rectrectrectrectrectrectrectrectrectrectrectrectrect
Picture

Got a good
buzz item?
 
Get in touch with our Buzzmeister:
John Schrag
 jschrag@wweek.com
(503) 243-2122
Fax: (503) 243-1115

News Navigator
Publisher’s ‘97 Report
Cover Story
Newsbuzz
King-56 crash
Urban Pulse: murals
Politics: petitions
Crime & Justice
Rogue of the Week
Scoreboard
Opinion
Letters
Home

Picture
Picture

RICK PINCHERA/MICHAEL OLFERT

Bill's Bill
 
New tax bills arrived in mailboxes last week, and one homeowner who learned he would be paying more--not less--this year is Bill Sizemore, the author of tax-cutting Measure 50.

That's right, Oregon's leading anti-tax activist saw the taxes on his five-acre property in unincorporated Clackamas County increase by $240.

How's that, if Measure 50 was supposed to cut taxes by 10 percent? The answer is that Sizemore's property is being assessed differently than it was a year ago.

Sizemore bought his five-acre property near Oregon City two years ago for $260,000. It was part of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Lyle W. Parsons, who retains 20 acres. The property wasn't legally subdivided, however, until this year, when all back taxes on the 25-acre property were paid in full.

Previously, the full 25-acre parcel qualified for farm tax rates, which are lower than residential rates, but Sizemore's piece doesn't warrant the farm rate on its own. "When split out, Mr. Sizemore's property no longer qualified for the same lower farm assessment," explains Clackamas County assessor Ray Erland.

The bottom line is that property taxes on Sizemore's 3,000-square-foot house and his five acres increased from $1,850.08 to $2,090.76.

Sizemore acknowledges that some of his critics may delight in this fact, but he manages to find a silver lining. "Part of me thinks it's good that people can't say, 'Sizemore saved himself all this money [under Measure 50],'" he says. "Not that I wouldn't do it for that reason." --BY

Picture

Follow Up
Go Grannies Go
 
Last week, Portland neighborhood associations huffed and puffed and threatened to campaign against city commissioners, who they said were driving homeowners out of town. At issue were new rules governing "granny flats," small apartments added to, or created in, single-family houses.

City Commissioners Erik Sten and Gretchen Kafoury, who wanted to liberalize these rules, expected to be blown away by the blustery protests. To their surprise, however, Charlie Hales joined them in a 3-2 vote to eliminate a requirement that houses with granny flats be occupied by owners.

"I plead guilty to lending a favorable ear to renters," says Hales, referring to the debate, which Sten said revealed widespread prejudice against mortgage-less Portlanders ("Flattening Grannies," WW, Nov. 25, 1997).

Although granny flats sound non-threatening, the city's neighborhood associations argued that creating too many of them would erode Portland's high percentage of owner-occupied homes and jeopardize the stability of neighborhoods. "I have little doubt that as more and more duplexes and apartments are created in each neighborhood, families with children will abandon those neighborhoods in greater and greater numbers," Scott Pratt of the Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association warned the City Council. "We won't have any single-family neighborhoods left in Portland."

Hales didn't buy it. He noted that one of his neighbors is a renter who keeps a nicer house than he does.

"Hers is one of the nicest properties on the block," Hales says. "I have three kids and a busy life and don't necessarily maintain my property as well. I'd rather have her creating an accessory unit than me."

It wasn't the first time that Hales--who has battled citizen activists in Southwest Portland over parks and zoning issues--has crossed neighborhood groups. But it was the first time he joined with Sten and Kafoury in a rare 3-2 City Council vote.

The new rules approved by the council last week won't create a lot of new housing; the planning bureau estimates that Portland will only get approximately 130 new granny flats a year under the revisions.

Nevertheless, Hales calls it an "important move for the city" because it will provide renters with more choices. --BY

Picture

Illustration: MATT WUERKER

Follow Up
SEX PAYS, CRIME DOESN'T

What initially looked like a steamy, drawn-out trial touching on the constitutionality of undercover police work became little more than "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" justice.

Last week, after just five days of testimony, jurors convicted Tara Nute and Marcelena DuPree of conspiracy to promote prostitution. Lawyers for the women, who ran several escort services, hoped to make an issue of the fact that their clients were busted with the aid of two police informants whom police paid to have sex ("Sex, Cops and Videotape," WW, Sept. 17, 1997).

But Circuit Court Judge James Ellis prohibited arguments over the undercover tactics and specifically told jurors to disregard testimony to that end. The defense was allowed to argue that the informants had a lot to gain out of their entrapment scheme--money and sex--but those arguments didn't sway jurors.

According to court records, informants Ken Hazelrig and Lee Wiggins met with escorts from several of DuPree and Nute's businesses. On five occasions, they asked for nude massages and were offered sex and hand jobs. Police, who paid the men $50 for each session, secretly videotaped the liaisons from an adjacent hotel room.

With the tapes available as evidence, defense attorneys Michael Rose and Bruce Howlett couldn't argue that the sex acts didn't take place. Instead they offered testimony that business owners Dupree and Nute did not know that their employees were giving more than massages. Jurors, however, didn't buy it.

The lawyers, who are considering appealing the verdict, think jurors would have voted differently if they had been allowed to present arguments about how the cops hired civilian johns to do the dirty work, since police aren't allowed to do it themselves.

Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 29.   --RR

Picture

Follow Up
Wild Horses
 
The Liberation Collective spoke out again last week on behalf of animal-rights vandals.

Just four months after torching a horse-slaughter plant in Redmond, Ore., the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for a fire Nov. 29 at a separate horse facility in Burns. Again, the underground ALF, joined this time by the Earth Liberation Front, contacted Portland's Liberation Collective to get the word out to the press. Josh Smith of the Liberation Collective says the group issued a release Dec. 5 after receiving a letter from the vandals.

This marks the third time the Liberation Collective, a local animal-rights group, has issued press releases for the ALF ("Saving the World, One Cat at a Time," WW, Dec. 3, 1997).

The target of the action was a barn and corral at the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro facility. According to Mark Armstrong of the BLM, the corral contained more than 500 wild horses and burros collected from public lands that were slated for adoption the following weekend. Earlier this year, the BLM came under fire after an Associated Press reporter traced some of the bureau's adopted horses to slaughterhouses.

According to the Liberation Collective release, "the latest action was designed to help halt the BLM's illegal and immoral business of rounding up wild horses from public lands and funneling them to slaughter."

The press release says 500 horses were released. But Mark Armstrong of the BLM says only 50 escaped and that the rest stayed in the corral throughout the fire but escaped injury. Damages are estimated at $75,000.

Craig Rosebraugh of the Liberation Collective says the group has since been questioned by agents from the BLM and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The U.S. Attorney's Office acknowledged an investigation into the incident but refused to comment further. --EM

ÿ