Here's a question:
Why is the City Of Warrenton allowing petition gathering to happen on city property?
You may think that the slice of land in front of the Warrenton post office is owned by the Postal Service but not so. The spot where those who are seeking to recall Commission Chair Jeff Hazen is city property.
The city commission was pretty clear about it's collective feeling about the recall at the last meeting. Mayor Gramson in particular stated the effort is an inappropriate use of Oregon recall laws.
And yet there they are sitting at a card table with a sign asking people to sign the petition. I haven't seen any crowds gathering to sign up but if the leadership of the city disagrees with the recall so strongly then why would they allow this to happen?
There is nothing that would require the city to allow it unless someone in the city granted a permit for the use. That raises another question. Do they have a permit?
It's quite clear that the city of Warrenton should explore this issue as soon as possible.
Why is the City Of Warrenton allowing petition gathering to happen on city property?
You may think that the slice of land in front of the Warrenton post office is owned by the Postal Service but not so. The spot where those who are seeking to recall Commission Chair Jeff Hazen is city property.
The city commission was pretty clear about it's collective feeling about the recall at the last meeting. Mayor Gramson in particular stated the effort is an inappropriate use of Oregon recall laws.
And yet there they are sitting at a card table with a sign asking people to sign the petition. I haven't seen any crowds gathering to sign up but if the leadership of the city disagrees with the recall so strongly then why would they allow this to happen?
There is nothing that would require the city to allow it unless someone in the city granted a permit for the use. That raises another question. Do they have a permit?
It's quite clear that the city of Warrenton should explore this issue as soon as possible.
I wondered the same when my wife and I stopped to chat with the people in front of the Astoria Post office last week. It ended up with a friendly goodbye and a smile. It started out by my simply asking the fellow why he wanted to recall the commissioners and of course he indicated the issue was their LNG decision. When I asked him what his no. 1 issue with that development was, he said that it would cause tremendous shipping restrictions on the river because the river would be essentially closed to shipping while an LNG ship was in transit. I said I found that rather incredulous if true, and he allowed as how he too felt it hard to believe, but had "looked it up" to find out it was. So I said I would certainly look into that, and he appreciated my willingness to be open to his facts as he said he understood them. I got him to admit then that this was indeed the major reason he was objecting the LNG development, and that the other objections we've all heard were not so important. I told him that if true, that I would also find it an important and troubling restriction, but that I hadn't heard that one before. But at any rate I said the LNG decision still shouldn't make the commissioners subject to recall, they were just voting their conscience, not doing anything worthy of recall, and he said he appreciated the sentiment.
ReplyDeleteTwo days later I caught up with the same guy. I had done some investigation by reading the actual Coast Guard. In it the CG clearly states that as a matter of "routine" they will allow other ships to pass within the 500 yard restriction zone around an LNG ship, and that it will be similar to what is now done in coordinating passing cruise ships; all that will be required is coordination between the river pilots guiding the ships as they do routinely now.
So I told this fellow the good news, privately wondering what can he say if this was his main objection. He immediately jumped to a previously unmentioned issue ...well, the market for natural gas is so limited there's no need for LNG so we don't need one in Clatsop county. I asked him if he was an expert on the world's natural gas market, or if he used natural gas in his house to which he replied that Bradwood's gas would only be going to California etc. We exchanged more rhetoric, but the discussion was over. Basically his whole approach was disingenuous; he was misinforming people, he was purposely lying to himself and others about his motives, and his approach was dishonest. In other words, he became a caricature of the economic ignoramuses who seem to be running things in politics these days.
So we parted laughing again, except that this time for me it was a laugh of contempt and sadness for this country to have met local people who are willing to deceive in order to promote their wishes. He probably has a great future as a liberal politician if he applies himself.
Art Hyland
Astoria
Seems to me, if the First Amendment Right to peaceably assemble is more "right" than anywhere - it would be on public property. After all, the taxpayers own it.
ReplyDeleteOr, Tom, are you in favor of "free speech zones" - where people have to ask government for permission to exercise their First Amendment Rights?