87 submitted is a copy of the Friends' letterhead. It's of note because I think it makes a visual statement comparable to the words and aims of the legislation proposed. Look carefully for any sign of our presence in the Gorge. No freeway, no power lines, no barge traffic--only the ridge-top sentinel of Vista House. Artistic license, they might reply. Granted. But the license granted this legislation to persons with a very narrow interest in the Gorge would in fact transform our communities and our lives. We are confronted with property confiscation without representation, community determination without representation, a future vision, no longer ours to dream or to realize. It is true; if this legislation passes, the Gorge will never be the same again. Do you care if the Columbia River Gorge goes the way of Lake Tahoe? On October The Columbia River Gorge, with its geographic, historic, scenic, Will it make a difference to you if in ten years the vistas you take for granted Last week, the Skamania County, Washingto Commissioners approved yet anothe massive subdivision. This subdivision, Hidden Harbor, will be developed across 07 The Proponents that have initiated and supported this bill would have us believe that they are the knights in shining armor on swift white horses come to save us from ourselves and maybe a black knight subdivider that makes it across the 205 drawbridge. The City of Cascade Locks will go on record today as being adamantly opposed to any re-birth of feudalism in the Columbia River Gorge. Eleventh century feudalism was based on a system of patronage where the weak and poor in search of security gave up certain rights and vowed to serve faithfully the greater and wealthier power, the seigneur. This relationship between vassal and seigneur, significantly, was initiated by the vassal who sought the needed protection; the vassal in turn provided financial aid and entertainment to the lords. We A thousand years later it has a familiar ring to it. But we affirm we are not the weak and the poor, the vassal in need of protection. are the residents, the citizens and in some part at least, owners of the Gorge--the ones who have preserved and protected the diverse scenic quality that we know so well. And we've been productive citizens at the same time. We are not the weak and the poor who have been trampled over by zealous builders. We are the pople who in Oregon have implemented one of the most far-reaching and progressive systems of land use controls in the country. Thus, having done a very credible job of managing the lands in the gorge for many years, we are asked to relinquish that role. And the justification? First the "three threats" of "rapid population growth, uncontrolled development and more than 50 jurisidictions." Our responses are simple and straightforward, "actual population decrease, the most far-reaching and progressive system of land use controls in the country and add 1 more jursidiction." The next justification is there's not enough local, state or federal money available to accomplish the goals of the bill. We're in agreement with that. Lastly, and this is really what has moved so many to respond so strenuously, the bill says to settle all land-use issues within the Gorge we should look to a single arbiter, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, who will apply the mandates of this bill. The response to that proposition will fill volumes. A few questions come to our minds. Isn't it local residents who have preserved and protected the diverse scenic quality we know so well while the federal government has made what changes it felt best? Isn't it the federal government that doesn't have enough money to maintain and manage properly the holdings it's now responsible for? Isn't it the federal government that has been talking about returning more decision making to local government? Doesn't the federal government own most of the Oregon land proposed for this area already and shouldn't the goals of this bill have already been substantially achieved? Objectives in the proposed bill and "principles for legislation" as presented in the governors' proposal are in many ways basically in oppo sition to one another. in reality are not. torious and nearly They are stated in terms of being compatible, but Each and every principle standing by itself is merieveryone can embrace them with enthusiasm. Add to these other equally laudable principles which local governments adhere to and we soon find there exists many competing objectives. The role, then, of local government is one of balancing these objectives and giving community direction. There is little doubt then, that local control is an issue here; but just as importantly, it must be observed that this bill envisions a different gorge environment than exists today. We would suggest that proponents of this legislation would not be satisfied with "a freeze of the status quo." Residents, for the most part, believe that a good job has been done in balancing competing demands and envision that care for the scenic beauty of the gorge would continue. Proponents of this bill, we believe, are not particularly interested in a balance. The language in the bill talks about the continued vitality of gorge communities, but an honest assessment reads a very clear bias for a tourist, recreation environment. What we, and other residents of the Gorge, are trying very hard to do, is have you understand that there exists an economy in the Gorge now, that we are the major part of that economy and that if you propose to alter forever the Gorge economy--and our lives--then it should be very thoroughly studied and fairly evaluated before any irreversible actions are taken and that we, as residents, of the Gorge, should have the primary role in that determination. Frankly, many persons in the Gorge are mad, and perhaps a little frightened that the vise of losing traditonal jobs and confiscation of private property may squeeze the life, as we know it, out of the Columbia River Gorge. Then proponents would offer us some park space that we might come and visit, in order that we could say, this used to be home. The bill says lines will be drawn around existing cities and their urban growth boundaries. Unfortunately, our so-called immunity as a free |