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

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

So, says OLNG's Peter Hansen?

From KAST-AM 1370 News and Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifth Amendment, Pipelines, Energy Speculators And Eminent Domain

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

Open House To Meet CCB0fC District-1 Candidate Scott Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We desperately need a vision for the future.

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

He will be responsive to the community.”

Wyden-Merkley Bill Could Stop LNG In Oregon

March 2, 2010
By Dennis Newman - Natural Oregon

Read The Actual Bill And Its Introduction

Oregon’s two Senators are joining forces on a bill that could bring LNG projects in our state to a grinding halt.

Wyden and Merkley want to take away control over LNG projects from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). They’ve introduced a bill that would return that power to the states.

Read Full Article

Some Posers For PofA's Jack Bland And Cronies

Based on your story Jack, (Bland's Daily "A" L.T.T.E, "Not Really Secret") maybe "Secret" is too strong a word to use but private, one-on-one, meetings between you and Westerlund officials on the proposed Log Export project?

Private one-on-one meetings between, as you say, other Commissioners and Westerlund officials on the same project?

Well Jack, I am no scholar on “Quasi-Judicial Process” but, I think that is called “Ex Parte Contact’ isn’t it, (Off-record contact between an elected official and a party that stands to gain from that official’s involvement on an issue to be presented before him for review, deliberation and approval or denial.) in the least?

Maybe this isn’t secret but, is it really in the interest of those of us you serve in your capacity as a “Port of Astoria Commissioner” in the doing of “OUR”….”Public Business” ? Did you get that “OUR” part Jack?

Do you have any record of exactly what transpired at your meeting Jack or do we just take your word that nothing unethical hapened?

Again, I am no “Quasi-Judicial/Public Meeting Law” scholar but to keep this process pure and to assure complete transparency, isn’t this the way it is supposed to work…A Port Business prospect brings his proposal to “Port”, sits down with Jack Crider and lays out his plan with background and necessary information. Crider and staff take that information, “Vet” and “Due Diligence” it thoroughly and prepare a report packet that covers “Findings of Fact” with “Staff Recommendations” to be submitted to “Port of Astoria Commissioners” to be heard at a formal, advertised public meeting, along with the citizens they represent, for review, deliberation and approval/denial and with ample opportunity for input by both?

I don’t think in that process it allows you and your colleagues an opportunity to play “Power Brokers” by having your direct involvement way before you should, outside the interest of the citizens you represent and on top of that, harkens back to another “Port” blunder where “Off-Record presentations, purposely avoiding proper process have gotten us into a real mess and facing some serious litigation.

You, Jack, being the “Newby” on Port Commission, I want to ask you who it was that sat you down and told you this is how “Quasi-Judicial” process works and that it is OK for you to take it upon yourself to conduct yourself outside of it?

The sad irony about this, no pun intended, is that you blandly admit that you and your colleagues seem to think it is correct ethic, thereby prospering the perception of secrecy.

Am I wrong?

I’ll wait for your answer.

Clatsop County Commission Approves And Adopts A New Guiding Principles Statement

-Approved a new Guiding Principles statement for the board of commissioners. The new statement, drawn up by commissioners Jeff Hazen and Robert Mushen with help from Assistant County Manager Nicole Williams, replaces other statements with outdated and repetitive language. The new statement reads:

· We will conduct business in an open, honest and respectful manner.

· We will provide professional, positive leadership for the organization, our employees, as well as all citizens in the County.

· We will strive to be informed and follow a process that involves collaborative decision-making keeping in mind what is best for the entire County.

· We will work in partnership with the citizens of the County, Federal, State and local governments to achieve mutual goals.

· We will foster responsible growth management.

DEQ Meets On Bradwood Landing In Knappa March 3, 2010

At this meeting, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will provide current information about environmental permits that will be required for the proposed Bradwood Landing Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal and Pipeline project.

Read Full Notice

From Columbia Riverkeeper; Oregon DEQ. Rejects Demands of NorthernStar LNG And 15 Other States File Amicus Brief Supporting Oregon's NSNG Lawsuit

Amicus Curiae Brief
Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.
"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89.

Oregon Rejects Demands of NorthernStar LNG, 15 Other States File Amicus Brief Supporting Oregon’s Lawsuit Against NorthernStar
For Immediate Release:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Brett VandenHeuvel, Director, Columbia Riverkeeper – 503 348 2436

Dan Serres, Conservation Director, Columbia Riverkeeper - 503 890-2441
Portland, OR - NorthernStar’s proposed Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal suffered two serious setbacks that may endanger the project.

First, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) released a letter today Rejecting NorthernStar’s demand that DEQ issue permits in 2010.

“We are very pleased that the DEQ has clearly signaled its commitment to good science and sound process. The construction of an LNG terminal on the Columbia River would significantly impact our state’s land, air, water, and public safety,” stated Brian Pasko, Director of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The LNG terminal has suffered multi-year setbacks as state and federal agencies have asked for complete and accurate data on the project’s harm to salmon and impact to the Columbia River Estuary. NorthernStar, who recently stated they planned to start construction in 2010, demanded that DEQ issue permits within months. DEQ rejected these unusual demands.

DEQ’s February 17, 2010, letter states, “[NorthernStar’s] three principal demands are that DEQ: (1) drop its request for three-dimensional modeling,” (2) approve the project “without the benefit” of a consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and (3) “agree to issue its certification by July 2010.” DEQ rejected each demand and said that NorthernStar would either provide the requested data and extend the permitting timeline or DEQ’s “decision will likely lead to a denial of certification.”

Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, responded to DEQ’s letter. “NorthernStar’s demands indicate desperation. DEQ rejected these demands and has indicated that it’s willing to deny the project.”

In a second significant blow to the project, the Attorney Generals of fifteen other states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ohio, filed an amicus brief against Bradwood LNG in a lawsuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of the Bradwood project. The amicus brief supports Oregon’s position that Oregon has authority to deny the LNG terminals.

The amicus brief, filed by Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Martha Coakley of Massachusettes, and James “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, among others, supports the arguments of Oregon , Washington, the Nez Perce Tribe, Columbia Riverkeeper, and other organizations.

“We’re thrilled that so many other states, along with Oregon and Washington, recognize the problems with the Bradwood application,” stated Scott Jerger from Field Jerger LLP, who represents Columbia Riverkeeper and other organizations.

An amicus or “friends of the court” brief may be submitted by non-parties who believe the issues in the case are so important that their interests are effected.

Ted Sickinger - The Oregonian: Oregon's LNG Terminal Futures Dependent On Global Market

Oregon Business News
Ted Sickinger - The Oregonian
January 23, 2010

Five years after energy developers started sniffing around Oregon as a likely spot to build an import terminal for liquefied natural gas, the air has come flooding out of the gas market like a whoopee cushion, making such proposals sound economically reckless.

With a worldwide recession in full swing, there's LNG to be had. More cargoes are expected to land this year in the U.S. -- the industry's market of last resort -- even though demand is low and gas prices have cratered.

Read Sickinger's Full Article

Oregon Senate Bill 1020 - They Gonna Try Again In 2010 Special Session?

SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the
measure as introduced.
Deletes definition of “applicant” for purposes of certain provisions related to removal-fill permitting
program.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to the removal-fill permitting program; creating new provisions; amending ORS 196.825; and
declaring an emergency.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

It's Dead!, Dead!, Dead!......For Now!

Read The Bill

An Essay By Ted Thomas: The Impact Of Wal-Mart On Communities

The Social Impacts: "The supporters of the proposal frequently express their subscription to the idea that the benefits of a Walmart will outweigh the costs to the community. That somehow the perception alone of low prices will draw more people to our area and so recapture consumer's spending that is otherwise lost to Longview or Portland".......

Read Full Text

Dow Jones Online: Shale Gas Boom Stymies LNG Import Terminal Plans!

By Christine Buurma - DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- A surge in domestic U.S. natural-gas supplies is stalling ambitious plans for a raft of liquefied natural-gas import terminals along the country's coastlines........

Read The Details

NOAA: Port Of Bellingham Protest Of Lease Award To Port Of Newport Upheld Says GAO Letter

Read Letter

The End Result On Measures 66 & 67

SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL ELECTION RUN DATE:01/26/10 10:55 PM
THIRD UNOFFICIAL REPORT CLATSOP COUNTY, OR.
JANUARY 26, 2010

PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 33) . . . . . 33 - 100.00%
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 20,636
BALLOTS COUNTED - TOTAL. . . . . . 13,100
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 63.48%
Measure 66
Raises tax on household income above $250,000
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,308 - 56.10%
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,719 - 43.90%
Measure 67
Raises $10 corporate minimum tax
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,133 - 54.90%
No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,860 - 45.10%

LNG Tanker Terrorism: The Video Clatsop County Manager Duane Cole Refuses To Let Into The Debate?

So says Don West in his Daily Astorian Letter to the Editor Read The Letter Then Watch The Video Linked Below

GRP: And Why Not? Why Withhold Valid Information From The Citizens Of Clatsop County And By Whose Authority Is Cole Charged With Doing So?


Title: Concerns over LNG shipments in Everett
Published: Thu, 31 Dec 2009
Description: (NECN: Scot Yount, Everett, Mass.) - A tanker of liquefied natural gas at port in Everett, Massachusetts. In the wake of 9/11, this very ship the Matthew, was denied entry to the port of Boston because it was deemed too dangerous, the threat o...

Watch Video

Enviro Groups Seek Rehearing Of Coos Bay LNG Port

Enviros seek rehearing of Coos Bay LNG port

Associated Press - KDRV.com

January 19, 2010

GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- Some environmental groups are joining the state of Oregon in asking federal regulators to reconsider approval for a liquefied natural gas port on Coos Bay and a related pipeline to the California border.

Read Full Piece

Scott Brown Wins Mass, Special Election Senate Race!

From: "The Fix" - Washington Post.com

Chris Cilliza - January 19, 2010

State Sen. Scott Brown won a remarkable upset victory over state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) tonight in a Massachusetts Senate special election, a victory likely to spawn broad-ranging political and policy consequences heading into the midterm elections.

"Tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown said to raucuous cheers at his victory rally

Read The Details

City Of Astoria Eligible For H.U.D. 2010 Community Development Block Grant - Hearing Date Set

The City of Astoria is eligible to apply for a 2010 Community Development Block Grant from the Oregon Business Development Department.

Community Development Block Grant Funds come from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The grants can be used for public facilities and housing improvements, primarily for persons with low and moderate incomes.

Approximately $14 million will be awarded to qualified Oregon cities.


Read The Details