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.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 13, 2011 8:42 AM. The previous post in this blog was Joan Osborne: Bend tonight, Eugene tomorrow. The next post in this blog is Experts say Portland food slop compost flap will die down quickly. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



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

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
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
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
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
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

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
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
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
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
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

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Clackamas commissioners' "urban renewal" measure doubly ambiguous

We've been staring for a couple of days now at the language of the decoy ballot measure that the Clackamas County commissioners have placed on the November ballot to compete with the citizens' initiative petition that would require countywide votes for future "urban renewal" expansions. The longer we look at the politicians' measure, the more ambiguous parts of it seem.

In particular, we're referring to the conflict provision -- the part of the commissioners' measure that talks about what happens if it conflicts with other county laws. It reads as follows:

A number of intriguing questions arise out of this poorly chosen language.

First things first: Does this language even apply to the conflict between the two measures on the November ballot? Specifically, is the measure originally initiated by the citizens' petition a "referral"? At least to our untrained eye, it doesn't seem so. There's a clear distinction made in state law between an initiative and a referendum. A referendum is the situation in which a law or ordinance that the county commissioners enacted is forced onto the ballot by petition signatures. As we understand it, that's not what the citizens did here -- they invented their own measure, which is an initiative rather than a referendum. And so the conflict language in the commissioners' measure -- alluding to "any referral" -- may not even apply to the glaring conflict between these two measures. (The crux of the dispute is whether future "urban renewal" schemes should be subject to a countywide vote, or just a vote of the district that would benefit.)

Assuming that the conflict language does apply -- and that seems a major assumption -- there's an additional problem with the operative language: "the provisions having received the lesser number of votes in any referral of the measure to an election shall be void." Does that mean (a) the lesser number of "yes" votes, or (b) the lesser number of total votes, both in favor and against?

Take this example: Both measures pass. The citizens' initiative passes 10,000 to 5,000, and the commissioners' measure passes, 8,000 to 7,500. Assuming the conflict language applies, then which ballot measure prevails, and which one is void? The citizens' initiative has more "yes" votes (10,000 to 8,000), but the commissioners' measure, which also passed, has more overall votes (15,500 to 15,000). Which "provisions... received the lesser number of votes"? Common sense would say the politicians' version, but that idea could have been expressed much more clearly than in the commissioners' drafting.

If somehow the language means that the most total votes wins, then so long as both measures get a majority of votes cast, folks who favor the citizens' measure might be better off not voting at all on the commissioners' measure -- not even voting "no." On the other hand, if the measure with the most "yes" votes wins (a more loigcal, but by no means necessary, reading), then it would make sense for the citizens' group to vote yes on the initiative measure and no on the commissioners'.

Are these two ambiguities deliberate and malicious, or are they accidental? It's hard to tell. In the original version of the decoy measure, there was reference to actions taken by more or less than 51% of the voters in the "urban renewal" area. That was bad drafting, too. As anyone who's thought about it knows, a majority is 50% plus 1 vote -- not 51%. 5,001 to 4,999 is a majority -- you needn't get to 5,100. Somebody down there is a truly poor drafter, or diabolically clever.

Either way, it's hard to tell what the heck that conflict provision says. So who knows what the rules are going to be here? Maybe Kate Brown or John Kroger can send out a press release on the subject. But the vote's less than two months away. Election procedures in Oregon are the pits sometimes, aren't they?

Comments (19)

Occam's razor says it's more likely stupidity than genius. Either way, the lawyers win.

Maybe the taxpayers/voters will win too, if the legal challenges keep Urban Renewal from actually being implemented.

"Are these two ambiguities deliberate and malicious, or are they accidental?"

What IS deliberate and malicious is the the commissioners wanted to derail what the citizens had legally put on the ballot.

Jack, thanks for elaborating on this one legal conflagration of the Clackamas Co. Commissioner's measure. It will be challenged at the least.

But there is still more. What is your opinion on the wording of the Commissioner's measure on who gets to vote in their specialized proposed urban renewal districts versus the whole county that will be taxed? How can that be sorted out, and by whom? Brown? Then legally challenged, and several times over?

Portland native, you may have it right. It really may be a win for the citizen's measure in the long run.

"versus the whole county that will be taxed?"

You should avoid making that statement unless you use additional clarification.

There is no "new" tax written in the UR plans we have witnessed and will not be in the Clackamas County plans.

UR proponents are forever touting that UR doesn't require a hew tax. True enough up front and in the plans.

However, the whole county will equally suffer the detriment of 100s of millions in property taxes being diverted from county wide services. "New" taxes or fees will of course be needed to replace the taken millions and when that falls short service cuts occur.

It's unavoidable.

What people seem to not realize is they talk about the taxes from urban renewal areas that are stopped from going to police, fire, schools etc. What they miss however is that without the urban renewal area those taxes would never be realized in the first place. Look at the Pearl, has there been some mismanagement, absolutely. However when those buildings go off the urban renewal books the city and county will make much more than they did before the urban renewal area was formed.

And when exactly, do these areas ever get taken off the UR books?

I don't think the conflict provision ambiguities in the decoy measure would govern here.

State law holds that the measure receiving the most affirmative votes will supersede the other measure, but only as to conflicts between the two.

ORS 254.065(2) No measure shall be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure. If two or more conflicting laws, or amendments to the Constitution or charter, are approved at the same election, the law, or amendment, receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall be paramount regarding each conflict, even though the law, or amendment, may not have received the greatest majority of affirmative votes.


I'll apologize ahead of time if you are merely unable to "realize" yourself how TIF works.

But that was spoken like the true UR conniver.

In misleading people you have, of course, struck at the heart of the ponzie scheme con job Tax Increment Financing truly is.

It is you who does not realize that UR diverts ALL of yearly automatic tax increases from the entire district. Not just the parcels where projects occur.

Do you understand that nearly every parcel throughout the city sees property tax increases every year? All of which go to help offset the rising cost of essential services.

UR/TIF takes all of the increases which officials claims they created the revenue.

Most often very little of the new taxes from urban renewal areas that are stopped from going to police, fire, schools etc. are created by the UR projects.

Your claim that "without the urban renewal area those taxes would never be realized in the first place" is patently false to the nth degree.

Even in the Pearl there were vast sums taken that had nothing to do with the projects.

One BIG example is the inclusion of the US Bank tower in the UR district when it was formed. That fancy tower where the Portland City Grill is on the 30th floor.
In all of the decades that followed every yearly increase in the tower property taxes were diverted from essential services to UR debt.
The PDC et al claims they created all of that revenue.
SoWa UR district is 411 acres. The total of all projects will never be more than 130 acres.

The Pearl itself was the only downtown growth available area during a booming economy so UR cannot take credit for all of the development. Much of it would have occurred with the massive subsidies or the Streetcar. UR planners always claim nothing will ever happen without UR. They make that claim even when their own plans are the only obstacle to development for years.

The other zinger is this notion of "when those buildings go off the urban renewal books the city and county will make much more".

Every time a Portland UR increment has been returned far greater amounts have been taken away with new schemes.

Now 24% of property taxes go to UR debt.

Ben's points are correct. In Portland 24%+ of our property taxes is given to PDC to "administer" the 11 URAs, and more. That is UR costs beyond the tax increment financing dollars taken out of property taxes beyond the typical 3% annual valuation increases.

Then another aspect of urban renewal is that in most cases there are extensive amount of federal, state, local tax subsidies in each URA, robbing dollars from basic services. Additionally, in many URA's many properties are taken off the tax roll because the projects become government owned, non-profits, etc. Thus, no taxes ever, even after a URA closure (which is almost never). SoWhat is a prime example where over 50% of the 130 acres are in this gov-non profit realm. Who's paying the taxes to run our city?- the rest of us.

Clackamas Co. would be setting up an administrative department for their proposed UR that will be costing over $Millions if Commissioner's succeed. Those costs would come directly out of the county's taxpayer pockets.

JDUB's claims of no taxpayer dollars for urban renewal is totally false.

Clackamas Co. already has an massive administrative department for their existing UR districts.

Check this out.

The Clackamas Town Center UR district has only a $5 million remaining debt, a $12 million annual TIF income and a $20 million reserve. Yet it is not due to be terminated until 2013.

So what is all the money for? And why is it sitting there while basic services flounder?

Another UR district already terminated has no debt and a $9 million annual budget.


Clackamas County has only had 4 districts. Two have been shut down. Also, unlike pdc, they only have 6 employees or so in the urban renewal department.


I realize what Clackamas County has in their department.
It's the massive amount of money they are handling I meant to emphasize.

Sorry, I misspoke with Massive "department".

Do you have any explanation for the hefty budgets for shut down districts or the CTC reserve, income and small debt?

Jack, what about the argument that there is no conflict?

The decoy measure lets people within proposed URAs vote on them, the real measure lets the whole county vote on them (since they are paid for by all county residents). There is no conflict if they both pass ... The people in the URA vote under either one, and the fact that the citizens' measure allows people outside the URAs to vote on them doesn't seem to conflict with anything in the decoy measure, since all it does is provide for people within the URA.

In a Venn diagram, the honest measure contains everything the decoy does. That's not a conflict. There's only conflict if there's something non-overlapping.

The decoy measure says that if the voters within the district vote yes, then the commissioners "shall adopt" the "urban renewal" plan. That's mandatory. Isn't that a conflict with the initiative measure?

You're probably right ... Although it seems you have to imagine a hypothetical case to reach that conclusion (where a URA measure passes within the handout zone but fails countywide). I mean doesn't the honest measure also say that the commission shall adopt the URA if it gets a majority? So they're not necessarily in conflict; it is possible to imagine one, but that's not a conflict in the two measures, its a hypothetical conflict in the two possible outcomes.

Besides, who counts votes within URAs only? In a countywide election, votes are counted and reported by precinct. Afaik, URAs are drawn to maximize pork content, not to follow precinct lines.

If they both pass, wouldn't a court be reluctant to create a conflict in order to throw out a voter-passes measure when they can be reconciled?

What a pain in the neck it is going to be for county elections to distribute special ballots only within crazy "urban renewal" district boundaries. Could get mighty expensive.

"Pain in the neck" "Could get mighty expensive" is just 1/3 of the problem.

How will they determine who gets to vote in a special zone? Renters, property owners, employees of businesses in zone, a customer, a visitor? The Commissioners' Measure doesn't define.

How will they determine who gets to vote in a special zone?

It would be the registered voters in a district designed by the County Commissioners.

A lot of people don't realize that the same individual County Commissioners also populate the County's urban renewal board (no more no less). Those Commissioner/UR Board members will have a perverse incentive to design a district that:

a. includes as much taxable property value as possible, and

b. includes only voters who have something to gain from their plan.

Any tension between (a) and (b) will only increase the size of the plan so everyone gets a share.

If I was in their shoes (focused on serving developers and completely without conscience) I would design a district that covers mostly commercial properties (with no voters) and then add in 4-5 nearby apartment complexes.

Then you bribe your handpicked district of apartment voters with something like a new 4000 seat baseball stadium (for maybe 12% of the total UR plan).

Finally you run a door-to-door campaign convincing those 500 apartment voters to approve $150 million in new urban renewal debt because it is all about JOBS.

Voila! The Commissioners call it a victory for "Local Control" while the rest of the County covers the debts.

Bread and Circuses.


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

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
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: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
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