Post by Wyldcomfort on Jun 29, 2007 8:27:11 GMT -5
We are starting to see a bigger picture and actually put into focus the issues at hand. There are three really - and here is an update on them all...
1. The allocation fund: You will recall several of us met with Parks about a month ago to work out a revision on the allocation fund laws.... Everyone seemed strongly in support of allowing clubs, non-profits, and government entities to apply for a waiver of the 20% match for land purchases and to allow these same folks the ability to act as a successor if a club or non-profit were to default. "Everyone" did not include Randy Rasmussen from the Natural Trails and Waters and American Hiking - he only wanted the waiver and successor to be a government entity.
Both hearings went very well - again all were in support. Many folks sent in letters of support for these changes. We made the assumption that with so much support - it should easily pass muster with the Commision who will vote on it in July. BUT - many sent in letters in oppostion (adjacent landowners who don't want OHV right next to them and the conservation groups). Parks just recently prepared their recomendation for the Committee and to the surprise of everyone - they suggested it was to be only governmental agencies that would qualify as successors or be eligible for the match waiver. The reason is simple - it stands little chance of passing the Commission (six people appointed by the Governor) if it included clubs and it seems it would be better for us all to allow the waiver for government entities rather than not.
These are the three proposals that will be presented at the July meeting - option B is the one Parks is going to suggest for passage.
A. Leave things as they are with no waiver and only governmental agencies as successors.
B. Allow a waiver for governmental entities (which in Morrow county will enable them to put together a huge riding area for OHV use)
C. Allow a waiver for governmental, clubs, organizations, non-profits for the match and allow them to be successors.
Choice A will keep things as they are.....(We can still get funding but without a waiver - but we must find a government agency willing to act as successor)
Choice B essentially ties our hands because most clubs don't have a 20% match on large land purchases and it is very difficult to get a governmental agency to want to be a successor (they don't want the fallout or fight with the conservation groups nor the responsibility/cost of maintaining an OHV park.) BUT is would allow a waiver for government entities which will provide riding areas that will benefit all of us. It will encourage more development of riding areas throughout the state and hopefully more government agencies would look into hosting these areas if funding isn't an issue.
Choice C This would of course be the best route by far for us. It would enable clubs and organizations to obtain a waiver and act as successor.
Personally I feel that the reason the conservation groups would prefer we don't own land is simple - they have less control on private land purchases than governmental. They are powerful and you must remember the Commission who will vote on this have been appointed by our Governor and they are representing all of Oregon's people - those who ride and those who would prefer there was no OHV activity in this state. We can advise and suggest til the cows come home but ultimately it will be their decision. I fear there is little chance they would even consider Option C.....
There is another issue for which I have concerns. We didn't talk about it at the hearing or in the worksession so it caught me by surprise.... If a government entity obtains a waiver they would then have to pay 50% of the improvement costs rather than the normal 20% waiver. How much sense does it make to allow a waiver because they can't afford to purchase the land but then require a greater cost to develop it?? An example I have used is granting enough money to build a community pool but then allowing only enough money to fill half of it.
I wish I had all the answers but I do know we have to address each issue apart from the other and not get so emotionally enraged we cut off our nose to spite our face.
I think we should attend the meeting in Florence in support of option C - quietly, well prepared, articulate, and together.....But I also think we will have to compromise and be reasonable. Until we can pull together and have a big stick all the ranting and raving will not get us anywhere. We also need to consider our partnership with Parks and understand they are not a fix all...they are stuck between the rock and hard space too and have many issues to contend with. We need to focus on getting Commissioners in place that are OHV friendly... otherwise all the worksessions in the world will do nothing. If we need to we may possibly be able to speak with our Governor regarding the many issues we face, the economic as well as the family impact these issues present. We need to also remind the Commissioners we are 600,000 Oregonians - almost 1/4 of our population. This does not include the millions of visitors per year we get for OHV recreation.
So please, consider attending this meeting if you are able. If you can, please prepare a well written speach addressing your concerns. If you are part of a group it would be wise to have someone well-spoken speak on your groups behalf. The most important thing is to show up and show we do care and we plan on being very involved in the decisions that are being made. Represent us well - explain how this impacts your family and club. We need to build relationships and do our best to work together - We have done a great job so far and I am confident we will continue to make progress - as slow as it may seem somedays. Yuor input and comments are appreciated and I would love to hear your ideas on this....
I will address numbers two (USDA Federal Lands Transportation) and three (Legislation) more in depth soon. There is a deadline for the USDA and I need all of you to ask for an extension for the mapping of our trails beyond the July date. We simply don't have the time, money, clear direction or resources to complete this task in such a short time. Their site is also down and has been for some time. We need your help...I need your help. Can someone find out how many Forest Service Districts there are in Oregon and a contact number for each main office...?? This should rank as our number one issue because this is HUGE. Also let me know which ones you have contacted so we don't duplicate our efforts. I will join Ron P. in Corvallis on Monday to speak with the Suisilaw Forest Service folks.
As far as Legislation we are almost done until we go back later to try for MC with no min. age and rider fit. We have asked for a ceremonial signing for 101 and you will all be invited - the down-side is we may only have 24 hours notice. We will also need a head-count as I believe they only have room for 50 in his office so we can overflow onto the front steps. I will let you all know as soon as I do.
Please let me know if you have any additions or suggestions to any of this... Have a wonderful day, Lindy
1. The allocation fund: You will recall several of us met with Parks about a month ago to work out a revision on the allocation fund laws.... Everyone seemed strongly in support of allowing clubs, non-profits, and government entities to apply for a waiver of the 20% match for land purchases and to allow these same folks the ability to act as a successor if a club or non-profit were to default. "Everyone" did not include Randy Rasmussen from the Natural Trails and Waters and American Hiking - he only wanted the waiver and successor to be a government entity.
Both hearings went very well - again all were in support. Many folks sent in letters of support for these changes. We made the assumption that with so much support - it should easily pass muster with the Commision who will vote on it in July. BUT - many sent in letters in oppostion (adjacent landowners who don't want OHV right next to them and the conservation groups). Parks just recently prepared their recomendation for the Committee and to the surprise of everyone - they suggested it was to be only governmental agencies that would qualify as successors or be eligible for the match waiver. The reason is simple - it stands little chance of passing the Commission (six people appointed by the Governor) if it included clubs and it seems it would be better for us all to allow the waiver for government entities rather than not.
These are the three proposals that will be presented at the July meeting - option B is the one Parks is going to suggest for passage.
A. Leave things as they are with no waiver and only governmental agencies as successors.
B. Allow a waiver for governmental entities (which in Morrow county will enable them to put together a huge riding area for OHV use)
C. Allow a waiver for governmental, clubs, organizations, non-profits for the match and allow them to be successors.
Choice A will keep things as they are.....(We can still get funding but without a waiver - but we must find a government agency willing to act as successor)
Choice B essentially ties our hands because most clubs don't have a 20% match on large land purchases and it is very difficult to get a governmental agency to want to be a successor (they don't want the fallout or fight with the conservation groups nor the responsibility/cost of maintaining an OHV park.) BUT is would allow a waiver for government entities which will provide riding areas that will benefit all of us. It will encourage more development of riding areas throughout the state and hopefully more government agencies would look into hosting these areas if funding isn't an issue.
Choice C This would of course be the best route by far for us. It would enable clubs and organizations to obtain a waiver and act as successor.
Personally I feel that the reason the conservation groups would prefer we don't own land is simple - they have less control on private land purchases than governmental. They are powerful and you must remember the Commission who will vote on this have been appointed by our Governor and they are representing all of Oregon's people - those who ride and those who would prefer there was no OHV activity in this state. We can advise and suggest til the cows come home but ultimately it will be their decision. I fear there is little chance they would even consider Option C.....
There is another issue for which I have concerns. We didn't talk about it at the hearing or in the worksession so it caught me by surprise.... If a government entity obtains a waiver they would then have to pay 50% of the improvement costs rather than the normal 20% waiver. How much sense does it make to allow a waiver because they can't afford to purchase the land but then require a greater cost to develop it?? An example I have used is granting enough money to build a community pool but then allowing only enough money to fill half of it.
I wish I had all the answers but I do know we have to address each issue apart from the other and not get so emotionally enraged we cut off our nose to spite our face.
I think we should attend the meeting in Florence in support of option C - quietly, well prepared, articulate, and together.....But I also think we will have to compromise and be reasonable. Until we can pull together and have a big stick all the ranting and raving will not get us anywhere. We also need to consider our partnership with Parks and understand they are not a fix all...they are stuck between the rock and hard space too and have many issues to contend with. We need to focus on getting Commissioners in place that are OHV friendly... otherwise all the worksessions in the world will do nothing. If we need to we may possibly be able to speak with our Governor regarding the many issues we face, the economic as well as the family impact these issues present. We need to also remind the Commissioners we are 600,000 Oregonians - almost 1/4 of our population. This does not include the millions of visitors per year we get for OHV recreation.
So please, consider attending this meeting if you are able. If you can, please prepare a well written speach addressing your concerns. If you are part of a group it would be wise to have someone well-spoken speak on your groups behalf. The most important thing is to show up and show we do care and we plan on being very involved in the decisions that are being made. Represent us well - explain how this impacts your family and club. We need to build relationships and do our best to work together - We have done a great job so far and I am confident we will continue to make progress - as slow as it may seem somedays. Yuor input and comments are appreciated and I would love to hear your ideas on this....
I will address numbers two (USDA Federal Lands Transportation) and three (Legislation) more in depth soon. There is a deadline for the USDA and I need all of you to ask for an extension for the mapping of our trails beyond the July date. We simply don't have the time, money, clear direction or resources to complete this task in such a short time. Their site is also down and has been for some time. We need your help...I need your help. Can someone find out how many Forest Service Districts there are in Oregon and a contact number for each main office...?? This should rank as our number one issue because this is HUGE. Also let me know which ones you have contacted so we don't duplicate our efforts. I will join Ron P. in Corvallis on Monday to speak with the Suisilaw Forest Service folks.
As far as Legislation we are almost done until we go back later to try for MC with no min. age and rider fit. We have asked for a ceremonial signing for 101 and you will all be invited - the down-side is we may only have 24 hours notice. We will also need a head-count as I believe they only have room for 50 in his office so we can overflow onto the front steps. I will let you all know as soon as I do.
Please let me know if you have any additions or suggestions to any of this... Have a wonderful day, Lindy