from $100 to $50. The new law also says public officials are no longer able to accept any gifts of entertainment from a person with legislative or administrative interest, unless it's incidental to an event. The general trip expense exception to gift limits was also eliminated.

The 2007 amendments require public officials to submit a Statement of Economic Interest annually and a Public Official Disclosure four times a year to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

Ashland Planning Commission Chair John Stromberg said it was a good idea to clean up and better define the ethics laws, but said the quarterly filing did seem burdensome.

"I think things like that may sound good to regulators," said Stromberg. "But it seems excessive, especially for planning commissioners who volunteer."
He said he hadn't heard whether the other commissioners thought the new ethics laws were a problem.

"But I'm staying. And I expect they would, too," said Stromberg.
Commissioner Mike Morris, an independent contractor, also said he would remain on the planning board.

"I doubt that this will have any effect on me," he said.

City Councilor Eric Navickas said he supported the ethics laws, but that the quarterly filing would be an annoyance.

"I do think it's important to look at ways to keep business money out of politics," he said. "Demanding disclosure is a good element of democracy."

Scott Winkels, a representative with the League of Oregon Cities, said many of his members have expressed "angst" over having to file the same information several times a year.

Winkels also said some of the amendments to the laws are being challenged in the Marion County court system.

"There's still a lot to be decided before it gets implemented," he said. "Many Capitol observers say that, regardless of what happens in Marion County, this will probably end up in the Supreme Court."

The first round of forms is due April 15, but Christensen said she hasn't received them yet.
Ron Bersin, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, said the new law added about 97 additional cities to his normal mailing list.

"We had to develop contacts for those cities and compile a new mailing list, which has slowed down our process a bit," he said. "But everyone should have the forms by April 1. That will give everyone two solid weeks to get them filled out."

Reach reporter Michele Mihalovich at 482-3456 x226 or mailto:mmihalovich@dailytidings.com?subject=Ethics.

LNG Facility Likely Killed By Delaware Via Supreme Court

From Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Delaware won a Supreme Court fight with New Jersey on Monday, likely killing a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the Delaware River.
The justices, in a 6-2 decision, said Delaware can block the project, even though it was proposed by energy giant BP for Jersey's side of the river.
Delaware said it wanted to stop the project because of safety concerns. The state owns the river bottom most of the way across the waterway, including the land on which a 2,200-foot-long pier would be built on the Jersey side.
The states agree that Delaware owns the land, but New Jersey argued that a century-old agreement allows each state to control piers on its side of the river.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said Delaware cannot block ordinary projects from going forward. The proposal at issue, however, "goes well beyond the ordinary or usual," she said..........................................................


For Full Story Click On Below Link
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQlwL2OlqATcXcVAACWGGnYFEMoAD8VOG0S00

LNG/Natural Gas - Huge Shift In Natural Gas Flows As More Than 40 Infrastructure Projects Come Online In Southeast Gulf Region.

BENTEK Foresees Huge Shift in Natural Gas Flows as More Than 40 Infrastructure Projects Come Online in the Southeast Gulf Region
BENTEK Foresees Huge Shift in Natural Gas Flows as More Than 40 Infrastructure Projects Come Online in the Southeast Gulf Region HOUSTONCO-BENTEK-ENERGY
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
A new report released by BENTEK Energy, LLC, details the impact of anticipated changes in natural gas markets when 40 capital infrastructure projects go into service in the Southeast/Gulf region. According to BENTEK's analysis, 25 natural gas pipeline projects, 11 natural gas storage projects and four LNG terminals are ........

Click this Link For Full Story
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/drucken.html?art_id=16041392

The Kraske Segment Of The Goldsmith Report

So, here we have a sitting, elected official constantly complaining about the covenants, codes, statutes, policy and procedures of a Planning Department in the government he represents as "It doesn't work", "Not Right", "Problems in the County System", "Too Hard".

Any wonder there would be a question as to the integrity of the Planning Commission this same official was liason to and could have effectively hand picked himself to overide, as necessary, decisions from Planning Staff that may hinder whatever agenda may need to be prospered?

Seems to me Kraske's segment of the Goldsmith report was very telling and could very well highlight the crux of the weakness in this County Commission's leadership philosophy.
"Kraske:Lee's common complaint to her about the land use planning system is that it "Doesn't Work" for "Business People" and that a "Common Person" should be able to work the system but, they can't and that's "Not Right"."

"Kraske: Lee is not alone among Commissioners in wanting to fix what they perceive as problems in the County system."

"Kraske: she believes Lee sincerely feels it's "Too Hard", that Clatsop County makes land development harder than it needs to be and they could exercise more discretion."

"Kraske:Lee Feels as though everyone is being asked to do more than they should have to."

"Kraske:Lee has talked about his own plan and developments and also about how the Planning Department "Is Not Right"."

"Kraske:Lee has never asked to directly intervene in one of his projects."
Kraske:told Lee, "it's fine to change the system but, not with your own projects"."

"Kraske:In the five years that Richard Lee has been on the Board of Commissioners, he has complained once a week, on average, either about someone else's projects or his own developments. The majority of the time he is complaining about his own projects."

"Kraske:other than Lee, in the past two years, she's only received two complaints from builders but, they weren't serious complaints. The builders only told her what they said because they knew her personally. Kraske has had no serious complaints from members of the public."

Kraske's points and interview misused, some say?

What do you think?

From Willamette Week: Clatsop County Preps For Referendum On Peoposed Bradwood Pipeline

Clatsop County Preps For Referendum On Proposed Bradwood/Northern Star Pipeline

Willamette WeekMarch 24th 2008 4:07pm

BY: Shefali Kulkarni

Marc Auerbach of Birkenfeld, Ore. says he’s tired of seeing his county officials bend backwards to please NorthernStar Natural Gas. The latest evidence of that is a new amendment passed by Clatsop County commissioners altering county law to allow NorthernStar’s Liquefied Natural Gas (L.N.G) pipeline to pass through an area zoned for a park and recreation site.
“The county is already bending backwards to accommodate NorthernStar. This is going too far for a lot of people here. Now we are willing to let them trench across our parks?” says Auerbach, chair of the Northwest Property Rights Group—one of the major backers of a referendum to get the amendment revoked.

Click On Link Below For Full Story And Map!

http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11311

The Lee Recall Vote - First Results Are In At 95% Of Ballots Counted

First round of the ballot count is in with:

Yes - To Recall Richard Lee - 1627

No - Not Recall Richard Lee - 822

Update! Second Count

PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 7) . . . . . 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 4,265
BALLOTS COUNTED - TOTAL. . . . . . 2,665
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 62.48%
MEASURE 4-126 - RECALL OF RICHARD LEE,
COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 3
VOTE FOR 1
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,732 65.26%
No.......................... 922 34.74%

Astoria Could Have A New Police Chief After A Few More Background Checks

Contingent upon an in-depth background check beginning this week , Astoria City Manager, Paul Benoit announces the hiring of Fullerton, California Police Captain Geoff Spalding as the new Chief of Astoria Police Department. Prospective Chief Spalding will begin his new job in May.

City Manager Benoit says Captain Spalding prevailed in the selection process over candidates from Tennessee, Masachusetts, and two from Oregon.

Mr. Benoit said that the City of Astoria has already done background checks on all the finalists but now, they will start getting very thorough into Spalding's background to make certain he is the right person to handle the department.

Recall:What Is It Kraske Said To Goldsmith?

And Kraske feels she needs to submit a letter of clarity in criticism to the Goldsmith Report?

The Report clearly states what her letter only reflects.

And if there were ever a clear indication of an "Extreme Prejudice" on the part of an elected official to cause him/her to be recused from deliberating on land use issues, it appears this would be most telling and could not be ethically ignored, could it?

The following is taken from an email recieved on Friday from Debra Kraske..."Tom Freel" KAST-AM Radio
Tom,
I am concerned that my name and former position with Clatsop County are being used as part of a political campaign without my consent and I want to set the record straight.
A small portion of my interview with Jill Goldsmith regarding Commissioner Richard Lee is being presented out of context. What is not being communicated is that Commissioner Lee at no time asked me to intervene on his behalf regarding his permits nor did I feel compelled to do so.Commissioner Lee told me repeatedly that his complaints to me were made to illustrate his feelings that the land use system doesn't work for business people and that a common person should be able to obtain land use permits without needing to hire a land use consultant. These facts are part of the Goldsmith report, but are not being presented in their entirety.

Sincerely,

Debra Kraske
Former Assistant County Manager
Clatsop County, Oregon

Posted by Tom Freel at 9:41

From The Goldsmith Report:

"Kraske, Debra

Kraske told me that Lee's common complaint to her about the land use planning system is that it "Doesn't Work" for "Business People" and that a "Common Person" should be able to work the system but, they can't and that's "Not Right". Kraske told me that Lee is not alone among Commissioners in wanting to fix what they perceive as problems in the County system. Kraske said that she believes Lee sincerely feels it's "Too Hard", that Clatsop County makes land development harder than it needs to be and they couldexercise more discretion. Lee Feels as though everyone is being asked to do more than they should have to.

Lee has talked to Kraske about his own plan and developments and also about how the Planning Department "Is Not Right". Lee has never asked Kraske to directly intervene in one of his projects. Kraske has told Lee, "it's fine to change the system but, not with your own projects". There are a couple of other people who are unhappy with the Planning Department but, those who complain are well balanced with people who think Planning does a good job.

Linda Lee told Kraske that Bunch was rude to her but, did not tell Kraske that Bunch should be fired. Lynda Lee has been negative about staff before.

In the five years that Richard Lee has been on the Board of Commissioners, he has complained to Kraske once a week, on average, either about someone else's projects or his own developments. The majority of the time he is complaining about his own projects.

Kraske told me that, other than Lee, in the past two years, she's only received two complaints from builders but, they weren't serious complaints. The builders only told her what they said because they knew her personally. Kraske has had no serious complaints from members of the public."