Letters to the Editor for March 25,2009

Shame replaces outrage

To the editor:

Earlier I was outraged, but now I am ashamed.

I am ashamed of a candidate who promises transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, and no earmarks, then does not live up to those promises.

I am ashamed of a Congress that is aware of problems existing in the TARP bailout, inserts provisions regarding bonuses in a stimulus package that is not read, then wants to pass a law penalizing bailout recipients who received the bonuses. (They should all read a document called the Constitution of the United States: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 on Bills of Attainder.) On top of this, the Congress/Administration hints at a law to restrict salaries of executives of companies not receiving taxpayer monies!

I am ashamed of congressional members who are as greedy as any that they are seeking to admonish.

I am ashamed of a president who campaigns as a supporter of veterans, then approves plans which will throw those same veterans under the ambulance by reducing medical benefits. (Look out, military retirees, you are next.)

I am ashamed of what the above does to the world’s view of the United States of America.

I encourage everyone who is outraged and/or ashamed by the current state of affairs in our government to write local, state and national newspapers advocating a policy of re-electing only people who have served no more than three terms in political office. Maybe if we get rid of the lying,     conniving, dissembling, disloyal, self-serving. . . occupants who populate our political system, things can be set right.

Here are some Oregon addresses to get you started: Statesman Journal, P.O. Box 13009, Salem, OR 97309; The Oregonian, 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201; The Register-Guard, P.O. Box 10188, Eugene, OR 97440-2188.

Robert L. Heriza

Baker City

Bill wouldn’t prevent mining

To the editor:

Last night’s letter to the editor from Ed Hardt, president of the Eastern Oregon Mining Association, is incorrect.

House Bill 3453 does not prevent miners from mining. It promotes respectfulness to the private property surface owner by the mineral owner. It requires the miner to give notice to the surface owner and to compensate them for loss of their surface, which in Baker County can be summer pasture and hay ground. Owners of mineral rights on private property split estates DO NOT pay property taxes or liability insurance, yet they can disturb the taxable land.  

Miners continue to make the mistake of thinking that federal mining laws govern private property rights in Oregon. The state has the constitutional right to pass laws governing a situation like this, as they do on other federal issues such as speed limits on interstates. If EOMA wants to sue the state over the passage of a minor bill like this, then they would be the ones who would be wasting taxpayers’ dollars. There would be no new state employees as DSL, DOGAMI, DEQ, WRD, ODFW and the Army Corps of Engineers already have employees within their agencies that oversee certain aspects of mining in Oregon. Similar laws were passed in Wyoming (2005) and Montana (2007) for the very same reasons that this law is being proposed in Oregon.

Possibly the real reason behind the objections is in Hardt’s statement about “right to access, mine and occupy” which is taking of private property without compensation indefinitely. Miners can mine and live on your land without any kind of payment forever or sell it without impunity. Only the surface owner suffers due to the loss of use. 

Hardt was asked several times to sit down with the ranchers involved in the drafting of this bill and come to an agreement on wording, content and agency oversight. They chose not to. It’s very curious why EOMA objects so adamantly to this bill as it only affects split estates on private property and does not prevent them from mining. 

Keith Jones

Bridgeport

Bill needn’t lead to lawsuits

To the editor:

I just finished reading Monday’s letter to the editor from Ed Hardt of the Eastern Oregon Mining Association (EOMA) who states that House Bill 3453 “leaves surface owners more vulnerable.” I’ve read this bill through from beginning to end, and this statement couldn’t be more incorrect.

As a property owner whose land is affected by a split estate situation, I see a bill that protects the rights of surface owners without detracting from the rights of miners. In fact, the vast majority of miners will be completely unaffected, while the small percentage of those who have rights lapping over onto private property will now have to do things like give the property owner 30 days’ notice to come onto their private property. They’ll have to let the owners know the names of who will be on their property, what equipment they’re bringing, which route they’re taking, and how long they’ll be there.

They’ll be required to stick to that route and compensate the landowner for any damage done. Unless a miner is up to no good, I can’t imagine how he could find issue with any of those requirements. EOMA’s opposition to the bill seems to hinge on the argument that somehow passing this bill would be illegal in some way, inviting costly lawsuits that will use taxpayers’ money to fight.

Really? It’s illegal for our own state Legislature to do what it’s elected to do: pass bills, enact laws and represent constituents? It might ease the minds of those in the EOMA to know that case precedent exists in this situation.

Other western states have already successfully enacted their own perfectly legal bills with similar wording to this one. In those states, costly lawsuits have not ensued, the landowners have been protected, and mining continues. With this in mind, hopefully the EOMA will rethink its position.

Kerry A. Jones

Baker City