By Representative David Gomberg, House District 10
Dear Neighbors and Friends,
As we enter week three of the five-week short session, I thought I’d highlight three bills of interest.
Let’s begin with water.
Clean water is integral to our Oregon way of life. Clean water coming out of the tap or dirty water going down the drain ensures our quality of life, empowers our economy, and enhances our ability to grow and add needed housing. But across Oregon, small-town water systems are at capacity, aging out, and falling apart. And small towns can’t afford these big expenses.
Siletz is a good example. The Lincoln County town of 1,100 is facing a $12 million sewer problem. They have increased rates, pursued grants, and received financial support from the Siletz Tribe. But without more help, they will face a building moratorium, can’t support the Tribe, and may not be able to service the homes they already have adequately.
We want to build more housing. We can’t do that without meaningful investments in water infrastructure. And the League of Oregon Cities reports over 200 projects across Oregon that need help.
To address this critical need, I authored HB 4128 this year with the co-sponsorship of Representatives Emily McIntire (R-Eagle Point), Ken Helm (D-Beaverton), and Mark Owens (R-Crane). Our goal was to improve infrastructure investments in every corner of Oregon that will unlock developable lands and unjam the growing backlog of stalled housing projects across the State.
The bill would commit $90 million, fund 50 projects across the state, and support the production of more than 11,000 new housing units. This is a transformational proposal.
Watch the committee presentation here.
Across our district, water is a challenge. In recent years, I succeeded in bringing financial support to Monroe, Waldport, and Otis. Our current bill would similarly fund Siletz, Toledo, and Lincoln City.
Tuesday I told the House Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water Committee that this was a bi-partisan effort that worked to prioritize projects based on results and data. For months, our team had analyzed hundreds of projects using four main factors: cost per unit developed, community impact, affordability of units, and the timeline of the project. The result was a model built to target investments in a manner that is cost-effective, geographically equitable, and supports developments where state funds will go the furthest – all while ensuring a broad mix of affordable, workforce, middle housing, and affordable homeownership developments supported by these investments.
For every project we proposed for funding, three more were not in the bill. But our model was met with support as a tool to move forward in response to a pressing statewide problem. Cities not on our list actually testified in support of the bill.
Thursday the measure moved out of the Natural Resources Committee and was forwarded to Ways and Means. We will be working the next three weeks to see these proposed investments become real investments. Fifty projects. Ninety million dollars. Eleven thousand new homes.
Recreational Immunity – SB 1576-3
In the summer of 2023, a resident of Newport was taking her dog for a walk to the beach and was injured when she slipped on a wooden bridge.
In Oregon, we benefit from a concept called “recreational immunity” to protect landowners from liability so that they are encouraged to keep and maintain trails and other recreational facilities. If someone is injured while recreating, they cannot sue the property owner.
In the case of Fields v. Newport the Court of Appeals ruled that rather than dismissing these cases, a trial court would need to determine whether a person was intending a recreational purpose. If the court determines they are not, a city, county, or the State could be exposed to legal risk.
So the question is, when you take your dog for a walk, when does “recreation” begin? On the sidewalk? On a trail to the beach? Or only when you actually reach the beach??
If you are planning a picnic at the end of a hiking trail, are you recreating on the trail or only when you spread your tablecloth?
In the past, suits were simply dismissed. Now they may all need to go to court. That’s a significant and expensive change even when a city prevails.
In response, the insurance provider for the majority of Oregon cities, CIS Oregon, has recommended the closure of all improved recreational trails following a recent court ruling. That’s a big deal!
So far, 22 trails on the Coast already have closed or will be closed without a legislative fix. At risk are access to our open spaces, pathways to our beaches, hiking and biking, increased insurance premiums to local government, and consequences to our tourism economy. And of course, your ability to … recreate … is at risk too!
On Monday, members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary considered SB 1576-3, which would expand the definition of recreation covered under the state’s “recreational immunity” law to include walking, running, and bicycling. I testified in support. The Oregon Trial Lawyers explained their opposition.
“At the end of the day, this affects not only the recreational opportunities of my constituents and residents but also visitors, and therefore our larger tourism economy,” I said.
Certainly, we want to encourage access to our trails, parks, beaches, and playgrounds. And we want those public spaces maintained to provide for a reasonable level of safety. Sorting this out is going to take some time and attention. SB 1576 is a start. A work session is scheduled later today (Monday)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|