Scientists say there's a 10 percent to 20 percent chance of a major earthquake off the Oregon Coast by 2050, a quake large enough to create a tsunami wave 30 to 50 feet high that would slam into Oregon's seaside communities.  Coastal residents would have 15 to 30 minutes to get to high ground before the first wave hit.

Scientists believe that if a quake of magnitude 8 hit Oregon, it would kill 5,000 people and inflict $12 billion in damages.  "That's like putting a bullet in a six-shooter," said Curt Peterson, a geologist at Portland State University.  "The chances are small, but the damage is severe."

In 1995, the state Legislature approved a bill that directed the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries to map tsunami inundation zones along the coast.  So far, six maps have been developed for az total cost of $900,000.  State law prohibits the construction of facilities such as schools, police and fire stations, hospitals and emergency dispatch centers within the zones.  yet the law does not limit the construction of hotels, resorts or conference centers.

Oregon building codes require structures to meet certain standards to withstand earthquakes, but there is little additional work required for buildings in tsunami inundation zones.  "We're kidding ourselves if we keep building condos and casinos and packing people into these places without dealing with the danger," said James Bela, a geologist who founded Oregon Earthquake Awareness.  "The good parts of the maps, they could and should be used to decide where we need to regulate construction." Source: 1/29/01 Register Guard, by The Associated Press.

Now city officials and a local watchdog group are facing off on a proposed $1.57 million extension of the street.  Officials contend that the half-mile extension of Oak past the new Fred Meyer store to 46th Street would provide a needed alternative to Highway 101. But opponents argue that the project is a waste of money and a possible threat to schoolchildren. "This is a good project for safety reasons," Public Works  Superintendent Ken Lanfear says. "It would allow people west of Highway 101 to never have to  get onto the highway if they want to go either north or  south." However, leaders of a local watchdog group, Citizens for Florence, note that the southern section of Oak passes two schools - Rhododendron  Elementary and Siuslaw High - and a middle school is being built between the schools. Zane Ziemer, president of the citizens group, argues that the school district has long planned to move schools out of the downtown area and away from Highway 101.  "Now the city turns around and makes Oak Street a main north-south route paralleling Highway 101," Ziemer says. "It  just doesn't make sense."  City officials and the Oregon Department of Transportation contend it makes perfect sense.  In fact, the state has committed  $936,000 to the project under a  program aimed at funding construction of local routes that relieve pressure on state highways. The City Council recently voted to accept the state funding, and Lanfear says he will soon begin preconstruction engineering survey work, leading to right-of-way acquisition. Lanfear expects construction to begin in the fall; the state funding package requires completion of the work by November 2002.

"The city has always worked with us on traffic safety and kid safety," Waddell says. "I have every
confidence they will continue to work with us."  The speed limit on Oak Street will continue to be
25 mph, Lanfear says.

Citizens for Florence also opposes the extension because of concern that it will encourage
development on the north edge of town. Instead of growing longer, Ziemer says, the city should try
to grow wider. But Lanfear says the city will continue to grow north over thenext couple of decades, and the Oak Street extension will aid the changing traffic patterns that accompany that growth.  Long-term plans call for Oak to be extended another mile beyond 46th Street to Heceta Beach Road, which connects to Highway 101. The plan also includes a new street connecting to Highway 101 at Munsel Lake Road.

About half the city's cost for the initial project will come from assessment of property through local
improvement districts, Lanfear says. Those assessments would likely be reduced by the value of the
right-of-way the city must acquire from the same property owners, he says.  City officials haven't
talked to property owners about the project; Lanfear estimates there are a dozen of them.

Dale Center, owner of Woodsman's Native Nursery at 4385 Highway 101, worries that the Oak
Street route will cross the property behind his store, where he grows young plants and stockpiles
items.  Losing any land "would really put us in a spot," Center says.  The city could condemn land,
but Lanfear doubts it would come to that.

Public hearings would be needed to form an assessment district, and the council must review project
designs and other details  Ziemer acknowledges there is no way to appeal the project, but he
encourages people to voice their reservations to the City Council.  "It's not a done deal yet." he says. Source: January 27, 2001, Register Guard, by Larry Bacon.  Also see: Oak Street Extension

In 20 years of advising clients how to save money, this is the type of of letter I was thrilled to receive and pass on to my clients.  by responding to and merely agreeing to "wait on the courts" all costs would essentially stop.  the city attorney received this offer, as did nearly every other county and city that chose to enact an M7 ordinance.  A host of counties and cities understandably jumped at the offer and agreed.  If the Mayor truly thinks this will cost Florence "tens of thousands of dollars while we wait for a ruling" one can assume it is because the mayor did not want to follow the lead of many other mayors or counties by agreeing to a money-saving stay, or that he simply was uninformed of the offer.  Presumably, on further reflection, he still can.

I do not advise the "small group" of Florence citizens that bore the expenses of the M7 appeal.  As a property holder I feel there is no question what they did protected property values for all.  I am retired and did not practice in Oregon, but it appears that state land law procedure requires appeals after enactment of new land laws unless you want to accept the new ordinance ce.  Your local group had to live within those appeal rules and had a very hard and expensive choice to make.

As a property owner I'm glad they made the decision for one reason in particular.  The Florence law is designed to allow money claims to be made against the city if a landowner claims his property is devalued because of the effect of some law.  But instead of deciding how to pay such claim, the city law can allow for "waiver" of the effect on the parcel of the allegedly offending rule.  An effective waiver is a bombshell for the neighborhood, giving the parcel holder the green light to do what he wants.  The waiver could remove zoning and use limits, all forms of population control, subdivision controls, significant building codes, fire threat regulation, controls of surface water and septic drainage, traffic and noise, urban growth boundaries, etc.  In short, the "waiver" guts the thousands of citizen hours and countless debates through years of effort to come to a consensus on a whole matrix of land use laws.  Clearly, this is why M7 was unanimously opposed by the Oregon Mayors Association.  The trial court has now ruled M7 is probably unconstitutional as drawn, and that it would be unfair to force taxpayers and cities to initially confront M7 issues since "private and public expense and turmoil will eventually prove to have been unnecessary and extraordinarily wasteful" if the court permanently stops M7.  Those are the judge's words.

While the city did enact a later ordinance holding off the effective date of the city law, there is no guarantee this would allow for later appeal of the city waiver rule.  so your local Florence group had to bite the bullet and appeal in order to make certain the public had the right later to question the waiver process.  We should thank them, instead of pandering to an image that is at best thoughtless and divisive.  M7 destroys the value of neighboring lands while it promotes a land rush mentality of maximizing profit at the expense of the county, community or neighborhood.  Rand Dawson, Westlake.  Source:  1/20/01 Siuslaw News, Letter to the Editor.

"The mercury in one fever thermometer is enough to contaminate fish in a 20-acre lake to unsafe levels."

And it doesn't take much mercury.  The mercury in one fever thermometer is enough to contaminate fish in a 20-acre lake to unsafe levels.  Simply reducing our use of mercury-containing products and properly disposing of mercury-containing wastes will prevent a lot of mercury pollution.  OEC's (Oregon Environmental Council) bill will ensure that mercury is reduced and ultimately eliminated in certain products, including thermometers, thermostats, novelty products and school instructional equipment.  This bill will also help ensure the recovery of mercury from thermostats and automotive light switches.  (For more information, contact Laura Weiss at 503-222-1963 x 111, or laura@orcouncil.org )  Source: Excerpt from EarthWatch Oregon, January 2001.

The Citizens for Florence watchdog group is opposing the ordinance and has been joined by 1000
Friends of Oregon, a statewide group that is challenging similar ordinances adopted by cities
throughout the state, including Eugene and Cottage Grove.  They say the new ordinances authorize
development that is prohibited by local zoning and state land use laws.

Zane Ziemer, president of Citizens for Florence, said the two groups will likely file an appeal even
though the City Council approved an amendment Dec. 18 that put the Dec. 4 ordinance on hold.  The amendment was proposed after a Marion County Circuit Court judge issued a restraining order
delaying implementation of the ballot measure until questions about its constitutionality can be
decided.

Ziemer said the notice of intent to appeal the Florence ordinance will be filed to ensure that the
challenge can go forward if the ordinance is eventually implemented. City regulations require notices
of appeal to be filed within 21 days of passage.  Ziemer said the main concern with ordinances such
as the one being considered in Florence is a provision that would allow the city to waive land use
regulations to avoid compensating landowners.

Robert Liberty, executive director of 1000 Friends, said Florence and other cities with similar
ordinances can avoid litigation by repealing the waiver provision in the ordinances, and some cities
and counties have chosen to do so.

Sandi Young, city planning director, said the Florence ordinance was modeled after one prepared
by a city attorneys' organization.  If additional information on how to avoid such a waiver comes
before the ordinance is implemented, Young said, changes could be made.  She said she expects
questions on the legality of Measure 7 to be decided in mid- to late February.  Source: 1/9/01,
Register Guard, by Larry Bacon.