15 <br />that LUBA erred in allowing the local government and other parties to benefit <br />from failing to provide its citizens with the information necessary to participate <br />in the decision before the City. <br />This view of the statute is also supported by the legislative history of the <br />bill adopting the provision now codified at ORS 197.830(7)(c). State v. Gaines. <br />ORS 197.830(7)(c) was adopted in 1997 as House Bill 2502. As initially <br />proposed, the bill simply replaced language that required a motion to intervene <br />be filed "within a reasonable time" with a 21- day deadline. An amendment <br />was suggested by Chris Cook, an attorney for 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land <br />use advocacy group. She suggested that the language now in ORS <br />197.830(7)(c) be added because of a recent experience in Alliance for <br />Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County, 23 Or LUBA 476 (1992). In that <br />case, a party waited four months after receiving notice until one week before <br />oral argument and then filed a motion to intervene, which was granted by <br />LUBA. Ms. Cook noted that "a party which delays filing a motion to intervene <br />until well along in the appeal can also conceivably disrupt or destroy mediation <br />proceedings entered into good faith by other parties." <br />No such concerns are present in this case. The concern that led to the <br />adoption of this provision was with a party that delayed intervening in order to <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />