Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.



For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.







Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!






E-mail us here.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 22, 2006 11:33 PM. The previous post in this blog was Population boom. The next post in this blog is Stay far, far away from WebHostPlus. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
TaxVox
Tax.com
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Conglomerate
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
myCorporateResource.com
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, October 22, 2006

The rest of the story

I have gone through the rest of the pending ballot once again, and it's time to fill the thing out. Besides Frederick for Multnomah County Commission, Yes on 39, and None of the Above for Governor, here's the rest of where I'm headed:

For State Supreme Court, I'm getting ready to flip a coin, but leaning toward Jack Roberts. I know Jack a bit, and I think he'd be a refreshing change on the court. He's a former tax lawyer, and he had real clients once. But I fear he's not really interested in the high court job so much as he is in keeping his name in voters' minds for the day when he runs again for statewide office. Sort of like "Supreme Court Justice Kulongoski" -- a politician who hardly stayed on the bench long enough for a cup of coffee. Judge Ginny Linder, on the other hand, has spent way, way too much time in Salem for my comfort level; she's a government attorney at heart. They're both smart enough, but neither is all that attractive.

No on all the statewide ballot measures other than 39 and 44:

Measure 44 makes sense -- poor people should be able to get medicine, for Pete's sake.

Measure 40 (state appeals judges elected by district) is the wrong move. We shouldn't politicize the courts any more than they already are. This one will need a strong turnout against it -- it almost passed last time.

Measure 41 (tax deduction vs. credit) is preposterous -- let's start micromanaging the tax code at the ballot box. Measure 48 (state spending limit) is also bad policy, brought to you by the folks who brought you the kicker. No on both.

No on 42. I think insurance companies should use credit ratings in deciding whom to insure and how much to charge.

No on 43. Of course I'd want to know if my daughter was having an abortion, but if I can't get her to trust me enough to tell me about it, too bad. Kids aren't going to do what this law would require, anyway. They'll run away or wind up in an alley.

Term limits for legislators? It's tempting, but I'm going to say no on 45. There are some good people in there who aren't worth losing, and opening up an incumbent's seat doesn't guarantee an improvement. I would like to see a term limit for the state attorney general, though, who ought to be locking some of our more crooked legislators up.

Campaign finance reform? No on 46 and 47. The best remedy for influence peddling is publicity, and lots of it -- not mechanical limits that are going to be struck down as unconstitutional under federal law anyway. If a ballot measure comes up requiring candidates to file campaign finance reports daily in easily searchable databases, I'm all for it.

On the local measures:

Metro parks bonds: Close call, but I'm voting no. Until we stop handing public resources over to sleazy developers, I don't trust this kind of activity -- particularly in a body like Metro, which is full of Goldschmidt-style West Hills sympathizers. Use the money you're going to blow on the Convention Center Hotel on some parkland instead, folks. Or maybe Dan Saltzman and Jeff Cogen will trade you some of Mount Tabor Park.

Portland police and fire fighters pension and disability: It's a Band-Aid on a severed carotid artery, but at least it's something. Voting yes.

Schools and libraries: Yes. The politicians who decide budget priorities in this city, county, and state are doing a terrible job of it, but let's not take it out on education.

So much for the issues; on to the people:

Three of the four Multnomah County judgeship races are interesting. I'm going with Cheryl Albrecht in Position 31; she's the candidate I know the better of the two. And her opponent looks like a machine candidate, with Neilies like Hardy Myers and Mike Schrunk at the top of her endorsement list. You go, Cheryl.

In the nine-way dogpile for Position 28, none of the names is familiar, and I'm not sure I have the energy to weigh all nine. Somebody help me out here.

Position 37 is the real circus race, with Leslie Roberts running unopposed, or rather, running against herself. All the mainstream media are asking voters to write in Charles Henderson. Sounds good to me. Roberts gamed the system for her own advantage, and is that what we want in our judges? On the other hand, she's the only name on the ballot and will probably win. Good for bloggers -- there'll be lots of drama once she shows up for work at the courthouse.

My congressman and state representative are locks for re-election, and so they're not worth the bandwidth to write about.

I think that's everything, but I know that readers will point out what I've missed.

Comments (25)

Metro parks bonds: Close call, but I'm voting no. Until we stop handing public resources over to sleazy developers...

I think this opportunity for saving open spaces from developers --sleazy or otherwise-- is too important to pass up. METRO seems to have done a good job with the last bond sale, and this one also provides some money for Portland Parks in underserved areas. Our lawn signs are up for this one.

Would like to see someone make the case in favor of M 46 and 47 addressing the issues raised here.

And my lawn signs are up for Lew Fredricks -- let Cogen spend the commissioner's term in a West Hills tanning booth.

I might consider voting for Cogen if he could arrange to grant me a little of Council Crest park, though; I want to build a castle there.

Speaking of lawn signs, the Henderson for Judge campaign finally raised enough money to get a few (and some window posters as well), so if anyone wants one, let us know at hendersonforjudge@gmail.com.

And Jack, thanks for the endorsement. I'd encourage people to resist the "anyone-but-
Roberts" urge and actually check our website to get an idea for who Charles Henderson is. We feel that an informed decision is important, and hope anyone reading this will take the time to learn about Charles before writing him in (even though we also think that you should write him in, we also think that responsible democracy outweighs just blindly following the suggestions of others...).

Chris Piekarski
Director, The Committee to Elect Charles Henderson Judge
www.hendersonforjudge.blogspot.com

I just moved here from Tucson in January. I find the idea of voting for judges appallingly stupid. Just what I want, judges having to suck up to people to raise money for campaigns!

jack, there are a lot of write-in options on this ballot i'm holding. any spot you'd like to see your name? judge? how 'bout governor? just being given the option to write someone in is awfully tempting.

I think its interesting that no one contests that the appointment process for picking judges is political and not necessarily on the basis of competency...or as it turns out, even legal qualifications for the job! The main task seems to be to pick someone who will help deliver a particular constituency to the appointing Governor..or win him points with the insiders who support his pick. The other point is that Judges are encouraged to resign in the window allowing their replacement to be picked by appointment ..not election so as to deprive voters of a choice. Its nice that in the Multnomah county races this year we have one WIDE OPEN race (because a sitting judge DIED!) and in another, we have an experienced and competent attorney who is NOT a political appointee..running : Leslie Roberts. You can vote for whomever but you are not stuck with the appointee!

I think I agree with your initiative picks on the substance. But I have become so disenchanted with the initiative process that I plan to vote against even those that I think make sense. To me, it's a hopelessly flawed lawmaking process.

"Metro parks bonds: Close call, but I'm voting no. Until we stop handing public resources over to sleazy developers"

How prescient - METRO wants to fund Mr Ashforth's OCC hotel. If you are stupid enough to think METREO won't use some of that money to lay-off non-park expenses so they can throw more money at the OCC hotel, you are naive.

I suspect the last round of open space bond money wasn't as succesful as billed by the Oregonian and WWeek. Call it a gut feeling. With the whole gainful employment thing and mortgage to pay I haven't had time to follow up.

Metro passed alot of this unrestricted cash off to left/Green party leaning politically active groups (patronage for green purposes is obviously okay). Additionally there are presistent mentions of large chunks of land being bought from Emmert Intl (a company not know for being charitable).

I don't have proof or time to track down the full and verifiable story but I've heard more than once that Terry Emmert (owner of Emmert Intl a large land holder on the East side of Portland) was holding up development by Metro's plan. Emmert was positioned to stop reasonable development by blocking utility and necesary infrastructure from being easily accesible with existing facilities (so the rumor goes).

I can't help but wonder at what price these lands were bought for? There has been no follow up or presentation of the last round of bond monies by the Oregonian. I can't help but wonder what this money has done given how supposedly succesful this is.

Especially considering Metro has the power to regulate land use for watershed as this would be a reasonable regulation under M37 being a health and safety regulation.

I personally agree with the intent of the bond measure for open spaces (this fund could go along way to handle M37 claims in a very progressive and fair way). I just really don't believe Rex Burkholder or David Bragdon have the mental fortitude to not get taken.

If you are stupid enough to think METREO won't use some of that money to lay-off non-park expenses so they can throw more money at the OCC hotel, you are naive.

I'm "stupid enough" to not understand what that sentence means. Can you explain?

I believe Steve meant that if you are against the HQ Hotel you should be against the Open Spaces bond measure.

Metro isn't really overseen or restricted in spending this money. They could easily use monies from the bond to fund positions or expenses that could be crossed over into the OCC Hotel project.

Say, bring on consultants or experts who lean towards the Convention Center line of expertise under other projects paid for by the bond measure. Same thing with gaining support in the "community" by hiring activist non-profit groups for to do "community outreach" projects and therefore bring further staked support for the hotel (or anything Metro whims).

You bet Metro will be restricted in what they can use the bond money for: It's got to go exactly to what the voters approved. Ballot language is LAW.

And if they were even tempted to mess with it, well, that's why we elected a tough and smart new independent Metro Auditor, Suzanne Flynn. . . so vote or don't vote for streams, parks and open spaces, but not because you don't like the convention center hotel idea!

Sarah

Sarah, as you know, there is "cross-over" of staff, commissions, etc. billable time/expenses in METRO, PDC, CoP, etc. I have observed billable hours and other expenditures from one part of a government entity being used to support another project.

Case in point is North Macadam's planning and actual expenditures for projects. Several times PDOT has used funds from the general funds to expediate planning and actual implementation such as the raising of the whole NM area up to 9 feet in elevation to meet Fed flood zone requirements. Raising the existing streets alone was not a "minor cost" with all the engineering needed in the design and increasing the elevation of all the sewer, water, underground services. The Portland taxpayers paid for this expenditure in large part from the general fund and it wasn't billed to the TIF moneys of NM. And this "mixing" of city expenditures happens all through government. And I could give additional examples from NM.

METRO has "mixed" expenditures with its latest "Wildlife" protection zoning. In the last "open space" bond, METRO has also used funds by giving "grants" to different interest groups that follows METRO's environmental agenda. I'm not against being environmental sensitive, but the bond measure stretched the stated purpose of the last bond measure.

It's all public money, and your supposedly sancrosanct budget compartments are sieves. As a tax lawyer, I can tell you that through one shell game or another, money raised for parks could get spent on the hotel. Easily.

Heck, some of the federal funds sent to Portland for infrastructure improvements for the SoWhat district actually wound up being spent on fundraisers for local politicians' political campaigns. That's a fact.

It's all smoke and mirrors. No on Metro parks bonds.

We shouldn't politicize the courts any more than they already are.

As long as state appeals court judges are (at least nominally) elective positions, what's wrong with more politicization? Why pretend?

M40 would serve to counterbalance the political game that's already in play - the early retirement/interim appointment/incumbent scam.

PS,

What about METRO councilor?

Just now getting to this, but on the FPD&R reform, my problem is that we're "fixing" the unfunded retirement liability without fixing the disability problems. We're only going to get reform once, and if this is rejected the City will HAVE to come back with a better proposal.

The City is saying the reformed disability approval process will be in the hands of "independent disability experts." But that's not true. Those "experts" will be bound by FPD&R rules on who qualifies for disability, so they're not independent. And those rules will be set by the FPD&R board. The board is being reformed to take away the union majority, but union members will still hold two of five seats. The other three will be two citizens and the Mayor. Let's be honest -- in union-friendly Portland, does anyone believe the Mayor and Council will appoint citizens who AREN'T friendly to unions? Labor will still control the board, they will still set the rules, and they will still get disability at five times the rate of every other jurisdiction in Oregon.

If this passes, there will be no more reforms for at least 20 years. I agree that it's a SMALL step in the right direction, but we're only going to get one bite at this apple, and this one has a worm in it.

Miles, you are absolutely correct. Your points are the main reason that I am voting NO on FPD&R. It doesn't go far enough. I am tired on these 1/10th at best solutions. Taxpayers need to put their feet down, and just say NO, and require a true remedy. And if City Council won't address it, then use the initiative process to have a vote on a real solution.

what's wrong with more politicization?

Judges and hopeful judges having to seek political sponsors for their campaigns, is the problem -- and if you look at states where appellate judges have to run those kinds of campaigns, the companies who make generous contributions to judicial campaigns tend overwhelmingly to be companies with appeals in the pipeline. And (gasp) the judges wind up ruling in favor of their contributors about 90% of the time. It's absolutely appalling, and we've managed to avoid it here so far; inviting it in is a terrible idea.

Also, because each judge would have to maintain a home in his "district," this means that the only people who could seek an appellate position would be those who are independently wealthy enough to maintain two homes: one in their district, and one in Salem.

And finally because it is a pointless politicization. A judge's job is to apply the law to the facts -- the statutes that the legislators from all over the state created, or the precedent set by years of decisions made by judges from all over the state. It doesn't matter where the judge is from; the state constitution is the same, the statutes are the same, and the case law is the same. What you want is the best and smartest people on the bench. (Also? Gene Hallman won precisely one rural district in May. Not even the rural voters seem to think that what the court really needs is more judges from rural Oregon.)

Measure 39 would require the state to pay the legal costs of any citizen who opposes a regulatory taking of their property regardless of whether the taking is for a Kelo type taking or a taking for public purposes (see Section 7 (4) of the proposed measure). In every case under measure 39 the government’s best offer will be rejected by the landowner. This is because property will continue to appreciate between the time of the government’s first offer and the time the case would end up in front of a jury. The attorney for the property owner will always be able to prove that the property is worth more than the first offer. And all they have to do is prove that the property is worth one dollar more and the taxpayers will have to pay their fees and costs. Measure 39 is not a property rights protection bill- it is an attorney welfare bill. Do not be fooled by the measures title.

Nick:

Your argument is flat wrong. The amount of fair market value is measured as of the date the lawsuit is commenced, or the date the condemning body enters onto and appropriates the property, whichever comest first. Thus, if the property value increases (or decreases) during the course of the litigation, that increase (or decrease) is not taken into consideration in the award of just compensation.

Valuation of property is measured as of date condemnation action is commenced or date condemnor enters on and appropriates the property, whichever comes first. State By and Through Dept. of Transp. v. Lundberg, 312 Or 568 (1992).

In proceeding by the state to condemn land for a public use, the measure of damages is the actual cash market value of the land at the beginning of the action. State ex. rel. Olcott v. Hawk, 105 Or 319 (1922).

Exactly. The date the lawsuit commences will always be after the first offer to purchase is made by the government. So, there will always be some measurable amount of appreciation for property durring that time period, however small it may be. The language of the measure does not account for this.

Free attorneys fees for any one who will have property taken for any governmental purpose = measure 39. And you are going to pay for those fees.

But that's not what you said Nick. What you said was "This is because property will continue to appreciate between the time of the government's first offer and the time the case would end up in front of a jury." That may (or may not) be a correct statement, but that is not how just compensation is determined for purposes of condemnation law. Under current law, the property owner has 40 days after the government makes its initial offer to accept or reject that offer. Once that time period expires, the lawsuit may commence. If you believe that the possible increase (or decrease) in value of the property during that 40 day period is enough to increase litigation, then I'll respectfully disagree with you. I've represented private citizens my entire career, and have yet to find a client who wants to litigate. Sometimes they are forced to do so, but litigation is about as fun as having your teeth pulled. And giving the property owner the right to recover attorney fees does not create an incentive to litigate, when the best the property owner can do is recapture his/her out of pockets. It seems to me that if you create an incentive to the condemning body to make its best offer up front, you will decrease litigation, rather than increase it. What private citizen would choose to litigate if the first offer is the equivalent of the fair market value of the property?

The fair market value of any property is only an opinion, a reasoned opinion, but still an opinion. Hire any two appraisers to place a value on the same property and -you will get two different opinions of what that fair market value is. It should be close, assuming they both found the same comps and have the same data regarding the property characteristics, but it will be different. The incentive to litigate is not just the recovery of the attorneys/appraisers fees and the difference in the appraisers opinion of FMV but it is also the time that it buys the property owner, to keep living in their house, running their business, or collecting rent. For this very reason, almost every homeowner that is going through a condemnation uses close to that full 40 days to accept or reject the initial offer. Litigation will buy them even more time, and because the attorney is free it will become the logical choice under M39 every time. You could have drafted M37 to just prevent Kelo type takings, but it goes to far. We need road and bridge repair in this state, not more lawsuits. I will vote against M37, and I urge others to do the same.

Well, Jack, Masure 47, which passed, does require far better campaign disclosure and reporting. Here are some of its provisions that will take effect, regardless of the absence of Measure 46:

1 Every campaign advertisement funded by "independent expenditures" must prominently disclose the top 5 contributors to the "independent" campaign, the businesses they are engaged in, and the amounts contributed by each of them. These disclosures must appear in all advertisements, including TV, radio, newspaper, direct mail, billboards, etc. They need not appear on small campaign items, like buttons or bumper stickers.

2 Anyone making independent expenditures during any 2-year election cycle in excess of $200 must publicly report the expenditures in the same manner and schedule as a political committee in Oregon must report to the Secretary of State or local election officer.

3 Every candidate who spends more than $5,000 of personal money on a campaign for public office must disclose in every subsequent campaign ad the amount of personal money being spent on the campaign.

4 Every contributor of more than $500 per year must obtain a "handle" from the Secretary of State, so that his future contributions can be more accurately recorded. [Note: Every registered voter in Oregon already has a handle, consisting of his or her voter registration number. This provision will, however, include also all out-of-state contributors].

5 "Within five (5) business days of receipt, the Secretary of State shall report and make available on the Internet in an interactive database format all contribution and expenditure reports and all handle registrations. The format shall enable the user to determine the sources and amounts of reported contributions:

1 For each candidate committee, political committee, political party, and independent expenditure campaign; and

2 From each contributor who has contributed at least five hundred dollars ($500) during the election cycle."

6 No employer can, directly or indirectly, "require any employee or contractor to make any contribution or independent expenditure to support or oppose any candidate; or provide or promise any benefit or impose or threaten any detriment due to the fact that an employee or contractor did or did not make such contributions or expenditures. Any person subjected to a violation of this "shall have a civil cause of action against the violator and shall, upon proof of violation, recover a civil penalty of not less than $50,000 per incident of violation."


Sponsors


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009

The Occasional Book

Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 212
At this date last year: 60
Total run in 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269


Clicky Web Analytics