Letter to the Editor by John Gallagher, October 27, 2007

I'm aghast that your editorial board adopted a "no" position on Measure 49, while printing your staff's excellent history of land-use laws in Oregon in the same issue. Why would you expect Measure 49 to be simple, or the final solution, with the issue's long history?

While you play Nero's fiddle of legislative purity, Oregon's farm and forest spaces "burn." We need Measure 49 to satisfy the needs of small landholders while stemming the greedy corporate interests. It will give us the "time out" we need to craft whatever your "big look" process will design.

The legislative process is always messy, reflecting the open process and compromises. If both sides are unhappy, they are successful.

Measure 49 had about 45 hours of formal legislative hearings. You should be attacking the zero hours of hearings a ballot measure like Measure 37 had and the overly simplistic form it took.

It is totally irresponsible for you to make such a recommendation while claiming your "passion for Oregon's land-use system." You must consider retracting your contradictory position.