Spanking the Oregonian

In her full page ad published in Sunday’s Oregonian, Dorothy English soundly spanked its editors for their “disdain” for small property owners who have had the value of their land gutted by public policy.

First a bit from the Oregonian’s May 8th editorial:

Property-rights Measure 37, which voters approved in 2004, said state and local governments must pay property owners if regulations reduce the value of their land. This is a terrible idea, essentially saying one group of people, who have owned their land a longer time, must be paid to obey laws everyone else must obey.

Since 2004, roughly 7,500 claims have been filed, seeking at least $15 billion worth of compensation or the right to ignore other laws in order to develop, mostly on farmland and forestland. The destructive effects of this law are now self-evident. But since Measure 37 was itself a repeat of a measure passed in 2000, then thrown out by the courts, it doesn't make much sense to repeat the question a third time.

Significantly, House Bill 3540, a rewrite of Measure 37 approved by the Oregon House last week, would pose a different question to voters. It would ask voters whether they want to make Measure 37 work. We're guessing voters will want to, because this fix, while far from perfect, would make a bad law better. It would make it:
. . .
Fairer for claimants. Again, although we disagree with the idea some property owners should be able to blackmail their fellow taxpayers, Oregon voters thought otherwise. HB3540 would put small claims at the front of the line and create a land-use ombudsman. It would also make development rights transferable, a key financing issue in many cases.

Some backers of Measure 37 are characterizing this proposed referral as a virtual repeal of Measure 37. That's not true or fair, and it's also hard to understand.

Part of Dorothy English’s response:

I’m not sure what offends me most about this newspaper’s April 28 editorial on Measure 37--the inference that I am just a “poster girl” in the fight for land use reform or that the legislature’s gutting of Measure 37 is somehow “fair” to little people.

Since no one from the Oregonian editorial board has ever bothered to ask me a single question, I will assume that it is just their arrogance and not the fact that I am a woman, or that I am elderly, or that I am not rich that causes them to dismiss me and my nearly 40-year struggle to use my land for the purposes for which my deceased husband and I purchased it. I can’t think of any other reason why this newspaper would display such disdain for people like me and others in my shoes, who have watched as our property has been taken in a completely arbitrary fashion.
. . .
I know this paper doesn’t like Measure 37, and no doubt never will. And I know that it doesn’t give a hoot that my life’s savings was stolen or that there are many others just like me. But when it claims that people like me are just pawns in some grand conspiracy by “big greedy corporations” it insults me and everyone who knows me. For the last time, knock it off.

It is too bad I had to use an ad to get the truth out.

Almost 40 years working to get a little fairness! That only happens to “little” people. When is the last time any Oregonian editor waited that long for action?

I’m not a property owner in the claimant class. But, along with the other 61% of Oregon voters who approved Measure 37, I feel it's only right to compensate those who have their property taken or property value diminished. It's wrong to force one group of people to carry the burden for the rest of us.

The Oregonian’s argues that it is terrible to say that “one group of people, who have owned their land a longer time, must be paid to obey laws everyone else must obey.”

I guess the editorial board has forgotten that public policy often makes a time distinction in applying laws and rules. How about for starters:

- The “grandfather” clause in land use recognizes that new rules can be unfair to previous land owners.

- DEQ rules exempt older vehicles from its rules--older than 1975 (Portland area) or more than 20 years old (Medford area). Not to mention that only Portland and Medford area vehicles have to obey these rules and Medford residents get a big time break over Portland area residents.

- Tier 1 and tier 2 employees in the PERS system are treated differently--based entirely on date of hire. State and local government employees hired under one set of rules are immune to the rules imposed on employees hired later.

- Older buildings don’t have to meet standards for new buildings. (I bet the Oregonian’s building doesn’t meet code requirements for new building construction in Portland.)

The Oregonian knows all this. It just chooses to use the “everyone else must obey” argument on its pet issues. Good for Dorothy English for giving its editors a much needed spanking.

Good Guy-Bad Guy Template Equals Poor Reporting

from page 2 of the Tuesday, May 8, 2007, Oregonian (based on an AP report):

Washington

Imported drugs bill is defeated

In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.

On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the administration to certify the safety and effectiveness of drugs before they can be imported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet.

"Well, once again the big drug companies have proved that they are the most powerful and best financed lobby in Washington," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

The vote neutralized a second amendment, later passed on a voice vote, that would legalize the importation of prescription drugs manufactured in Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan and New Zealand.

Overseas, drugs can cost two-thirds less than they do in the United States. In many industrialized countries, prices are lower because they are either controlled or partially controlled by government regulation.

The Oregonian includes information on the votes of Oregon and Washington senators. The Oregon Democrat and the Oregon Republican voted against the amendment. The two Washington Democrats voted for it.

Why the difference? Not a clue from the Oregonian. This is a straight good guy-bad guy read: pharmaceutical lobby vs. what's good for the people. No real analysis.

The amendment does benefit U.S. pharmaceutical companies. It also benefits all the people concerned about the safety of drugs (and food) sold to them.

Maybe that's why two Democratic senators from neighboring Washington, Cantwell and Murray, voted to require safety standards for drugs. By the way, 13 other Democratic senators, including Sens. Kerry, Kennedy and Bayh joined Cantwell and Murray in voting for certification of drug safety and effectiveness. Somehow 15 Democratic Senators voting for the "pharmaceutical companies" didn't make it into the AP/Oregonian report. Though, the AP report did include at least a hint of the argument for safety and certification that was important to Senators who supported the Cochran amendment. But, the Oregonian didn't think it important enough to include.

Is there really an argument for allowing food and drug imports to get to US consumers without passing the same health requirements that US products have to meet? Even with FDA standards we had the E. coli outbreak in 2006 not to mention recent contaminated pet food .

If we did away with the FDA, drugs would be a lot cheaper in the US too. But, is cheaper the main priority? If so, there are a lot of federal agencies that we could eliminate and save even more money.

There were substantive issues involved that the Oregonian staff didn't think worthy of inclusion. For a slightly more balanced view read the Washington Times article.

If this really is a pharmaceutical company vs. public interest issue, why did so many Democrats vote with Republicans for the amendment? All under the thumb of the pharmaceutical industry?

The Good Guy-Bad Guy template that the Oregonian is using not only does not give a clear picture of news, it actually distorts news by omitting contrary evidence.

Sleepy Portland Soon to Balloon?

The US population growth trend in the last six years has been to sunny spots not known for rain or snow. Atlanta (up 21.0%), Houston (up 17.5%) and Dallas (up 16.3%) were the top three gainers among larger US metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2006. Much of the growth was due to immigration rather than shifts from other places in the US.

In spite of this data, Mark Abbott, of Oregon State University, and Eban Goodstein, of Lewis & Clark College, think mass migrations to Oregon may be on the horizon due to climate change.

"We expect more contention over water resources much like what we have seen in the Klamath Basin," said Mark Abbott, co-chair of the Governor's Climate Change Integration Group, which is examining what steps Oregon can take to prepare for a warming climate.

Abbott, the dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, said many people are concerned about a large migration of people into Oregon from areas that will be more heavily affected by climate change, such as the U.S. Southwest. Other questions include whether there will be "disproportionate impacts" on human health, such as more heat-related deaths and higher electricity costs among the elderly.

Eban Goodstein, an economics professor at Lewis & Clark College who is studying global warming's economic impacts, anticipates that migration into the region from cities such as Los Angeles and Phoenix will accelerate. "They're unsustainable communities right now in terms of their water supplies. And as temperatures warm up, I would imagine we would see more and more in-migration driven by climate," he said.

What’s interesting about Prof. Goodstein’s comments that both Los Angeles and Phoenix will be sources of migration is that those two cities happened to make the top 10 in population growth in their categories. Los Angeles came in #6 among the “most populated” cities with 4.7% growth and Phoenix came in #10 overall with a whopping 22.4% growth.

Even more interesting is that the one Oregon city that made the top 10 was Bend with a 29.3% population growth. Bend, of course, is on the border between Oregon’s “have” and “have-not” areas of significant water resources--more high desert plateau than rainy forest.

Abbott, Goodstein and other Pacific Northwest scientists and academicians are subscribing to the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which met recently in Brussels.

The Oregonian’s Richard Hill explains the panel’s findings this way:

The Pacific Northwest faces an intense tug of war over vanishing water supplies if the region continues to warm as forecasts show, dividing people west of the Cascades from those east as water "haves" and "have-nots." And even abundant water west of the Cascades may be stretched as people fleeing from drier, hotter regions of the U.S. find refuge here.

Scientists base this warning on findings to be released today in Brussels, Belgium, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a consortium of more than 2,000 climate scientists from 130 countries.

Among other things, the American Southwest will face dust bowl conditions as hotter temperatures rob as much as 20 percent of annual rain. But in the Northwest, dwindling mountain snowpack is expected to make summer water scarce especially east of the Cascades, challenging agriculture, river use and human habitation.
[emphasis mine]

Abbott and Goodstein, in true scientific fashion, are putting their assumptions to the test in following predictions which go against current population growth data. If they (and the other 2,000 IPCC climate scientists in the Brussels’ panel) are right, they should be congratulated for seeing beyond current population trends.

However, if there is not significant flight from those fast growing cities in the sun belt (e.g., Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles) to slower growing cities in the rain belt (like Portland), Abbott, Goodstein, et. al., will share in the time-honored “egg on face” syndrome for following trendy thinking rather the clear data right in front of them.

It will be interesting to follow up on these predictions.

For those who want a sample scorecard, here are 2000 to 2006 figures for top population growth cities:

Most populated
Atlanta 21.0%
Houston 17.5%
Dallas 16.3%
Washington 10.3%
Miami 9.1%
Los Angeles 4.7%
Chicago 4.5%
New York 2.7%
Philadelphia 2.5%
Detroit 0.4%

Top 10 Increases
St. George, Utah 39.8%
Greeley,Colo. 31.0%
Cape Coral, Fla. 29.6%
Bend, Ore. 29.3%
Las Vegas 29.2%
Provo, Utah 25.9%
Naples, Fla. 25.2%
Raleigh, N.C. 24.8%
Gainesville, Ga. 24.4%
Phoenix 24.2%

Castro Blasts Bio-Fuel Strategy

In an echo to the warnings that the global warming frenzy will keep electricity and fossil fuels from helping the poor in developing countries, Fidel Castro has blasted plans to ramp up bio-fuel use as "sinister".

"The sinister idea of converting food into combustible was definitively established as the economic line of the foreign policy of the United States," he writes.

The Cuban leader also notes that Cuba has also experimented with extracting ethanol from sugarcane.

“But if rich nations decide to import huge amounts of traditional food crops such as corn from developing countries to help meet their energy needs, it could have disastrous consequences for the world's poor,” Castro writes.

The problem is not only in importing food crops, but not exporting them. Already, the demand for corn for bio-fuel in the US has resulted in skyrocketing tortilla prices in Mexico--where the tortilla is the main source of calories for many of the poor.

Hmm. Maybe the recent Senate hearings on Global Warming and related policies should have included Fidel Castro--not to mention Mexican President Calderon.

Al Gore's current "moral" crusade apparently doesn't weigh the impact on the poor. We need the corn. Let them eat cake.

Sulzberger Doesn’t Get It

In a front page article in yesterday’s Oregonian, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wonders why voters have elected Multnomah County commissioner Lonnie Roberts eleven times to public office.

Roberts says he doesn't know how to type and doesn't like to read. If he were any other county employee, his frequent absences would almost certainly cost him his job, but as one of their leaders he enjoys the insulation a four-year term provides. Voters in the wide swath of open land and fast-growing cities that make up east Multnomah County either haven't noticed or cared -- electing him nine times to the Oregon Legislature and twice to the county commission, often unopposed.

"He is very, very popular," said state Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, who decided not to run against Roberts in 2004. "The community loves him and will vote for him every time."

Sulzberger fails to understand County government. He doesn’t realize that some kinds of elected officials, especially policy makers, don’t do the kind of work where sitting at a desk 8 to 5 is important.

Unlike City of Portland commissioners who run bureaus, County commissioners are legislators--policy makers. They’re not administrators. Being accessible Monday through Friday, 8 to 5, is important for an administrator. Being at working and voting sessions is what’s important for a legislative policy maker. In a strange omission Sulzberger fails to mention how many County board meetings Roberts attends or how often he misses votes. Did Sulzberger even do research on that?

There hasn't been a big outcry from voters that Lonnie is only accessible half the year. One wonders if this isn't a tempest in Sulzberger's teacup.

Roberts’ results are in how he represents his district and the county. In fact, he’s the only county commissioner among those serving last term who the Oregonian didn’t think deserving of a recall vote for backroom political decisions. But, perhaps Sulzberger, fairly new to Multnomah County, doesn’t know about that.

Sulzberger has a peculiar way of presenting facts. He sniffs at Roberts starting as a "truck driver turned career politician."

In three decades of public life Roberts, a former truck driver turned career politician, earned a reputation as a likable though loafing leader, a backslapping good old boy more interested in the social than political elements of elected office.

That Roberts has done a fine job on the political elements too is shown by eleven electoral victories--and without a single major editorial favoring his recall. Not bad.

Of most interest is Sulzberger’s objection to the fact that Roberts has a trusted aide, Gary Walker, who does tons of high level work for Roberts and Multnomah County--for cheap.

County staff take all matters directly to Walker. He devours every document that crosses the commissioner's desk, picking only the most important to condense and share with his boss. He estimates he works twice the maximum 1,039 hours he can be paid under restrictions from his public retirement plan. For his efforts, Walker received a $35,000 bonus earlier this year -- by far the largest given to a county employee in memory and more than his $34,000 salary, which he set himself.

Here’s a guy getting only $34,000 a year (before bonus) for top level work--and lots of hours put in doing it. I wonder if Sulzberger bothered to check out the going rate for county salaries. The majority of Multnomah County workers, make more money than Walker. Even Multnomah County truck drivers (Lonnie's old position) make only $400/month less at entry level. With seniority, they actually make more than Walker.

Sulzberger is also upset that he (and possibly unnamed reporters who helped him on the story) had a hard time getting a private meeting with Roberts.

Three times, Roberts agreed to meet one on one with a reporter for this story. Three times, Walker canceled the meeting over Roberts' objections.

When Roberts finally did sit down alone, he explained his staff's protectiveness. "They get nervous about me. But I've done this for a long time."

A moment later, a visibly panicked Walker stormed in.

"You don't want anyone in here?" Walker asked Roberts.

"I don't need anyone in here," Roberts said.

"Let's get someone in here," Walker said.

Roberts laughed. "I got a baby sitter."

Reading this story, it’s clear that Walker was right. Sulzberger wanted to do a hit piece on Roberts, without any context of the backroom, dysfunctional county government that Lonnie Roberts has stood in contrast to for more years than is comfortable to recall.

Roberts has also stood up for east county issues against the more populous west county steamroller--something City Commissioner Randy Leonard also frequently notes. But that flies over Sulzberger’s head.

The question is not “Why have voters elected Roberts again and again?” The question is why an Oregonian reporter thinks a lone commissioner practicing above board, open government and standing up for his constituents is not contributing positively to political and civic issues.

Scott Ott for President!

See Scrappleface.com

Gone and Forgotten?

Thomas Anthony Casoria




In the Washington Post Anne Applebaum ends her Tuesday, March 20, 2007, column Tortured Credibility with an interesting point.

. . . Who could have imagined, in September 2001, that one of the deadliest terrorists in history would admit to the destruction of the World Trade Center--and that the world would shrug its shoulders?

She thinks it is due to the possibility that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was tortured.

Even if he was not tortured, he was held in secret, extralegal conditions, possible in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, certainly under nothing resembling what we in the United States normally consider the rule of law. The mystery surrounding his interrogation--when it was carried out, how and by whom--renders any confession he makes completely null, either in a court of law or in the court of international public opinion.

I don’t think it’s due to that at all.

Here’s a reality check. If the US captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow, do you think there would be joy in the international community? Hardly.

How about in the US? Despite the trumpeting of Democrats that the Bush administration lost focus on the war on terror by going into Iraq instead of going after bin Laden, if he were captured tomorrow, would Demos be partying? I think not. There would be one fairly gigantic yawn.

The problem is not torture. The problem is that no one cares about the victims anymore. It has been more than five years. The world’s attention span has long passed. The victims are gone and forgotten. Why should world opinion care about capture of someone responsible for killing almost 3,000 people on 9/11--be it Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or bin Laden?

Last year for the 5th anniversary of 9/11, a conservative blogger started a movement to honor each of the 9/11 victims. This blog honored the hero Thomas Anthony Casoria, a 29 year old fire fighter who died trying to save lives at the World Trade Center.

But thoughts of Casoria and the other 2,995 heros and victims don’t raise hackles or ring bells anymore. Even the New York Times, which did the wonderful individual tribute to each 9/11 victim in 2001, did not bother to reach in its archives and individually honor the victims on the 5th anniversary of their death--not even by listing their names. They’re old news, not interesting.

More than that, the world has come to believe that it is the right of terrorists to terrorize. Whatever grief there is for the victims is personal--from their family and friends.

The world’s opinion makers have lost their moral bearings. It’s not “possible” torture or less than pristine prison conditions that caused the world to “shrug its shoulders”. It’s self-centeredness and a willingness to excuse terrorism. One can see it even the holocaust. For decades Hitler’s killing of millions of people in concentration camps evoked anger and disgust. Not anymore.

Shame on world opinion makers for not caring about the victims--and on Anne Applebaum for excusing them.