Now that the shoe is on the other foot, four councilors and their supporters have been treated to much whining and gnashing of teeth by Brocato supporters. Many complaints center around the process by which Mr. Brocato was removed, citing a lack of public input and that the action surprised some with it's suddenness. The Baker City Herald picked up on the theme, first brought up at Tuesday's Council meeting by Brocato patrons, in Friday's editorial, "Council didn't quite make its case." See http://www.bakercityherald.com/Editorials/Council-didn-t-quite-make-its-case
While the Herald acknowledges that the Council, by majority vote, "can fire the city manager any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all" their Editorial Board stated that "The four councilors should have told Brocato on May 26 that if he didn’t substantially improve in the areas where his ratings were lowest, and within a reasonable time — two months, say — then he could expect the Council to consider a motion to fire him."
I'm a bit of a process freak myself, so I'm not going to say its a bad suggestion for a Council to consider, but neither I, the Herald Editorial Board, nor a group of disgruntled employees and other patrons, happen to have been elected to make the hard decisions for Baker City--the Council was.
Assuming for a moment that public input, warnings and giving time for an employee to improve their performance are worthy standards to be followed in such matters, why not inquire as to how Mr. Brocato himself, and earlier Councils have measured up to those standards?
As for public input, Mr. Brocato has been the individual most often involved in denying input from members of the public who disagree with him. The Vicky Valenzuela incident comes rapidly to mind, but there are many others. One is the way he denied help and representation to Ron Calder at the May 26th Council Meeting. Recently in fact, one might think that the ex-City Manager invented the phrase "Point of Order, Mr. Mayor" due to the number of times he has used it to deny public input at Council Meetings.
And what about firings without warning?
You may remember the sudden firing of both City Attorney David Fine and City Planner Evan McKenzie by then City Manager Brocato. Here is how the Herald described the situation in their article "City loses two more administrators" from September 25, 2007. (http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/City-loses-two-more-administrators):
"Brocato, in an e-mail Monday, announced that he fired Planning Director Evan MacKenzie and City Attorney David Fine on Friday.
Brocato declined to say why he terminated the two, although he said there was no specific incident that led to either MacKenzie's or Fine's termination.
"This is a personnel matter, I can't really talk about it," Brocato said."
The article also mentions that "Troy Phillips, the economic development coordinator for Baker City and Baker County, resigned" at Mr. Brocato's urging just a month earlier. Mr. Brocato's explanation, in one of his famously mysterious moments: "My style is moving in a different place than Troy's circumstances." I see.
The Case Of Mr. Zimmerman
To the best of my knowledge, the last City Manager, prior to Mr. Brocato, who was actually asked to resign/fired was Gordon Zimmerman. In any event, Jayson Jacoby wrote an article about the firing on March 12, 2003. See "Council forces city manager out" http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Council-forces-city-manager-out
On the element of surprise, Mr. Jaycoby wrote: "It started as a routine Tuesday for Baker City Manager Gordon Zimmerman, but before noon his 4 1/2-year tenure, to his surprise, had ended. . . . . Tuesday's announcement shocked city officials."
He had been at one point, a few years earlier, placed on probation, but as his evaluations were continually improving, there may not have appeared to be any reason to suspect an imminent change in employment status. The article states, in contrast to specific reasons cited by some members of the current Council in Brocato's case, that "Ellingson declined to list specific reasons why the council sought to replace Zimmerman."
While the article states that Ellingson discussed the matter individually with Councilors at the time, there is no indication that anyone thought it proper to sue the Council for violating the public meeting law, as Milo Pope and others seem to think it is in this case.
Contrasting again with the Brocato case, Zimmerman, however, was gracious in accepting the request for resignation: "When the council says it's time to go, it's time to go," he said. "There comes a time when the council wants to choose their own man." (ibid)
So while the standards cited may be reasonable, it is clear that Mr. Brocato has not, in important cases, seen fit to rise to them, and neither has the City. I guess that's the way democracy works here, even when the shoe is on the other foot.
More Video and Information on Brocato Firing
Councilor Bonebrake Responds to Milo Pope
In this video, Councilor Aletha Bonebrake responds here to wild statements, threats and intimidation issued by Councilor Pope. Mr. Pope had previously gone through a long list of complaints and alleged violations of statutes related to four of our City Councilors voting to remove City Manager Brocato.
"There was no public meeting.... it doesn't matter how many statutes you cite."
"We did not vote to retain Mr. Brocato--we simply voted to accept the evaluation."
"Mr. Brocato ... is very defensive and will not really receive information nor permit people to impart information."
"Its really inappropriate to be forced by word and action to move more quickly on a topic than we are ready to do--we are after all, the policy group for the City, and policy is our job."
"Even today, as we went into Mr. Brocato's office, . . . the first thing that happened was that we were berated . . . without even finding out why we were there. This is the nature of the dysfunction of Council and City relationship."
"I find it next to impossible to do the job I was elected to do with the stonewalling that I receive in trying to simply to get information and ask questions."
Councilor Bonebrake Responds to Milo Pope
Bryan Suggests Successful Councilors "Incompetent" etc. -- Pot Calling Kettle Black?
Councilor Andrew Bryan berates Council--Appears to Violate City Ordinance 3407.
Councilor Calder Responds to Andrew Bryan
In this video, Beverly Calder reminds the Council that City Ordinance 3407 requires that Counciors treat the public and each other with respect after Andrew Bryan announces that the Council is "incompetent" and etc. She also reminds Andrew that three of the sitting Councilors have over four years under their belts.
Interesting also that Mr Bryan would use the word incompetent with reference to successful business people and a woman who is largely credited as being the driving force behind the creation of the Baker County Library, and who was its director during the time it developed into a greatly valued public institution. While not the only way to establish competence, being able to run successful businesses for several years, as well as being able to establish and run a County library, certainly shows that a person is competent enough to be a Councilor. It is also worth noting, that both Beverly Calder and Aletha Bonebrake were the top vote-getters in their respective runs for office.
Councilor Calder Responds to Andrew Bryan
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Council Declines to Reconsider Firing of City Manager
In a special meeting of the City Council this morning, four Councilors stuck firmly to Tuesday's decision to fire former City Manager Steve Brocato. The large crowd, primarily consisting of Brocato supporters, was far better behaved than that observed Tuesday, with only one large outburst during the meeting. The following YouTube video is of the vote at the beginning of the meeting, along with a reminder to Councilors about the decorum required. The latter has been repeatedly violated in recent weeks, with Councilor Bryan going to far as to call the Council incompetent at Tuesday's meeting.
City Manager Collins explains Explains Charter to Council
At the emergency meeting held this morning to discuss the City Manager position, there were questions raised about whether 3 members of the Council, Mr. Pope, Mr, Bass, and Mr. Bryan, could force Councilors Dorrah, Calder, Bonebrake and Button to take up reconsideration of the firing of Mr. Brocato simply because the three had put that item on the agenda. Mr. Collins explained that a majority of the Council could decide not to reconsider the firing yet again.
[In this video, Mr Collins disappears from the screen about half way through. That wasn't in the original video on YouTube which can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKrt1hc8WX8 .]
More may be posted about this meeting as time allows.
City Manager Collins explains Explains Charter to Council
At the emergency meeting held this morning to discuss the City Manager position, there were questions raised about whether 3 members of the Council, Mr. Pope, Mr, Bass, and Mr. Bryan, could force Councilors Dorrah, Calder, Bonebrake and Button to take up reconsideration of the firing of Mr. Brocato simply because the three had put that item on the agenda. Mr. Collins explained that a majority of the Council could decide not to reconsider the firing yet again.
[In this video, Mr Collins disappears from the screen about half way through. That wasn't in the original video on YouTube which can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKrt1hc8WX8 .]
More may be posted about this meeting as time allows.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Brocato Fired! Pope to Sue. . . . Divisions Likely to Deepen. (Updated)
Last night, in what must be one of the most remarkable displays of courage by a Baker City Council in many years, four Council members stood up in the face of well orchestrated opposition from meticulously groomed and some say, bought-off, City employees, and other minions. To the surprise of many, they voted to fire the City Manager. After 2 plus years of turmoil and poor treatment by the City Manager of Councilors and citizens alike, a majority of the Council finally said "Enough is Enough" and elected to exercise the power given them by the City Charter. What follows are a few short excerpts of the meeting, which do not include what appeared to be unprofessional attitudes displayed by City employees toward the City councilors who voted to remove the man responsible for their recent generous bonuses, salary increases, and other perks in the face of our current deep recession.
Milo Pope, with Andrew Bryan's Support, Vows to Sue Fellow Council Members
Milo Pope alleged that there must have been a violation of the State's public meeting laws and stated, "I'm going to sue you all!"
Planning Director Resigns
Planning Director Don Chance was brought in from elsewhere by ex-City Manager Steve Brocato. His charge, under the umbrella of revamping and "modernizing" our planning ordinances, was to change the face of Baker City so as to make it more appealing to those not comfortable with the lifestyles of Baker City's low income residents. He is a primary architect of the new property maintenance ordinance created largely at the behest of real estate and redevelopment interests, and those who don't understand that many low income people here are simply doing the best they can with the hand that they have been dealt in life. If the ordinance passes in its current form, the poor will likely be swept out of Baker City, and unfortunately, for many, there is no where else to go. All this to make their town more attractive to outsiders like Mr. Chance and his assistant, Mike Pena, so that developers and speculators can attract more buyers from urban areas.
Mr. Brocato went out of his way to accommodate the needs of Mr. Chance so he could live in Washington State. Although Mr. Brocato promoted Mr. Chance as a person with a stake, and with concern for the people of Baker City, according to the Assessor's records, he doesn't own property in Baker County. Mr. Brocato arranged to privatize the Planning Department under Mr. Chance so that He could spend more time at home with his wife in Washington.
Patronage in Baker City
Mr. Brocato purchased his constituency on the backs of Baker City taxpayers by giving promotions, bonuses and raises to the city staff that works directly under him, by giving generous cost of living raises to contract employees, and by providing an expensive new building to the Police Department. Not all city employees care for Mr. Brocato, of course, and many chose not to participate in the spectacle, despite pressure from above. The impression given by many higher echelon employees at the meeting, and reiterated by some on the Council, was that the worth of Baker City all revolves around the administrative city staff, and that they, instead of elected officials, should be making the decision about whether the City Manager goes or stays. Among the recipients of the raises, bonuses, and/or promotions, included, among others, Jennifer Watkins, Jeanne Dexter, the Police Chief and the Fire Chief, all of whom were very vocal supporters of their patron at the Council meeting. But even then, their public statements may not reflect their true feelings in every case, because after all, if Mr. Brocato had been retained, their continued employment would still be at his whim. If asked to show up to defend him, what were they supposed to do?
Jennifer Watkins, the new Assistant City Manager, who was a triple winner last year, with a promotion, a bonus, and a raise, clearly stepped outside the bounds of professional conduct in her advocacy for Mr. Brocato during the meeting. Others were disruptive beyond anything seen in recent years at a City Council meeting. For better or for worse, their well orchestrated show and disruption was not seen by Baker City residents, as they likely intended, because the meeting was not broadcast, apparently due to technical difficulties.
The following is a clip of some of their antics. Note that the words "Point of order, Mr. Mayor," are not forthcoming from Mr. Brocato, Mr. Bryan, or Mr. Pope. Those words are reserved for viewpoints they don't like. Also note that as the camera whizzes by, both Mr. Brocato and Ms.Watkins have joined in the disruption by clapping, which is behavior Ms. Watkins engaged in throughout the proceeding. It was good to see her finally becoming a protector of free speech when the Mayor decided not to cooperate with the spectacle that the city employees had arranged. Notice also how Rich Langrell was removed from the area of the Council by the Police Chief when two other citizens were allowed to harangue the Council at their seats.
Giving unwarranted or ill-advised bonuses, raises and promotions to City employees is a legal form of the patronage system made famous by ex Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and many earlier scalawags. In this case, city employees, most exceedingly well compensated by Baker City employment standards, were asked to come to the Council meeting by department heads or others to engage in political activity on behalf of their patron, Steve Brocato. It is a game that is as old as human civilization itself, and most Baker City citizens can clearly see right though the self-serving, obsequious behavior.
One such citizen was Richard Langrell.
Langrell on the "slimy underbelly" of Baker City:
Langrell on Property Maintenance Ordinance:
At the end of the meeting, three Councilors talk about the decision and the Council.
For a good Herald article about Brocato's removal, see City Council fires Brocato, http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/City-Council-fires-Brocato .
I hope to fill in the blanks as time becomes available, but the rest of the week is tentatively booked.
Milo Pope, with Andrew Bryan's Support, Vows to Sue Fellow Council Members
Milo Pope alleged that there must have been a violation of the State's public meeting laws and stated, "I'm going to sue you all!"
Planning Director Resigns
Planning Director Don Chance was brought in from elsewhere by ex-City Manager Steve Brocato. His charge, under the umbrella of revamping and "modernizing" our planning ordinances, was to change the face of Baker City so as to make it more appealing to those not comfortable with the lifestyles of Baker City's low income residents. He is a primary architect of the new property maintenance ordinance created largely at the behest of real estate and redevelopment interests, and those who don't understand that many low income people here are simply doing the best they can with the hand that they have been dealt in life. If the ordinance passes in its current form, the poor will likely be swept out of Baker City, and unfortunately, for many, there is no where else to go. All this to make their town more attractive to outsiders like Mr. Chance and his assistant, Mike Pena, so that developers and speculators can attract more buyers from urban areas.
Mr. Brocato went out of his way to accommodate the needs of Mr. Chance so he could live in Washington State. Although Mr. Brocato promoted Mr. Chance as a person with a stake, and with concern for the people of Baker City, according to the Assessor's records, he doesn't own property in Baker County. Mr. Brocato arranged to privatize the Planning Department under Mr. Chance so that He could spend more time at home with his wife in Washington.
Patronage in Baker City
Mr. Brocato purchased his constituency on the backs of Baker City taxpayers by giving promotions, bonuses and raises to the city staff that works directly under him, by giving generous cost of living raises to contract employees, and by providing an expensive new building to the Police Department. Not all city employees care for Mr. Brocato, of course, and many chose not to participate in the spectacle, despite pressure from above. The impression given by many higher echelon employees at the meeting, and reiterated by some on the Council, was that the worth of Baker City all revolves around the administrative city staff, and that they, instead of elected officials, should be making the decision about whether the City Manager goes or stays. Among the recipients of the raises, bonuses, and/or promotions, included, among others, Jennifer Watkins, Jeanne Dexter, the Police Chief and the Fire Chief, all of whom were very vocal supporters of their patron at the Council meeting. But even then, their public statements may not reflect their true feelings in every case, because after all, if Mr. Brocato had been retained, their continued employment would still be at his whim. If asked to show up to defend him, what were they supposed to do?
Jennifer Watkins, the new Assistant City Manager, who was a triple winner last year, with a promotion, a bonus, and a raise, clearly stepped outside the bounds of professional conduct in her advocacy for Mr. Brocato during the meeting. Others were disruptive beyond anything seen in recent years at a City Council meeting. For better or for worse, their well orchestrated show and disruption was not seen by Baker City residents, as they likely intended, because the meeting was not broadcast, apparently due to technical difficulties.
The following is a clip of some of their antics. Note that the words "Point of order, Mr. Mayor," are not forthcoming from Mr. Brocato, Mr. Bryan, or Mr. Pope. Those words are reserved for viewpoints they don't like. Also note that as the camera whizzes by, both Mr. Brocato and Ms.Watkins have joined in the disruption by clapping, which is behavior Ms. Watkins engaged in throughout the proceeding. It was good to see her finally becoming a protector of free speech when the Mayor decided not to cooperate with the spectacle that the city employees had arranged. Notice also how Rich Langrell was removed from the area of the Council by the Police Chief when two other citizens were allowed to harangue the Council at their seats.
Giving unwarranted or ill-advised bonuses, raises and promotions to City employees is a legal form of the patronage system made famous by ex Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and many earlier scalawags. In this case, city employees, most exceedingly well compensated by Baker City employment standards, were asked to come to the Council meeting by department heads or others to engage in political activity on behalf of their patron, Steve Brocato. It is a game that is as old as human civilization itself, and most Baker City citizens can clearly see right though the self-serving, obsequious behavior.
One such citizen was Richard Langrell.
Langrell on the "slimy underbelly" of Baker City:
Langrell on Property Maintenance Ordinance:
At the end of the meeting, three Councilors talk about the decision and the Council.
For a good Herald article about Brocato's removal, see City Council fires Brocato, http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/City-Council-fires-Brocato .
I hope to fill in the blanks as time becomes available, but the rest of the week is tentatively booked.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Democracy In Baker City, Plus Calder Update (YouTube)
Events in the last few weeks here in Baker City provide a glimpse of how "democracy" functions in my small town. Given the way Ron Calder and myself have been treated, I want to allow interested people to watch what goes on for themselves. To do that, I have created a few YouTube videos about two related incidents that readers can view. The first may provide a little context for those that follow.
The first video concerns the commitment to citizen participation shown by the City Manager and some Council members, and raises questions as to whether any of them read and follow their own guiding principles. The clip is from a Council "work session" about our new "war on the poor" property maintenance ordinance that took place on Tuesday, May 19, 2009.
On April 23, 2009, Assistant City Manager Jennifer Watkins wrote to me saying that "These work sessions are open to the public. However, as you will note in the principles, the Council decided to limit public input during these particular sessions." She also attached the "Work Session Principles.doc" for me to read, which I did.
The second paragraph states:
"These principles have been created by the Council to ensure that the public may participate in the process while providing the Council an opportunity to dialogue with staff about decisions that are significant to the entire community."
Under "Rules of Procedure" the fifth rule states:
"• At the end of each work session, ten minutes will be set aside for the public to comment on the item at hand. Comments should be brief, lasting only a few minutes per person."
OK, fair enough. It's a work session, so they don't want to add a lot of public discussion while they work through an issue amongst themselves. They do however offer the public an opportunity to comment on the subject of the work session at the end of the meeting. So how well did their expressed desire "to ensure that the public may participate in the process" work out?
The first thing is that they scheduled them at 9 AM in the morning, thus eliminating participation by most working people. The second is that Assistant City Manager Jennifer Watkins sent a notice to the local paper announcing that the work session was going to be held on the day after the session was actually going to take place. The paper dutifully reported what they had been told to alert the public of the meeting, and so the public thought it was on Wednesday rather than Tuesday, which is when it occurred. Then lastly, after I was the only citizen to show up, they denied me the opportunity to participate at the end of the meeting.
I believe the clip shows how Baker City government shuts down public participation by people they dont think support their agenda, which I often don't, and they are aware that I do not support the new ordinance as written. In the video you will see the ex Circuit Court Judge, Herr Pope (he's the guy in the baseball cap who said "Nein!"), the Mayor, who adjourned the meeting, and the City Manager (He's the fellow with his back to the camera) deny me the very right to speak that is proclaimed in their own work session guiding principles. What you don't see, due to the direction of the Camera, is the City Manager immediately shaking his head to indicate "No" when I asked if they were going to allow public participation.
The City Manager tried to rationalize shutting me down by mumbling something about comments having to be in writing, but that restriction (rule 4) is for people who want their input considered during the work session discussion:
"• Interested parties may submit written comments to the City Recorder no later than the Friday before the work session. These comments will be shared with the Council for their consideration."
You see, in Baker City, public participation is all about whether or not certain Councilors and the City Manager think they are going to like what you have to say. If they think you are supportive of their latest project, you receive a fine reception. (It is my understanding that the City Manager actually solicits friends and acquaintances to provide positive public comment on his favored projects.) If you are not supportive, or if they consider you beyond the pale, etc., they shut you down ASAP, often in a hostile, rude, or provocative manner. Note also that although the elected Mayor is supposed to be in charge, the ex-Judge and the City Manager made the immediate decision to violate their own guiding principles. Later the Mayor told me it wouldn't happen again, which, so far, is as close to an apology as the marginalized can get in Baker City.
City Attorney - Ordinance "Silly" & "Inane"
Ron Not Notified of hearing - Brocato says "I don't know what else we can do."
Prior to Ron Calder's appeal hearing, the City Attorney advises the Council and describes the Discarded Vehicle 0rdinance, 2686, which was used to cite him, as "silly" and "inane" (and later "goofy") because the Ordinance, a city law, states that the appeal is to be heard in front of the City Council. The audio gap in the clip is there because I removed the name of the attorney who spoke with Mr. Calder at the point after the City Attorney says "I received a call at about four . . . ." (Some cities object to indecency in a citizen, the powers that be in Baker City object to oppositional decency or simple fairness rearing its ugly head. Therefore, I don't see any reason to focus attention on a decent person who offers to give legal help to an essentially powerless human at this time.)
The City also suggests that Ron Calder was advised verbally of his right to appeal to Circuit Court and of the date for a hearing in front of the Council. Ron remembers neither. At his previous court appearance, he was given a copy of the ordinance which advises that his appeal is to go to City Council, which is why he appealed to them. I was with him when he turned in the Appeal to the City and I don't recall him being informed of a hearing date--that's why Ron didn't know about it until the night before the hearing. He was out of town that day and he heard about the possibility when he got home that evening. I had advised his girlfriend that they may hold his hearing after looking at the Council agenda and reading the newspaper that afternoon. The City Attorney apparently wasn't even sure of it on the day of the council meeting.
When Councilor Calder, no relation to Ron, brings out an admission by City staff that they didn't give Ron written notice of the appeal hearing date, City Manager Brocato lamely and arguementively responds that "Its on the agenda—I dont know what else we can do." (Whoops, someone forgot to shout "Point of order, Mr. Mayor!") The ex-Judge, Milo Pope, seems unconcerned that no written notice was given because he says, "He's here." The thing is, Mr. Calder showed up with little time for preparation not because he though it was proper not to give him written notice, but only because he figured they might deny his appeal if he didn't appear. Turns out it didn't matter because the lawyer who offered to help him on short notice couldn't appear, and the majority of the Council apparently doesn't think due process is important. We'll hopefully find out from a higher court that due process is still alive in Baker City and that what they could have done is what any reasonable and lawful governmental agency would have done—send Mr. Calder a timely written notice of when he was to appear at an appeal hearing so that he would have had a chance to be ready to defend himself.
Kangaroo Court for Ron Calder
Let's Get This Show On The Road!
The next video shows how City Manager Brocato and his assistant, took advantage of Mr. Calder, and how the Mayor, among the silent Councilors, allowed them to do it. It is important to remember that City Staff and the Council had been informed of Mr. Calder's disability and his cognitive issues in the written appeal (only a small portion was included in the clip). Also, please keep in mind that while the City Attorney described Officer Shannon Regan as meticulously prepared to defend the City's actions, Mr. Calder was not given written notice, did not know about the hearing until the night prior the Council meeting, and was not given the opportunity to be prepared.
(please note also how the City Manager shuts down a simple question to the City Attorney by a polite citizen in the audience with "Point of order, Mr. Mayor!")
What viewers, the audience, and the Council probably didn't know was that the lawyer who spoke with him in the late afternoon had given him instructions on what he should say to the court, and also, that Ron had asked me to help him do that. He asked me to help him with the appeal hearing for three reasons. Because of some personal issues, including difficulty reading and writing, he had me help him write the original appeal to the Council, and if needed, he wanted me there to help explain questions. Secondly, because he had difficulty reading, he asked that I read what the attorney had just that afternoon written for him to tell the Council. Lastly, he has difficulty hearing--he wasn't even sure what was being said some of the time! I was prepared to read the new information and assist him with his appeal in front of the Council. Again, Council and staff had been informed of the personal issues and should have understood he needed assistance.
After Ron approached the Council and had almost nothing to say, I said "Excuse me, may I say something?" That was an effort to let them know Ron needed and had asked for my help. The Mayor, without hesitation, loudly said "No!" I felt that it was my duty to tell them then that Ron needed help with his statement. In watching the video, please note that when the Mayor asked him if he needed someone to assist him with his statement, he answered "OK" and looked at me for that assistance. He also turned toward another person in the audience who had been helping him. At that moment, the City Manager interrupted and diverted attention from the fact that Ron wanted assistance. He did so by offering to read the earlier appeal. Instead of the Mayor acknowledging that Ron had indicated he wanted my help, the Mayor allowed the City Manager to prevent assistance to Ron and he had the appeal read. Of course Ron had no objection to the reading of the appeal when asked, but the fact remains that he indicated he wanted my assistance and was denied it.
After more protests, the Mayor followed-up on his earlier threat to have me removed. He justified his behavior by saying "Mr. Calder had . . . an offer to have someone come forward and he chose to read the appeal instead." Well, no, what actually happened was that he allowed them to read the appeal after they ignored and interrupted his indication that he did want my assistance. If the following video does not display all the information, you can view it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEU8TDqkNOA&feature=channel_page
As you know, Ron was granted a 60 day extension by the Council, with only Aletha Bonebrake and Bev Calder having voted to dismiss. (Both had made statements about the situation, not all of which are presented here.) Councilor Bonebrake pointed out that the citation didn't comply with the ordinance in that it didn't identify which vehicles were inoperable, that there was no evidence presented that vehicles were inoperable, that officer Regan could have asked for a warrant to further inspect the property, and that Ron was not informed of his right to a trial by jury as outlined in another ordinance and in State law. She also noted that the City would need to cite every other person in the City who finds their self in a similar situation, that due to abatement costs even existing cases could prove to be very expensive for the City in at least the short term, and that that the 6% per annum interest applied to liens on properties might result in the City owning homes outright when a person dies. Councilor Calder cited the fact that Mr. Calder wasn't given notice and thus was not prepared to defend himself, that he hadn't been notified of his right to a jury trial, and didn't understand his rights. She also noted that specific vehicles were not identified, that he had made good progress in recent months, and that the City could use a more organic and positive approach and offer assistance to troubled property owners.
Councilor Button had offered an amended motion that included the notion that Mr. Calder would have to forfeit his constitutional rights so that a police officer could have access to his property, without a warrant, so as to inspect for further violations. His motion was approved by himself along with Councilor's Bryan, Bass, and Dorrah. After Baker City citizen Steve Culley noted that the provision was unconstitutional during his comments to Council, Mr. Button acknowledged that, and apologized for authoring that section of the approved motion, saying it was a "grave error." But, contrary to what was written in the paper on May 27, i. e.: "Button later withdrew that part of his motion due to questions about whether it is constitutional," that language had not been withdrawn from the motion, and no new motion had replaced it, by the end of the meeting. Although Councilor Button talked about an additional bit of business (to alter the motion I presume) that needed to be conducted, that business was not conducted. Mr. Brocato instead told the Council that staff would review the language, make sure that Mr. Calder's rights were communicated to him, and pass information about correction to the court. Is staff then going to vote on their corrections before communicating with the court? Seems a bit odd that staff would be rewriting Council motions and then bypassing the Council's role to approve it with a new vote, don't you think? Well, not too odd, considering that the City Manager and his assistant are already, for all intents and purposes, running the "show" anyway.
As it now stands, in a gesture of unusual generosity for Baker City, a local attorney has told Ron that he will handle his appeal to the Circuit Court for no charge. Perhaps he will be able to bring due process back to Baker City.
A few citizens commented on the property maintenance ordinance.
Steve Culley commented on the ordinance and also commented on the treatment received by Ron Calder.
"I've been out cruising around NE Oregon looking for a place to live so that I can eliminate one level of government from my life. . . . The first thing here is that a lot of this is just plain subjectivity stuff, you know, . . . I just see a demographic change in my part of the country . . . and I've got a lot of new progressives coming in and they don't like the way my town looks and all that, and I'm really sorry about that.
. . . there's an appeals process, and what I watched tonight I don't like. This guy . . .clearly needed some legal help. I think he asked Chris Christie to either to represent him, or at least help out, and he didn't get a chance to do that, and I think that was . . . kind of a violation of his civil rights. . . . And then you've got Clair . . . talking about . . . . you have to allow the police free access to . . . You can't do that--I mean we have a constitution of the United States. I mean if a guy says no, don't come on, go get a . . . warrant.
All of this stuff is just as subjective as you can get. . . . There's going to have to be some representation, legal, if a guy needs it . . . . . Usually people who get into this kind of situation . . . are near broke. Where's he going to move those trailer houses? Who's going to pay for it? He doesn't have the money. And democracy is limited to three minutes."
Barbara Fleming stated that she thinks "Baker City likes to be perceived as a friendly city" but "if they micromanage big brother government on private property. . . they might not be ... friendly. . . . The people most likely to get a fine are the ones who can least afford them. . . . You already have all the laws you need to protect citizens for health hazards. . . . I see us playing off each other's fears. . . . I think a friendly hand is more appropriate in these economic times." She suggested "mutual cooperation" as a better model.
Russ Murphy told the council of concerns that "it could become extremely subjective. . . ." "I'd like to see it be very objective with details spelled out." He also said he'd "like to see compassion" and "patience" for people, citing Councilor Calder for being compassionate. He "would like to see a citizens review board" made up of the various socio-economic groups" and the enforcement should "not be nit-picky."
Corrections:
Corrected "County Judge" in paragraph 8 to "Circuit Court Judge." 6/8/09
(Blog in progress)
The first video concerns the commitment to citizen participation shown by the City Manager and some Council members, and raises questions as to whether any of them read and follow their own guiding principles. The clip is from a Council "work session" about our new "war on the poor" property maintenance ordinance that took place on Tuesday, May 19, 2009.
On April 23, 2009, Assistant City Manager Jennifer Watkins wrote to me saying that "These work sessions are open to the public. However, as you will note in the principles, the Council decided to limit public input during these particular sessions." She also attached the "Work Session Principles.doc" for me to read, which I did.
The second paragraph states:
"These principles have been created by the Council to ensure that the public may participate in the process while providing the Council an opportunity to dialogue with staff about decisions that are significant to the entire community."
Under "Rules of Procedure" the fifth rule states:
"• At the end of each work session, ten minutes will be set aside for the public to comment on the item at hand. Comments should be brief, lasting only a few minutes per person."
OK, fair enough. It's a work session, so they don't want to add a lot of public discussion while they work through an issue amongst themselves. They do however offer the public an opportunity to comment on the subject of the work session at the end of the meeting. So how well did their expressed desire "to ensure that the public may participate in the process" work out?
The first thing is that they scheduled them at 9 AM in the morning, thus eliminating participation by most working people. The second is that Assistant City Manager Jennifer Watkins sent a notice to the local paper announcing that the work session was going to be held on the day after the session was actually going to take place. The paper dutifully reported what they had been told to alert the public of the meeting, and so the public thought it was on Wednesday rather than Tuesday, which is when it occurred. Then lastly, after I was the only citizen to show up, they denied me the opportunity to participate at the end of the meeting.
I believe the clip shows how Baker City government shuts down public participation by people they dont think support their agenda, which I often don't, and they are aware that I do not support the new ordinance as written. In the video you will see the ex Circuit Court Judge, Herr Pope (he's the guy in the baseball cap who said "Nein!"), the Mayor, who adjourned the meeting, and the City Manager (He's the fellow with his back to the camera) deny me the very right to speak that is proclaimed in their own work session guiding principles. What you don't see, due to the direction of the Camera, is the City Manager immediately shaking his head to indicate "No" when I asked if they were going to allow public participation.
The City Manager tried to rationalize shutting me down by mumbling something about comments having to be in writing, but that restriction (rule 4) is for people who want their input considered during the work session discussion:
"• Interested parties may submit written comments to the City Recorder no later than the Friday before the work session. These comments will be shared with the Council for their consideration."
You see, in Baker City, public participation is all about whether or not certain Councilors and the City Manager think they are going to like what you have to say. If they think you are supportive of their latest project, you receive a fine reception. (It is my understanding that the City Manager actually solicits friends and acquaintances to provide positive public comment on his favored projects.) If you are not supportive, or if they consider you beyond the pale, etc., they shut you down ASAP, often in a hostile, rude, or provocative manner. Note also that although the elected Mayor is supposed to be in charge, the ex-Judge and the City Manager made the immediate decision to violate their own guiding principles. Later the Mayor told me it wouldn't happen again, which, so far, is as close to an apology as the marginalized can get in Baker City.
City Attorney - Ordinance "Silly" & "Inane"
Ron Not Notified of hearing - Brocato says "I don't know what else we can do."
Prior to Ron Calder's appeal hearing, the City Attorney advises the Council and describes the Discarded Vehicle 0rdinance, 2686, which was used to cite him, as "silly" and "inane" (and later "goofy") because the Ordinance, a city law, states that the appeal is to be heard in front of the City Council. The audio gap in the clip is there because I removed the name of the attorney who spoke with Mr. Calder at the point after the City Attorney says "I received a call at about four . . . ." (Some cities object to indecency in a citizen, the powers that be in Baker City object to oppositional decency or simple fairness rearing its ugly head. Therefore, I don't see any reason to focus attention on a decent person who offers to give legal help to an essentially powerless human at this time.)
The City also suggests that Ron Calder was advised verbally of his right to appeal to Circuit Court and of the date for a hearing in front of the Council. Ron remembers neither. At his previous court appearance, he was given a copy of the ordinance which advises that his appeal is to go to City Council, which is why he appealed to them. I was with him when he turned in the Appeal to the City and I don't recall him being informed of a hearing date--that's why Ron didn't know about it until the night before the hearing. He was out of town that day and he heard about the possibility when he got home that evening. I had advised his girlfriend that they may hold his hearing after looking at the Council agenda and reading the newspaper that afternoon. The City Attorney apparently wasn't even sure of it on the day of the council meeting.
When Councilor Calder, no relation to Ron, brings out an admission by City staff that they didn't give Ron written notice of the appeal hearing date, City Manager Brocato lamely and arguementively responds that "Its on the agenda—I dont know what else we can do." (Whoops, someone forgot to shout "Point of order, Mr. Mayor!") The ex-Judge, Milo Pope, seems unconcerned that no written notice was given because he says, "He's here." The thing is, Mr. Calder showed up with little time for preparation not because he though it was proper not to give him written notice, but only because he figured they might deny his appeal if he didn't appear. Turns out it didn't matter because the lawyer who offered to help him on short notice couldn't appear, and the majority of the Council apparently doesn't think due process is important. We'll hopefully find out from a higher court that due process is still alive in Baker City and that what they could have done is what any reasonable and lawful governmental agency would have done—send Mr. Calder a timely written notice of when he was to appear at an appeal hearing so that he would have had a chance to be ready to defend himself.
Kangaroo Court for Ron Calder
Let's Get This Show On The Road!
The next video shows how City Manager Brocato and his assistant, took advantage of Mr. Calder, and how the Mayor, among the silent Councilors, allowed them to do it. It is important to remember that City Staff and the Council had been informed of Mr. Calder's disability and his cognitive issues in the written appeal (only a small portion was included in the clip). Also, please keep in mind that while the City Attorney described Officer Shannon Regan as meticulously prepared to defend the City's actions, Mr. Calder was not given written notice, did not know about the hearing until the night prior the Council meeting, and was not given the opportunity to be prepared.
(please note also how the City Manager shuts down a simple question to the City Attorney by a polite citizen in the audience with "Point of order, Mr. Mayor!")
What viewers, the audience, and the Council probably didn't know was that the lawyer who spoke with him in the late afternoon had given him instructions on what he should say to the court, and also, that Ron had asked me to help him do that. He asked me to help him with the appeal hearing for three reasons. Because of some personal issues, including difficulty reading and writing, he had me help him write the original appeal to the Council, and if needed, he wanted me there to help explain questions. Secondly, because he had difficulty reading, he asked that I read what the attorney had just that afternoon written for him to tell the Council. Lastly, he has difficulty hearing--he wasn't even sure what was being said some of the time! I was prepared to read the new information and assist him with his appeal in front of the Council. Again, Council and staff had been informed of the personal issues and should have understood he needed assistance.
After Ron approached the Council and had almost nothing to say, I said "Excuse me, may I say something?" That was an effort to let them know Ron needed and had asked for my help. The Mayor, without hesitation, loudly said "No!" I felt that it was my duty to tell them then that Ron needed help with his statement. In watching the video, please note that when the Mayor asked him if he needed someone to assist him with his statement, he answered "OK" and looked at me for that assistance. He also turned toward another person in the audience who had been helping him. At that moment, the City Manager interrupted and diverted attention from the fact that Ron wanted assistance. He did so by offering to read the earlier appeal. Instead of the Mayor acknowledging that Ron had indicated he wanted my help, the Mayor allowed the City Manager to prevent assistance to Ron and he had the appeal read. Of course Ron had no objection to the reading of the appeal when asked, but the fact remains that he indicated he wanted my assistance and was denied it.
After more protests, the Mayor followed-up on his earlier threat to have me removed. He justified his behavior by saying "Mr. Calder had . . . an offer to have someone come forward and he chose to read the appeal instead." Well, no, what actually happened was that he allowed them to read the appeal after they ignored and interrupted his indication that he did want my assistance. If the following video does not display all the information, you can view it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEU8TDqkNOA&feature=channel_page
As you know, Ron was granted a 60 day extension by the Council, with only Aletha Bonebrake and Bev Calder having voted to dismiss. (Both had made statements about the situation, not all of which are presented here.) Councilor Bonebrake pointed out that the citation didn't comply with the ordinance in that it didn't identify which vehicles were inoperable, that there was no evidence presented that vehicles were inoperable, that officer Regan could have asked for a warrant to further inspect the property, and that Ron was not informed of his right to a trial by jury as outlined in another ordinance and in State law. She also noted that the City would need to cite every other person in the City who finds their self in a similar situation, that due to abatement costs even existing cases could prove to be very expensive for the City in at least the short term, and that that the 6% per annum interest applied to liens on properties might result in the City owning homes outright when a person dies. Councilor Calder cited the fact that Mr. Calder wasn't given notice and thus was not prepared to defend himself, that he hadn't been notified of his right to a jury trial, and didn't understand his rights. She also noted that specific vehicles were not identified, that he had made good progress in recent months, and that the City could use a more organic and positive approach and offer assistance to troubled property owners.
Councilor Button had offered an amended motion that included the notion that Mr. Calder would have to forfeit his constitutional rights so that a police officer could have access to his property, without a warrant, so as to inspect for further violations. His motion was approved by himself along with Councilor's Bryan, Bass, and Dorrah. After Baker City citizen Steve Culley noted that the provision was unconstitutional during his comments to Council, Mr. Button acknowledged that, and apologized for authoring that section of the approved motion, saying it was a "grave error." But, contrary to what was written in the paper on May 27, i. e.: "Button later withdrew that part of his motion due to questions about whether it is constitutional," that language had not been withdrawn from the motion, and no new motion had replaced it, by the end of the meeting. Although Councilor Button talked about an additional bit of business (to alter the motion I presume) that needed to be conducted, that business was not conducted. Mr. Brocato instead told the Council that staff would review the language, make sure that Mr. Calder's rights were communicated to him, and pass information about correction to the court. Is staff then going to vote on their corrections before communicating with the court? Seems a bit odd that staff would be rewriting Council motions and then bypassing the Council's role to approve it with a new vote, don't you think? Well, not too odd, considering that the City Manager and his assistant are already, for all intents and purposes, running the "show" anyway.
As it now stands, in a gesture of unusual generosity for Baker City, a local attorney has told Ron that he will handle his appeal to the Circuit Court for no charge. Perhaps he will be able to bring due process back to Baker City.
A few citizens commented on the property maintenance ordinance.
Steve Culley commented on the ordinance and also commented on the treatment received by Ron Calder.
"I've been out cruising around NE Oregon looking for a place to live so that I can eliminate one level of government from my life. . . . The first thing here is that a lot of this is just plain subjectivity stuff, you know, . . . I just see a demographic change in my part of the country . . . and I've got a lot of new progressives coming in and they don't like the way my town looks and all that, and I'm really sorry about that.
. . . there's an appeals process, and what I watched tonight I don't like. This guy . . .clearly needed some legal help. I think he asked Chris Christie to either to represent him, or at least help out, and he didn't get a chance to do that, and I think that was . . . kind of a violation of his civil rights. . . . And then you've got Clair . . . talking about . . . . you have to allow the police free access to . . . You can't do that--I mean we have a constitution of the United States. I mean if a guy says no, don't come on, go get a . . . warrant.
All of this stuff is just as subjective as you can get. . . . There's going to have to be some representation, legal, if a guy needs it . . . . . Usually people who get into this kind of situation . . . are near broke. Where's he going to move those trailer houses? Who's going to pay for it? He doesn't have the money. And democracy is limited to three minutes."
Barbara Fleming stated that she thinks "Baker City likes to be perceived as a friendly city" but "if they micromanage big brother government on private property. . . they might not be ... friendly. . . . The people most likely to get a fine are the ones who can least afford them. . . . You already have all the laws you need to protect citizens for health hazards. . . . I see us playing off each other's fears. . . . I think a friendly hand is more appropriate in these economic times." She suggested "mutual cooperation" as a better model.
Russ Murphy told the council of concerns that "it could become extremely subjective. . . ." "I'd like to see it be very objective with details spelled out." He also said he'd "like to see compassion" and "patience" for people, citing Councilor Calder for being compassionate. He "would like to see a citizens review board" made up of the various socio-economic groups" and the enforcement should "not be nit-picky."
Corrections:
Corrected "County Judge" in paragraph 8 to "Circuit Court Judge." 6/8/09
(Blog in progress)
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Property Maintenance Jihad Targets Disabled Life-long Baker City Resident
IN THIS ISSUE:
- MEET RON CALDER, DISABLED VICTIM OF THE ORDINANCE JIHAD
- CITY'S SIDE OF THE STORY
- APPEAL FILED FOR ORDINANCE CITATION / ORDER & JUDGMENT
- SPEED TRAP UP AGAIN ON 17TH STREET
_______________________________
City rolls over unrepresented indigent citizen.
Meet Ron Calder (above) and His Side Of the Story
Ron on the Right Of Way in Front of His House. There used to be a 100 year old house where the new homes are in the background.
On May 17th, I met with Ron Calder to talk about the citation he received last year for alleged violations of Baker City Ordinances. He talked with me about how the Baker City Police Department has treated him, and about Justice of the Peace Lise Yervasi’s recent court order giving him “7 days, instead of 14, [to remove] all the remaining inoperative, wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, abandoned or junked vehicles, including any camp trailers that are inoperative, wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, abandoned or junked." (If he doesn’t win an appeal or do things to the City’s and Court’s satisfaction, the City will “abate” the property anyway and charge him for it.) He also talked with me about his life, about why it has taken him so long to do some of the things the City is requiring him to do, and about what he believes to be the truth concerning what he has agreed to do to comply with the City’s demands. The following paragraphs tell his side of the story, as it was told to me. (See note 1 at bottom)
Ron is a lifelong resident of Baker City. For 34 of his 58 years, he has lived on the corner of Fifth and Grace streets. When he was young, most of the streets were not paved and many were without curbs and sidewalks, but people liked their semi-rural lifestyles and were used to living without the amenities found in the larger cities of the west. People had a live and let live attitude and did not intrude upon the affairs of their neighbors or tell them how to live. A lot of people, including Ron, learned to get along as best they could, and they saved and stored things they thought they might need to get by. He attended Baker schools, but due to some cognitive difficulties and other problems, he did not graduate and can barely read or write. (His friend Diane reads his mail for him and helps him with his other matters requiring those skills.) Not long after his teenage years, he was helping his father pour concrete for the Culley Lane overpass when he fell down into a hole filled with rebar and wet concrete, severely damaging his feet. A subsequent botched surgery left one of them nearly useless. Over the years since then, he has gotten along as best he could doing concrete work, welding, and odd jobs, until his knees went out, and the injuries to his arms and shoulders from accidents at his mining claim left him disabled. During his working years, he helped remodel many Baker City Buildings, including the County Court House and City Hall. Since then it has been a challenge to just keep a roof over his head.
In addition to his mangled feet and chronic pain, he has a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder, and he lost strength in that arm and leg due to several mini-strokes. He has had bone transplant surgery on his right arm, and he can’t get it over his head. Due to these problems and others, his doctor has him on a box full of prescriptions.
Mr. Calder owns a small 1 bedroom, 1 bath home on about 1/4th acre right next to the railroad tracks where 5th Street is interrupted by them. The home was built 109 years ago and the assessor’s office says the structure has a real market value (RMV) of $4,190. By contrast, a 2 year old, 3 bedroom, 2 bath home just up the street has a RMV for the structure alone of $140,840. With the land, the assessor’s office thinks the residence has an RMV of $167,870. Nelson’s Real Estate is trying to sell it today for $179, 900, as well as another newer home next door for $125,000. The average RMV of the other four houses facing 5th Street on that block is $74, 42.00. It would appear that the two houses Nelson’s Real Estate is trying to sell, at prices so much higher than the average for that block, are a bit out of place. Might be hard to sell them at that location unless everyone else’s home is spruced up or bulldozed, especially with the train tracks so close. Maybe that’s where the police department comes in.
Looking down 5th street towards Ron’s house in corner at upper right.
The story goes that one of Ron’s neighbors was solicited to make a complaint by Shannon Regan, Baker City’s Code Enforcement Officer, but they refused. (No one can offer any proof that this is the case, and because the City has said that it won’t release the names of those who complain, we will probably never know who actually filed it.) Mr. Calder ultimately came to believe that the complaint was associated with the sale of the expensive house up the street. On August 22, 2008, Shannon Regan issued Ron a citation for violations of Ordinance 3216, an “illegal Fence” and Ordinance 2686, “Discarded Vehicles on Private Property.” The fence portion of the citation was subsequently dismissed.
Portion of citation showing alleged violations
I asked two of Ron’s neighbors up the street about the complaint. One characterized him as an “Inoffensive neighbor” and the other said that Ron had never caused them any trouble or been a bother of any kind. Ron felt the same way.
The Police Department has been over to the house 3 or 4 times during this episode and on one visit they brought along Mike Pina of the Planning Department. Ron said that Mike and the others wanted him to let them into his trailers without a warrant so they could look around. Ron cooperated by letting them on the property, but just let them look inside, rather than, I would guess, go on a fishing expedition. While it was not listed in the complaint, not long before his May 13th appearance, the police department told Ron that the City Manager wanted him to remove all personal items from the right of way in front of his house. Below is a photo of the 5th Street right of way in front of Ron’s house. It dead-ends at the railroad tracks just to the left of the photo. He has worked to remove his things.
5th Street right of way in front of Ron’s house
Ron says he has mowed and taken care of this right of way for over 34 years, having worn out several mowers on it. He said that some years ago he received a verbal okay and agreement, first by Tim Collins and then by Milo Pope. He says they agreed that so long as Ron agreed to maintain the right of way he could use it for his own private use. He says the police recently told him that he can’t even drive on it or park in front of his house, even though people park on similar right of ways all over town. Because he had no place to put the firewood he stored in front of the fence, he ended up giving away around 5 cords despite the fact that it is his primary source of heat, and it would be nearly impossible to go out and cut replacement wood.
He says they also told him he had to get rid of freezers he stored meat in, his washer and dryer he had outside, and the oil barrel he uses for backup heat, even though none of these things were on the original citation. There is nothing in the citation that relates to these issues.
He also said they suggested that he and a neighbor were running an unlicensed business subject to another citation. He says that the only business he’s currently engaged in is the “survival business,” and that his mining claim is a hobby. Even the IRS doesn’t call a consistently unprofitable enterprise or hobby a business. Because he is in the “survival business,” he has accumulated a lot of things he finds useful in that endeavor. In that respect, Ron is not a lot different than many of us who pride ourselves on self reliance and making do with what we can make from what we have, including salvage materials that others may see as eyesores.
While the court order says Ron agreed to remove camp trailers with mining equipment in them, he maintains that he only agreed to move the mining equipment on utility trailers that had been stored on the right of way in front of his house. He had planned to take the equipment up to his mining claim, which is at a little over 7,000 foot elevation, but the late winter/spring snow pack has made the roads inaccessible.
In looking at his camp trailers, I have only found one that is inoperable, and that should be easily remedied by pumping up the tire. All the rest have the tires pumped up, and I didn’t see any that would fit the ordinances definition of “discarded vehicle” that is cited in the complaint. If this is the case, on what basis is the court asking him to remove them? The citation only mentions “Discarded Vehicles,” not operable vehicles with mining equipment in them.
There are two, perhaps three, motor vehicles that are currently inoperable, and one old Toyota truck that a neighbor would like to fix up. All but the Toyota can be fixed as Ron gets help. He says he tried to put a starter in one last fall, but the part didn’t work. The worst enemy he has had in getting the motor vehicles running since that time, besides the fact that he is disabled and has to have someone else do a lot of the work, is the deep snow and freezing temperatures we all had to deal with this last winter. He has no building in which to work on the cars, so the work must be done outside in the elements in the dirt, mud or snow.
Mr. Calder has worked to meet the City’s demands for six months now, doing what he can, weather permitting, almost every day. He says his doctor has informed him that this work has been detrimental to his health and has made his condition worse. He would like to comply where health and safety, or public property storage issues actually exist, but given his situation, he needs more time, certainly more than seven days. Where the City seems to be infringing on his private property rights, he feels he has needed legal representation, but he can’t afford it.
A look around Mr. Calders’s neighborhood reveals two other significant issues. One is that many others could also be cited for similar types of alleged violations, but have not been. The other is that his property does not look significantly different than many other properties along the tracks in the area, much of which is zoned industrial. A look along the tracks at the back of his property reveals an industrial zone right across the tracks and in the nearby areas to the northwest. Granted, the vast majority of those along the corridor created by the tracks are ether commercial, or belong to the City, but their character is similar to that found on the Calder property. I have no issue with or complaint about the conditions found on nearby properties, and they are only included here to show that they exist and are being ignored, while Mr. Calder is being cited. Captions refer to photos above them.
These are the camp trailers in Mr. Calder's yard. He stores mining equipment, tools, and other personal items in them.
Ron’s Property starts behind the Garbage Bin and wood fence on Left. Distributing company is over the tracks.
This photo is of the abandoned industrial zone about 2 blocks up the tracks.
This is another picture of the industrial zone, 1 block to the northwest.
This is a photo of the conditions in the City’s Public Works lot one block to the northwest
Examples of possible violations are abundant in the city and in Ron’s neighborhood. One can be found 1&1/2 houses up from Mr. Calder’s home. The unlicensed Ford Bronco in the photo below is said to have been in the same place on the City’s street for a year or more now, a clear violation, and yet nothing has been done about it.
Unlicensed Ford Bronco. Ron’s home is in upper left.
Residence on Carter Street nearby.
Conditions near tracks 2 blocks up on Auburn.
Another residence within 5 Blocks.
This residence is across the tracks and up two blocks.
These photos are just a few examples of how some people live in Baker City. Numerous examples can be found that would not meet the standards of many in the middle and upper classes. Does it give the powerful a right to harass, intimidate, and inflict financial and emotional harm upon them?
What’s different about these situations that would have the City picking on Ron Calder while ignoring these and many other similar situations throughout the City? Does it have something to do with the fact that Nelson Real Estate is selling two expensive, overpriced, and out of place homes just a few doors up from Ron? Or is it that Mr. Calder is simply easy pickings for example setting? I don’t know, but I do know that the City’s actions reek of a high-handed abuse of power that sets the stage for running over the rights of other Baker City residents who are not in a position to defend them selves. If they can do it to Ron Calder, they can do it to others.
The last, and perhaps most troubling aspect of this episode, is the way the City and Court have treated an unrepresented indigent and disabled citizen. This is a classic case of indigent or otherwise powerless people appearing in court without legal representation or other means to defend themselves. In this case, with non-representation, illiteracy, cognitive and physical disability issues, and low income tragically converging, the defendant is literally defenseless. This is because, even though we pride ourselves about cherished rights, freedoms and democracy, and even though we provide some minimal defense to indigent people in criminal cases and certain types of civil cases, there are no provisions in law to force a local jurisdiction to provide legal counsel for anyone in a civil case for alleged property maintenance violations. This leaves unscrupulous City Managers who have arranged for unwarranted power, and Police Departments looking for justification of their expansion, with the ability to prey on people who have few options and no way to defend themselves. Although many states have a few statutes granting right to counsel in certain cases relating to child custody, health, safety, shelter and sustenance, in Oregon there is currently no general right to civil counsel for many of these categories, including property maintenance and other ordinance violation allegations.
The lack of counsel for low income, disabled, or otherwise resourceless defendants often leads to a forfeiture of rights because the defendant has no real idea as to what those rights are or how to enforce them. The police may come in and attempt to intimidate and coerce the victim with threats of other, often baseless charges, such as illegally operating a business. They may expand the nature of the complaint beyond that which was originally alleged to areas not covered in the original citation. They may put a person’s health at risk by forcing them to work beyond their capabilities, especially when they are disabled and don’t have money to hire a crew to make the demanded changes ( “abatement”). All of these things may have occurred in the case of Mr. Calder. Ultimately, because the defendant is unable to comply with their demands, the local authorities, lacking any conscience, may come in and forcefully abate the property with their own crews, hauling off any property they find offensive and charging the victim far more money than would have been necessary if they had been able to do it themselves. Because the defendant lacks the money to pay for the work, the City will then place a lien on the property.
Recognizing a wrong when they see it, the American Bar Association unanimously passed a resolution in August of 2006 that called for a right to counsel in civil cases relating to human needs. Until our American “civilization” advances and legislates such a right, we will continue to see the powerful prey on the powerless in ways that defy the American values we say we cherish.
One wonders how much property the City will end up owning before the Ayatollah and his militia end the Jihad on our hapless low income residents. Hopefully the City Council will assert their ultimate authority to put an end to this before any more people are hurt.
If anyone knows an attorney who would like to offer Ron some pro bono legal help, please call 541-523-2376 and leave a message with a contact phone number.
(Note 1: Given the Court’s timeline of 7 days and the urgency of Mr. Calder’s situation, I decided to go forward without the City’s side of the story at this time. If they are willing to cooperate by providing adequate information to me for completing the story, I will. Unfortunately, the last time I requested information from them, they wanted $208.00 for it)
_____________________________________
City's Side of the Story:
Request for their side of the story:
Hello Jennifer,
Thanks to your gracious reception of Ron Calder's appeal this morning.
I will gladly post something of reasonable length, say three pages not counting a reasonable number of photos, if the City would like to give me their side of the story.
I would appreciate any information in addition to that, if the City will provide it.
Thanks,
Christopher Christie
Response:
Hi Christopher,
We will prepare a staff report on this matter that will be available for the public. In our case, it’s not “our side of the story” but the laws and their interpretation by many lawyers and judges over the years. I appreciate the opportunity, but I’m sure it will all be publicly presented in the near future.
Thanks for your offer.
Jennifer
________________________________
May 18, 2009
APPEAL FILED
Mr. Calder filed the following appeal at about 9:50 this morning.
May 18th, 2009
Ronald G. Calder
1249 5th Street
Baker City, OR 97814
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF JUDGEMENT AND ORDER; CASE NO. 08 V 1901
Baker City Council
C/O Jennifer Watkins, Baker City Recorder
PO Box 650
1655 First Street
Baker City, OR 97814
Dear Councilors:
My name is Ronald Calder. My address is 1249 5th Street, Baker City 97814. My phone number is 541---------. My message phone number is 541----------.
I am the owner of the property at 1249 5th Street and on August 22, 2008, I was cited (Citation and Complaint # ’08-50851) by Baker City Police Officer Shannon Regan for alleged violations of Ordinance 3216, maintaining an illegal fence, and Ordinance 2686, having discarded vehicles on my private property at that address.
On May 13, 2009, a Judgement and Order for that case, number 08 V 1901, was issued by Baker County Justice of the Peace, Lise F. Yervasi. This letter is a request of appeal to you to amend that Judgement and Order. I would like an appeal hearing. This appeal has been filed with the City Recorder’s Office within five days after the decision of the County Justice Court, which has heard the case.
The basis of my appeal is the following”
1. As a disabled, largely illiterate, low income person, I have not been able to adequately defend myself against the charges brought by the City because no public defender has been provided, and I cannot afford one. I did not graduate from high school, can barely read or write, have cognitive issues, and have been disabled since 1987. I was officially classified as disabled in 1991.
2. Ordinance 2686, relating to motor vehicles discarded on private property, calls for, in Section 6, a “Hearing by Municipal Court.” My hearing was not held in a Municipal Court as there is none. Therefore, the complaint and order should be dismissed.
3. In the original complaint dated 8/22/08, the City only identified 2 motor vehicles that they thought were “discarded,” but during the course of this issue being presented before Judge Yervasi, Officer Regan was allowed to make a very confusing assault against me to include all aspects of my property that she deemed in violation of any City ordinance.
4. The order states that I agreed to do things I did not agree to do. For example, I did not agree to move all my camp trailers off my private property. I only agreed to move the mining equipment and utility trailers that had been stored on the right of way in front of my house.
5. My camp trailers are not discarded, inoperative, wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, abandoned or junked, so there is no basis for removing them under any interpretation of the ordinances cited in the citation and complaint.
6. The title of the ordinance in question, 2686, refers to motor vehicles, but the ordinance defines “vehicles.” This shows that the intent is to control storage of motor vehicles, not the camp trailers referred to in the Judgment and Order.
7. The Court and/or the City had no right to try to have me agree to things that were not related to the original complaint, as no complaint concerning those other issues had been filed. Debris and scrap metal were not part of the original complaint for “discarded vehicles” on private property. Likewise, the city had no authority to attempt to force me to remove personal items such as a full freezer, my oil barrel, my washer and dryer, or other items, without a formal complaint and citation.
8. Additionally, Judge Yervasi has apparently allowed Officer Regan to disallow any use of the public right of way located on the portion of 5th Street that runs along the front of my house. I am now told I am no longer allowed the use of this right of way to access the front or south side of my house, even to park, but other citizens throughout Baker City are allowed to park on the public rights of way in front of their homes. Because of the layout of my property this has resulted in severely limited access onto my own property.
9. Even if the Court is determined to have been legally correct to require me to do the things they wanted me to do, my physical condition and the winter weather conditions they expected me to work in were not fairly considered in the hearings. My disabilities and financial condition made it impossible for me to have complied with their demands.
10. The improvements I was able to make were not recognized by the Court and I was given no credit for my attempts, even though they have resulted in a deterioration of my health. I can elaborate at the appeal hearing.
In summary, I believe that this all has been allowed to go far beyond the issue of the citation. I believe that both Judge Yervasi and Officer Regan have been very unfair to me in this entire matter. I believe I have not been given any consideration for what I have already done, or for what I continue to do on a daily basis to try to comply. Additionally, I was not given any consideration that throughout all of this I have been doing the majority of the cleanup solely on my own, despite my being disabled, and that it was expected of me to do these things in the worst of winter. I definitely believe that my punishment for the supposed ordinance violation handed down by Judge Yervasi in her judgment and order that now requires me to remove "everything within my personal property not located within an enclosed structure or she will have it all removed by the City on her behalf,” and that it goes far beyond anything that can be justified by the original complaint.
I respectfully request, and it is to my understanding, that neither the City nor the Court will take any further actions against me, Ronald G. Calder, or my property located at 1249 5th Street Baker City, Baker Co., Oregon, until the appeal is heard by the City Council and their final decision in this matter is given. I also ask that demands made by the Court requiring removal of items, or other actions, not covered in the original citation be rescinded. For any decision regarding actions to alleviate a situation relating to “discarded vehicles,” I request that my disabilities and financial situation be taken into account so that I have adequate time to comply.
I have included a copy of the ticket and a copy of the final judgment and order for your convenience.
Thank you for your just consideration in this matter.
I provided the personal details for this appeal. This appeal was read to me, I agree with what is written in it, and to the best of my ability, I believe the contents to be true and correct.
Signed __________________________________ Dated: May 18, 2009
Ronald G. Calder
CC: Lise F. Yervasi, Justice of the Peace in the Justice Court of the State of Oregon for Baker County District 1.
I request that the City Recorder, or her representative also sign this document, and my copy, in the spaces provided below, to show that the appeal was received in a timely manner.
Signed __________________________________ Dated: _____________
City Recorder or Representative
_________________________________
_________________________________
SPEED TRAP UP AGAIN ON 17TH STREET
While Ron and I were giving a copy of the appeal to the Justice of the Peace's ofice this AM, I ran into an acquaitance who had received a $150.00 ticket for exceeding the 25 mph speed limit on 17th street below Pocahontas. I understand that the Police Department gave several tickets in one day there recently. Unstated quotas for patrol officers as the end of the fiscal year approaches?
A description of the speed trap can be found at:
Did We Have An Open Public Process For Purchase Of New Police Building?
Speed Trap on 17th Street
March 6, 2008.
http://bakercountyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/do-we-need-new-police-building.html
- MEET RON CALDER, DISABLED VICTIM OF THE ORDINANCE JIHAD
- CITY'S SIDE OF THE STORY
- APPEAL FILED FOR ORDINANCE CITATION / ORDER & JUDGMENT
- SPEED TRAP UP AGAIN ON 17TH STREET
_______________________________
City rolls over unrepresented indigent citizen.
Meet Ron Calder (above) and His Side Of the StoryRon on the Right Of Way in Front of His House. There used to be a 100 year old house where the new homes are in the background.
On May 17th, I met with Ron Calder to talk about the citation he received last year for alleged violations of Baker City Ordinances. He talked with me about how the Baker City Police Department has treated him, and about Justice of the Peace Lise Yervasi’s recent court order giving him “7 days, instead of 14, [to remove] all the remaining inoperative, wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, abandoned or junked vehicles, including any camp trailers that are inoperative, wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, abandoned or junked." (If he doesn’t win an appeal or do things to the City’s and Court’s satisfaction, the City will “abate” the property anyway and charge him for it.) He also talked with me about his life, about why it has taken him so long to do some of the things the City is requiring him to do, and about what he believes to be the truth concerning what he has agreed to do to comply with the City’s demands. The following paragraphs tell his side of the story, as it was told to me. (See note 1 at bottom)
Ron is a lifelong resident of Baker City. For 34 of his 58 years, he has lived on the corner of Fifth and Grace streets. When he was young, most of the streets were not paved and many were without curbs and sidewalks, but people liked their semi-rural lifestyles and were used to living without the amenities found in the larger cities of the west. People had a live and let live attitude and did not intrude upon the affairs of their neighbors or tell them how to live. A lot of people, including Ron, learned to get along as best they could, and they saved and stored things they thought they might need to get by. He attended Baker schools, but due to some cognitive difficulties and other problems, he did not graduate and can barely read or write. (His friend Diane reads his mail for him and helps him with his other matters requiring those skills.) Not long after his teenage years, he was helping his father pour concrete for the Culley Lane overpass when he fell down into a hole filled with rebar and wet concrete, severely damaging his feet. A subsequent botched surgery left one of them nearly useless. Over the years since then, he has gotten along as best he could doing concrete work, welding, and odd jobs, until his knees went out, and the injuries to his arms and shoulders from accidents at his mining claim left him disabled. During his working years, he helped remodel many Baker City Buildings, including the County Court House and City Hall. Since then it has been a challenge to just keep a roof over his head.
In addition to his mangled feet and chronic pain, he has a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder, and he lost strength in that arm and leg due to several mini-strokes. He has had bone transplant surgery on his right arm, and he can’t get it over his head. Due to these problems and others, his doctor has him on a box full of prescriptions.
Mr. Calder owns a small 1 bedroom, 1 bath home on about 1/4th acre right next to the railroad tracks where 5th Street is interrupted by them. The home was built 109 years ago and the assessor’s office says the structure has a real market value (RMV) of $4,190. By contrast, a 2 year old, 3 bedroom, 2 bath home just up the street has a RMV for the structure alone of $140,840. With the land, the assessor’s office thinks the residence has an RMV of $167,870. Nelson’s Real Estate is trying to sell it today for $179, 900, as well as another newer home next door for $125,000. The average RMV of the other four houses facing 5th Street on that block is $74, 42.00. It would appear that the two houses Nelson’s Real Estate is trying to sell, at prices so much higher than the average for that block, are a bit out of place. Might be hard to sell them at that location unless everyone else’s home is spruced up or bulldozed, especially with the train tracks so close. Maybe that’s where the police department comes in.
Looking down 5th street towards Ron’s house in corner at upper right.The story goes that one of Ron’s neighbors was solicited to make a complaint by Shannon Regan, Baker City’s Code Enforcement Officer, but they refused. (No one can offer any proof that this is the case, and because the City has said that it won’t release the names of those who complain, we will probably never know who actually filed it.) Mr. Calder ultimately came to believe that the complaint was associated with the sale of the expensive house up the street. On August 22, 2008, Shannon Regan issued Ron a citation for violations of Ordinance 3216, an “illegal Fence” and Ordinance 2686, “Discarded Vehicles on Private Property.” The fence portion of the citation was subsequently dismissed.
Portion of citation showing alleged violationsI asked two of Ron’s neighbors up the street about the complaint. One characterized him as an “Inoffensive neighbor” and the other said that Ron had never caused them any trouble or been a bother of any kind. Ron felt the same way.
The Police Department has been over to the house 3 or 4 times during this episode and on one visit they brought along Mike Pina of the Planning Department. Ron said that Mike and the others wanted him to let them into his trailers without a warrant so they could look around. Ron cooperated by letting them on the property, but just let them look inside, rather than, I would guess, go on a fishing expedition. While it was not listed in the complaint, not long before his May 13th appearance, the police department told Ron that the City Manager wanted him to remove all personal items from the right of way in front of his house. Below is a photo of the 5th Street right of way in front of Ron’s house. It dead-ends at the railroad tracks just to the left of the photo. He has worked to remove his things.
5th Street right of way in front of Ron’s houseRon says he has mowed and taken care of this right of way for over 34 years, having worn out several mowers on it. He said that some years ago he received a verbal okay and agreement, first by Tim Collins and then by Milo Pope. He says they agreed that so long as Ron agreed to maintain the right of way he could use it for his own private use. He says the police recently told him that he can’t even drive on it or park in front of his house, even though people park on similar right of ways all over town. Because he had no place to put the firewood he stored in front of the fence, he ended up giving away around 5 cords despite the fact that it is his primary source of heat, and it would be nearly impossible to go out and cut replacement wood.
He says they also told him he had to get rid of freezers he stored meat in, his washer and dryer he had outside, and the oil barrel he uses for backup heat, even though none of these things were on the original citation. There is nothing in the citation that relates to these issues.
He also said they suggested that he and a neighbor were running an unlicensed business subject to another citation. He says that the only business he’s currently engaged in is the “survival business,” and that his mining claim is a hobby. Even the IRS doesn’t call a consistently unprofitable enterprise or hobby a business. Because he is in the “survival business,” he has accumulated a lot of things he finds useful in that endeavor. In that respect, Ron is not a lot different than many of us who pride ourselves on self reliance and making do with what we can make from what we have, including salvage materials that others may see as eyesores.
While the court order says Ron agreed to remove camp trailers with mining equipment in them, he maintains that he only agreed to move the mining equipment on utility trailers that had been stored on the right of way in front of his house. He had planned to take the equipment up to his mining claim, which is at a little over 7,000 foot elevation, but the late winter/spring snow pack has made the roads inaccessible.
In looking at his camp trailers, I have only found one that is inoperable, and that should be easily remedied by pumping up the tire. All the rest have the tires pumped up, and I didn’t see any that would fit the ordinances definition of “discarded vehicle” that is cited in the complaint. If this is the case, on what basis is the court asking him to remove them? The citation only mentions “Discarded Vehicles,” not operable vehicles with mining equipment in them.
There are two, perhaps three, motor vehicles that are currently inoperable, and one old Toyota truck that a neighbor would like to fix up. All but the Toyota can be fixed as Ron gets help. He says he tried to put a starter in one last fall, but the part didn’t work. The worst enemy he has had in getting the motor vehicles running since that time, besides the fact that he is disabled and has to have someone else do a lot of the work, is the deep snow and freezing temperatures we all had to deal with this last winter. He has no building in which to work on the cars, so the work must be done outside in the elements in the dirt, mud or snow.
Mr. Calder has worked to meet the City’s demands for six months now, doing what he can, weather permitting, almost every day. He says his doctor has informed him that this work has been detrimental to his health and has made his condition worse. He would like to comply where health and safety, or public property storage issues actually exist, but given his situation, he needs more time, certainly more than seven days. Where the City seems to be infringing on his private property rights, he feels he has needed legal representation, but he can’t afford it.
A look around Mr. Calders’s neighborhood reveals two other significant issues. One is that many others could also be cited for similar types of alleged violations, but have not been. The other is that his property does not look significantly different than many other properties along the tracks in the area, much of which is zoned industrial. A look along the tracks at the back of his property reveals an industrial zone right across the tracks and in the nearby areas to the northwest. Granted, the vast majority of those along the corridor created by the tracks are ether commercial, or belong to the City, but their character is similar to that found on the Calder property. I have no issue with or complaint about the conditions found on nearby properties, and they are only included here to show that they exist and are being ignored, while Mr. Calder is being cited. Captions refer to photos above them.
These are the camp trailers in Mr. Calder's yard. He stores mining equipment, tools, and other personal items in them.
Ron’s Property starts behind the Garbage Bin and wood fence on Left. Distributing company is over the tracks.
This photo is of the abandoned industrial zone about 2 blocks up the tracks.
This is another picture of the industrial zone, 1 block to the northwest. 
This is a photo of the conditions in the City’s Public Works lot one block to the northwestExamples of possible violations are abundant in the city and in Ron’s neighborhood. One can be found 1&1/2 houses up from Mr. Calder’s home. The unlicensed Ford Bronco in the photo below is said to have been in the same place on the City’s street for a year or more now, a clear violation, and yet nothing has been done about it.
Unlicensed Ford Bronco. Ron’s home is in upper left.
Residence on Carter Street nearby.
Conditions near tracks 2 blocks up on Auburn.
Another residence within 5 Blocks.
This residence is across the tracks and up two blocks.These photos are just a few examples of how some people live in Baker City. Numerous examples can be found that would not meet the standards of many in the middle and upper classes. Does it give the powerful a right to harass, intimidate, and inflict financial and emotional harm upon them?
What’s different about these situations that would have the City picking on Ron Calder while ignoring these and many other similar situations throughout the City? Does it have something to do with the fact that Nelson Real Estate is selling two expensive, overpriced, and out of place homes just a few doors up from Ron? Or is it that Mr. Calder is simply easy pickings for example setting? I don’t know, but I do know that the City’s actions reek of a high-handed abuse of power that sets the stage for running over the rights of other Baker City residents who are not in a position to defend them selves. If they can do it to Ron Calder, they can do it to others.
The last, and perhaps most troubling aspect of this episode, is the way the City and Court have treated an unrepresented indigent and disabled citizen. This is a classic case of indigent or otherwise powerless people appearing in court without legal representation or other means to defend themselves. In this case, with non-representation, illiteracy, cognitive and physical disability issues, and low income tragically converging, the defendant is literally defenseless. This is because, even though we pride ourselves about cherished rights, freedoms and democracy, and even though we provide some minimal defense to indigent people in criminal cases and certain types of civil cases, there are no provisions in law to force a local jurisdiction to provide legal counsel for anyone in a civil case for alleged property maintenance violations. This leaves unscrupulous City Managers who have arranged for unwarranted power, and Police Departments looking for justification of their expansion, with the ability to prey on people who have few options and no way to defend themselves. Although many states have a few statutes granting right to counsel in certain cases relating to child custody, health, safety, shelter and sustenance, in Oregon there is currently no general right to civil counsel for many of these categories, including property maintenance and other ordinance violation allegations.
The lack of counsel for low income, disabled, or otherwise resourceless defendants often leads to a forfeiture of rights because the defendant has no real idea as to what those rights are or how to enforce them. The police may come in and attempt to intimidate and coerce the victim with threats of other, often baseless charges, such as illegally operating a business. They may expand the nature of the complaint beyond that which was originally alleged to areas not covered in the original citation. They may put a person’s health at risk by forcing them to work beyond their capabilities, especially when they are disabled and don’t have money to hire a crew to make the demanded changes ( “abatement”). All of these things may have occurred in the case of Mr. Calder. Ultimately, because the defendant is unable to comply with their demands, the local authorities, lacking any conscience, may come in and forcefully abate the property with their own crews, hauling off any property they find offensive and charging the victim far more money than would have been necessary if they had been able to do it themselves. Because the defendant lacks the money to pay for the work, the City will then place a lien on the property.
Recognizing a wrong when they see it, the American Bar Association unanimously passed a resolution in August of 2006 that called for a right to counsel in civil cases relating to human needs. Until our American “civilization” advances and legislates such a right, we will continue to see the powerful prey on the powerless in ways that defy the American values we say we cherish.
One wonders how much property the City will end up owning before the Ayatollah and his militia end the Jihad on our hapless low income residents. Hopefully the City Council will assert their ultimate authority to put an end to this before any more people are hurt.
If anyone knows an attorney who would like to offer Ron some pro bono legal help, please call 541-523-2376 and leave a message with a contact phone number.
(Note 1: Given the Court’s timeline of 7 days and the urgency of Mr. Calder’s situation, I decided to go forward without the City’s side of the story at this time. If they are willing to cooperate by providing adequate information to me for completing the story, I will. Unfortunately, the last time I requested information from them, they wanted $208.00 for it)
_____________________________________
City's Side of the Story:
Request for their side of the story:
Hello Jennifer,
Thanks to your gracious reception of Ron Calder's appeal this morning.
I will gladly post something of reasonable length, say three pages not counting a reasonable number of photos, if the City would like to give me their side of the story.
I would appreciate any information in addition to that, if the City will provide it.
Thanks,
Christopher Christie
Response:
Hi Christopher,
We will prepare a staff report on this matter that will be available for the public. In our case, it’s not “our side of the story” but the laws and their interpretation by many lawyers and judges over the years. I appreciate the opportunity, but I’m sure it will all be publicly presented in the near future.
Thanks for your offer.
Jennifer
________________________________
May 18, 2009
APPEAL FILED
Mr. Calder filed the following appeal at about 9:50 this morning.
May 18th, 2009
Ronald G. Calder
1249 5th Street
Baker City, OR 97814
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF JUDGEMENT AND ORDER; CASE NO. 08 V 1901
Baker City Council
C/O Jennifer Watkins, Baker City Recorder
PO Box 650
1655 First Street
Baker City, OR 97814
Dear Councilors:
My name is Ronald Calder. My address is 1249 5th Street, Baker City 97814. My phone number is 541---------. My message phone number is 541----------.
I am the owner of the property at 1249 5th Street and on August 22, 2008, I was cited (Citation and Complaint # ’08-50851) by Baker City Police Officer Shannon Regan for alleged violations of Ordinance 3216, maintaining an illegal fence, and Ordinance 2686, having discarded vehicles on my private property at that address.
On May 13, 2009, a Judgement and Order for that case, number 08 V 1901, was issued by Baker County Justice of the Peace, Lise F. Yervasi. This letter is a request of appeal to you to amend that Judgement and Order. I would like an appeal hearing. This appeal has been filed with the City Recorder’s Office within five days after the decision of the County Justice Court, which has heard the case.
The basis of my appeal is the following”
1. As a disabled, largely illiterate, low income person, I have not been able to adequately defend myself against the charges brought by the City because no public defender has been provided, and I cannot afford one. I did not graduate from high school, can barely read or write, have cognitive issues, and have been disabled since 1987. I was officially classified as disabled in 1991.
2. Ordinance 2686, relating to motor vehicles discarded on private property, calls for, in Section 6, a “Hearing by Municipal Court.” My hearing was not held in a Municipal Court as there is none. Therefore, the complaint and order should be dismissed.
3. In the original complaint dated 8/22/08, the City only identified 2 motor vehicles that they thought were “discarded,” but during the course of this issue being presented before Judge Yervasi, Officer Regan was allowed to make a very confusing assault against me to include all aspects of my property that she deemed in violation of any City ordinance.
4. The order states that I agreed to do things I did not agree to do. For example, I did not agree to move all my camp trailers off my private property. I only agreed to move the mining equipment and utility trailers that had been stored on the right of way in front of my house.
5. My camp trailers are not discarded, inoperative, wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, abandoned or junked, so there is no basis for removing them under any interpretation of the ordinances cited in the citation and complaint.
6. The title of the ordinance in question, 2686, refers to motor vehicles, but the ordinance defines “vehicles.” This shows that the intent is to control storage of motor vehicles, not the camp trailers referred to in the Judgment and Order.
7. The Court and/or the City had no right to try to have me agree to things that were not related to the original complaint, as no complaint concerning those other issues had been filed. Debris and scrap metal were not part of the original complaint for “discarded vehicles” on private property. Likewise, the city had no authority to attempt to force me to remove personal items such as a full freezer, my oil barrel, my washer and dryer, or other items, without a formal complaint and citation.
8. Additionally, Judge Yervasi has apparently allowed Officer Regan to disallow any use of the public right of way located on the portion of 5th Street that runs along the front of my house. I am now told I am no longer allowed the use of this right of way to access the front or south side of my house, even to park, but other citizens throughout Baker City are allowed to park on the public rights of way in front of their homes. Because of the layout of my property this has resulted in severely limited access onto my own property.
9. Even if the Court is determined to have been legally correct to require me to do the things they wanted me to do, my physical condition and the winter weather conditions they expected me to work in were not fairly considered in the hearings. My disabilities and financial condition made it impossible for me to have complied with their demands.
10. The improvements I was able to make were not recognized by the Court and I was given no credit for my attempts, even though they have resulted in a deterioration of my health. I can elaborate at the appeal hearing.
In summary, I believe that this all has been allowed to go far beyond the issue of the citation. I believe that both Judge Yervasi and Officer Regan have been very unfair to me in this entire matter. I believe I have not been given any consideration for what I have already done, or for what I continue to do on a daily basis to try to comply. Additionally, I was not given any consideration that throughout all of this I have been doing the majority of the cleanup solely on my own, despite my being disabled, and that it was expected of me to do these things in the worst of winter. I definitely believe that my punishment for the supposed ordinance violation handed down by Judge Yervasi in her judgment and order that now requires me to remove "everything within my personal property not located within an enclosed structure or she will have it all removed by the City on her behalf,” and that it goes far beyond anything that can be justified by the original complaint.
I respectfully request, and it is to my understanding, that neither the City nor the Court will take any further actions against me, Ronald G. Calder, or my property located at 1249 5th Street Baker City, Baker Co., Oregon, until the appeal is heard by the City Council and their final decision in this matter is given. I also ask that demands made by the Court requiring removal of items, or other actions, not covered in the original citation be rescinded. For any decision regarding actions to alleviate a situation relating to “discarded vehicles,” I request that my disabilities and financial situation be taken into account so that I have adequate time to comply.
I have included a copy of the ticket and a copy of the final judgment and order for your convenience.
Thank you for your just consideration in this matter.
I provided the personal details for this appeal. This appeal was read to me, I agree with what is written in it, and to the best of my ability, I believe the contents to be true and correct.
Signed __________________________________ Dated: May 18, 2009
Ronald G. Calder
CC: Lise F. Yervasi, Justice of the Peace in the Justice Court of the State of Oregon for Baker County District 1.
I request that the City Recorder, or her representative also sign this document, and my copy, in the spaces provided below, to show that the appeal was received in a timely manner.
Signed __________________________________ Dated: _____________
City Recorder or Representative
_________________________________
_________________________________
SPEED TRAP UP AGAIN ON 17TH STREET
While Ron and I were giving a copy of the appeal to the Justice of the Peace's ofice this AM, I ran into an acquaitance who had received a $150.00 ticket for exceeding the 25 mph speed limit on 17th street below Pocahontas. I understand that the Police Department gave several tickets in one day there recently. Unstated quotas for patrol officers as the end of the fiscal year approaches?
A description of the speed trap can be found at:
Did We Have An Open Public Process For Purchase Of New Police Building?
Speed Trap on 17th Street
March 6, 2008.
http://bakercountyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/do-we-need-new-police-building.html
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
More on Wolves, Spring Birds, The Poppycock Proclamation
IN THIS ISSUE:
- Wolf Video: "Meet Limpy"
- Some Spring Birds
-- Osprey
-- Tree Swallow
-- Mountain Bluebird
-- Western Bluebird
-- Marsh Wren
- The Poppycock Proclamation
Wolf Video: "Meet Limpy"
________________________________
Some Spring Birds
This first photo, an Osprey, was sent in by Sharon Raya of Richland. Her husband Art took it yesterday on his way back from the reservoir. It is the best local photo of an Osprey that I have have seen. Ospreys can be found here in the valley at the north freeway pond (UPS Ponds) and at the 203 pond. Another easy spot is at Hudspeth Road and Hwy. 7, among other places. They usually show up in April.
"Osprey With Lunch"
Last Friday, I went to Ladd Marsh to photograph a few birds prior to the Birdathon. I was able to catch this Tree Swallow in what appears to be the right light, so feel quite fortunate to have been in the right place at the right time. They show up in April and use tree cavities and bluebird boxes for nest sites.
Tree Swallow
These Mountain Bluebirds were photographed in the Wallowa Mountain foothills during the spring migratory count this last weekend. Bluebirds show up in march and are eagerly awaited by all. Like Tree Swallows, they use both tree cavities and boxes. Also like tree swallows, they are voracious consumers of insects. On a trip to the mountains in Utah, one flew from the top of a conifer tree to near my feet to pick off a small grasshopper.
Mountain Bluebird
Mountain Bluebird - Male
Mountain Bluebird - Female
These Western Bluebirds (below) were also photographed in the Wallowa Mountain foothills during the spring migratory count this last weekend. In California, they are often seen in the oak woodlands of the Peninsular Range. They were down on the south rim of the Grand Canyon in March at about the same time they arrive here in Baker County. They intermingle with Mountain Bluebirds but to my knowledge (and by definition of species), do not interbreed with them. Bluebirds, Tree Swallows, and other cavity nesters must compete with non-native Starlings for these available nesting spaces, and may find themselves at a disadvantage.
Western Bluebird Pair on Nestbox
The chatty and curious Marsh Wren (Below) breeds in cattail marshes, such as can be found at Ladd Marsh, where this bird was photographed on May 9th. I have yet to see one in Baker County, perhaps due to the paucity of decent sized cattail marshes that are publicly accessible.
Marsh Wren
Marsh Wren
_______________________________
The Poppycock Proclamation
Went to the City Council meeting last night. Right after the approval of the minutes the Mayor read a proclamation for Poppy Day, the first sentence of which read:
Whereas, America is the land of freedom, preserved and protected willingly and freely by citizen soldiers: and . . . .
They then paraded two very young children before the assembled crowd and encouraged them to hawk their hand made poppies to the people eager to show their patriotism. It reminded me of how our culture often uses young children to promote its religious, military and other doctrines, even before these innocents are able to defend themselves with the shield of rational and logical thought. The hand fed delusions begin I suppose with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Thus prepared to be favorably inclined to accept almost any bit of nonsense, we teach them songs like "Jesus Loves Me" (yes I know--for the bible tells me so), oaths like the Pledge of Allegiance, and dogmatic ideas like "our wars are fought by willing soldiers to protect our cherished freedom and democracy." Given 18 years of this faith and dogma, they will be ready to run off and kill even innocent civilians for the imperial designs of our corporate masters, all the while thinking it is for freedom and democracy, even if they have experienced little of either.
Well, after hearing the proclamation, I almost got to thinking the Council might be willing to let me exercise some democratic rights and freedom by reading my not quite two pages of comments objecting to, among other things, how they were getting set to attack our cherished freedoms with the new draft Property Maintenance Ordinance. The fact that they had cut me off twice and threatened to throw me out at the previous meeting did not dampen my hope, because after all, they had just told us that "America is the land of freedom!"
In a bit of irony, my hopes were dashed when the Mayor insisted I speak for only the alloted 3 minutes after I politely requested 6 and 1/2. I pointed out that there were no other citizens willing to speak during "Citizen Participation," but to no avail (even though the time limit isn't consistently enforced). I guess I've given them reason to enforce it as I ask too many questions, point out too many problems, and am not a business person. "Citizen Participation" is so important to the Council that they allow that whopping 3 minutes for a citizen to address them at the beginning of meetings. Often no one has the courage to show up for it unless they are there to praise the Council or ask for money. Critics are often cut off or insulted, as I was last week, so they have learned not to show up to practice the democracy that so many soldiers have died for. They realize far better than I that democracy is for the few, the "good-old-boys," preferably the financially well off and comfortable.
Fortunately, they haven't found a way to take away my blog yet, so I thought I'd post an expanded version of the comments they wouldn't let me finish. I had edited out many of the important parts to get it down to 6 and 1/2 minutes for Council, but here of course, I can cut loose with the whole uncensored rant.
Comments to Council 5/12/09
1. The op-ed by the Herald mentioned that Resolution 3407 required respect for the gavel ( http://www.bakercityherald.com/Editorials/Respect-the-gavel ). What it didn’t mention was that the same resolution also requires respect for the citizen who in a democracy is allowed to voice an opinion or recite facts within the amount of time allowed to other speakers, even if the City Manager or a particular Councilor disagrees. I. E.:
Section 5. a) All members of the Council shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to city employees, and to public members appearing before the Council and shall refrain at all times from rude and derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments, and statements as to motives and personalities.
In the case in question, Councilor Pope, who may be having difficulty differentiating between the role of a judge, and that of a Councilor, suggested to me, without getting approval from the Mayor, that my attempt to make a case for system development charges was a waste of their time. To me, that is both an insult to me, and to the democratic process, especially so since I was not given the same amount of time as the representative from the building industry.
2. The minutes often do not reflect the points citizens make during the citizens participation or other portions of the Council meetings. This is a form of censorship and information control. For example, last meeting I noted that some other cities were using the first round of stimulus money to improve the Oregon-wide problem of deteriorating infrastructure, such as streets and sidewalks (Ashland, for example.). They translated these specifics to “several projects . . . could have been selected,” leaving the reader to wonder if I had perhaps asked that they spend it on an addition to my house or sidewalks and curbs along my property frontage. They didn’t even mention that I also noted that instead of using the first round of stimulus money to benefit all Baker City citizens by reducing the backlog of streets in need of repair, they used it to pave and construct sidewalks on a short section of Birch Street. That construction is a gift and subsidy to the home owners and a speculator who own property along that section, as well as a gift to the people in the new developments to the north. Normally, the residents along the area paved would have been required to pay for the streets and sidewalks, as they were forced to do last year on “F” Street for the Elm street development.
Interestingly, Councilors have an opportunity to object to the minutes and get them changed, but citizens don't. What's up with that???
Another example is that I noted that the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance is not up on the City website for citizens to read so that they could become familiar with the proposed changes. The minutes indicated simply that there are “documents he would like to be able to access,” as if it were a personal problem rather that a matter of transparency and good democratic process to inform people in a timely manner of the changes being proposed. After all, the City Planner already met with at least one business group to discuss the new ordinances.
3. The new Property Maintenance Ordinance appears to be an attempt to criminalize poverty and semi-rural lifestyles and is similar to gentrification projects that realtors, developers and economic development interests have used to coerce or displace the poor in cities across the country.
It appears that real estate, builder/developer, economic development, business, and speculator groups have essentially captured Baker City government. (These are some of the same kinds of groups who brought you the housing and finance bubbles that led to economic collapse.) Instead of the Federal government coming here to “help” us (as in “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help”), these groups, and newcomers to City government, are here to help us and sanitize our little town to make it safe and accommodating for their own economic interests and the tastes of wealthier residents, as well as for home buyers, and tourists from the larger cities in the west.
There is money to be made and the poor are standing in the way.
Several years ago PBS aired an online discussion about gentrification and the community tensions it brings. In a portion about gentrification in rural communities, one participant explained that:
“Rural areas experience gentrification; however, it differs in important ways from the gentrification that occurs in urban communities. While urban gentrification typically affects a specific neighborhood, rural gentrification affects a whole town or county. Further,.., [rural] gentrification is primarily an issue of class. Wealthy whites have migrated to amenity-rich rural enclaves to avail themselves of the natural beauty and resources these rural communities have to offer. . . . [some poor rural] residents who are pressured by gentrification and the dynamics that typically occur (e.g., rising housing [and rental] costs) would be forced to leave the county to escape these pressures.”
Unfortunately, for many low-income people, there is really nowhere else to go.
Mr Chance, the hit man for the economic elites, and others, have cited a high rate of complaints about property condition to justify the new Property Maintenance Ordinance, so I asked Mr. Chance for supporting data on April 27. It makes sense that the Council and interested citizens should be able to access information about these complaints in a “trust but verify” sort of way. If they are going to attack the lifestyles of some city residents, we ought to be able to know the nature of the complaints, how many there are, whether they were submitted by real estate agents, the date they were submitted, etc. I received no reply, so I put in an Oregon Public Records Request for the data. I received a reply last week indicating that the City wants me to pay $208.00 for the information. Assuming that Councilors will be interested in the information as well, perhaps one of the Councilors will share it with the rest of us.
Here are some examples of problematic provisions:
- The new opening to the general provisions generally implies that poor people and people who don’t share the values of the business or administrative classes create “visual blight” and are a drag on the economy and other people’s property values. “Visual blight” might be something speculators in housing would be interested in, but it is none-the-less a value judgment that may or may not have anything to do with health and safety.
- If a low income person can’t afford to keep up on regular maintenance of their home or fence, and someone complains that it is “unsightly,” they can be fined $500 for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
- If a person accumulates salvage wood or building materials to use later, or piles up tree clippings and other materials for drying and eventual burning, they can be fined $500 for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
- If a person brings 4 to 8 foot lengths of firewood back from the forest, the ordinance requires the wood be cut up immediately in fireplace or woodstove lengths and stacked, or the individual will face a $500 fine for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
- The new ordinance would define any “parts vehicle” that is not currently operable as a “discarded vehicle,” even though it is not discarded, but is instead useful and is being recycled. If an inoperable parts vehicle is not placed within a building on one’s property within 72 hours, the person faces a $250.00 fine for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
There are other examples of onerous regulation in the ordinance and also provisions for a doubling or quadrupling of fines for subsequent violations. The problem with them is that they are not really related to health and safety. They are value judgments made about what is alleged to be unsightly and about the way some people live, often not through their own choosing. What good does it do to fine people who are barely getting by to begin with, or who have always lived the way they live without causing harm to others? If a person could afford a building to put their parts car in, they wouldn’t need a parts car.
Another obvious problem is that anyone, including city officials or political opponents, can use them in a vendetta against someone they don't like for whatever reason, knowing that the accused will never know the name of the accuser.
That realtors, builders, and economic development gurus are major forces behind this latest effort can be seen clearly in the ordinance, in statements made at “focus” group meetings, and in the statements of a builder and a realtor at the last council meeting. One builder, who lives out of town, mentioned that someone he considers his friend, City Planner Chance, actually sat down with his special interest group to go over proposed ordinance changes with them. This has apparently occurred, but they still haven’t put the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance up on the web site for affected residents and ordinary citizens to read. A realtor, Jerry Corn, noted that he went to visit Mr. Chance within 10 days of his being selected as City Planner, and that he complained to Mr. Chance about the way some people live in Baker City. Even though he lives over on Cedar, he said that “Ninth and Campbell has been a thorn in my side for years.” (Oh, and why is that Mr. Corn???) Mr. Chance told him the existing “ordinance doesn’t have the teeth nor the enforcement to take care of Ninth and Campbell or other derelict properties.” The City now proposes to “take care” of the alleged problems by creating a new oppressive and classist Property Maintenance Ordinance with many of the changes being imported from Bend and Seaside, Oregon. It is obvious why the Board of Realtors unanimously endorsed Mr. Chance.
Hopefully, Council will see the value of respecting the class and lifestyle diversity that currently exists in Baker City, and will remove any provision that is not clearly related to health and safety.
_________________________________
- Wolf Video: "Meet Limpy"
- Some Spring Birds
-- Osprey
-- Tree Swallow
-- Mountain Bluebird
-- Western Bluebird
-- Marsh Wren
- The Poppycock Proclamation
Wolf Video: "Meet Limpy"
________________________________
Some Spring Birds
This first photo, an Osprey, was sent in by Sharon Raya of Richland. Her husband Art took it yesterday on his way back from the reservoir. It is the best local photo of an Osprey that I have have seen. Ospreys can be found here in the valley at the north freeway pond (UPS Ponds) and at the 203 pond. Another easy spot is at Hudspeth Road and Hwy. 7, among other places. They usually show up in April.
"Osprey With Lunch"Last Friday, I went to Ladd Marsh to photograph a few birds prior to the Birdathon. I was able to catch this Tree Swallow in what appears to be the right light, so feel quite fortunate to have been in the right place at the right time. They show up in April and use tree cavities and bluebird boxes for nest sites.
Tree SwallowThese Mountain Bluebirds were photographed in the Wallowa Mountain foothills during the spring migratory count this last weekend. Bluebirds show up in march and are eagerly awaited by all. Like Tree Swallows, they use both tree cavities and boxes. Also like tree swallows, they are voracious consumers of insects. On a trip to the mountains in Utah, one flew from the top of a conifer tree to near my feet to pick off a small grasshopper.
Mountain Bluebird
Mountain Bluebird - Male
Mountain Bluebird - FemaleThese Western Bluebirds (below) were also photographed in the Wallowa Mountain foothills during the spring migratory count this last weekend. In California, they are often seen in the oak woodlands of the Peninsular Range. They were down on the south rim of the Grand Canyon in March at about the same time they arrive here in Baker County. They intermingle with Mountain Bluebirds but to my knowledge (and by definition of species), do not interbreed with them. Bluebirds, Tree Swallows, and other cavity nesters must compete with non-native Starlings for these available nesting spaces, and may find themselves at a disadvantage.
Western Bluebird Pair on NestboxThe chatty and curious Marsh Wren (Below) breeds in cattail marshes, such as can be found at Ladd Marsh, where this bird was photographed on May 9th. I have yet to see one in Baker County, perhaps due to the paucity of decent sized cattail marshes that are publicly accessible.
Marsh Wren
Marsh Wren_______________________________
The Poppycock Proclamation
Went to the City Council meeting last night. Right after the approval of the minutes the Mayor read a proclamation for Poppy Day, the first sentence of which read:
Whereas, America is the land of freedom, preserved and protected willingly and freely by citizen soldiers: and . . . .
They then paraded two very young children before the assembled crowd and encouraged them to hawk their hand made poppies to the people eager to show their patriotism. It reminded me of how our culture often uses young children to promote its religious, military and other doctrines, even before these innocents are able to defend themselves with the shield of rational and logical thought. The hand fed delusions begin I suppose with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Thus prepared to be favorably inclined to accept almost any bit of nonsense, we teach them songs like "Jesus Loves Me" (yes I know--for the bible tells me so), oaths like the Pledge of Allegiance, and dogmatic ideas like "our wars are fought by willing soldiers to protect our cherished freedom and democracy." Given 18 years of this faith and dogma, they will be ready to run off and kill even innocent civilians for the imperial designs of our corporate masters, all the while thinking it is for freedom and democracy, even if they have experienced little of either.
Well, after hearing the proclamation, I almost got to thinking the Council might be willing to let me exercise some democratic rights and freedom by reading my not quite two pages of comments objecting to, among other things, how they were getting set to attack our cherished freedoms with the new draft Property Maintenance Ordinance. The fact that they had cut me off twice and threatened to throw me out at the previous meeting did not dampen my hope, because after all, they had just told us that "America is the land of freedom!"
In a bit of irony, my hopes were dashed when the Mayor insisted I speak for only the alloted 3 minutes after I politely requested 6 and 1/2. I pointed out that there were no other citizens willing to speak during "Citizen Participation," but to no avail (even though the time limit isn't consistently enforced). I guess I've given them reason to enforce it as I ask too many questions, point out too many problems, and am not a business person. "Citizen Participation" is so important to the Council that they allow that whopping 3 minutes for a citizen to address them at the beginning of meetings. Often no one has the courage to show up for it unless they are there to praise the Council or ask for money. Critics are often cut off or insulted, as I was last week, so they have learned not to show up to practice the democracy that so many soldiers have died for. They realize far better than I that democracy is for the few, the "good-old-boys," preferably the financially well off and comfortable.
Fortunately, they haven't found a way to take away my blog yet, so I thought I'd post an expanded version of the comments they wouldn't let me finish. I had edited out many of the important parts to get it down to 6 and 1/2 minutes for Council, but here of course, I can cut loose with the whole uncensored rant.
Comments to Council 5/12/09
1. The op-ed by the Herald mentioned that Resolution 3407 required respect for the gavel ( http://www.bakercityherald.com/Editorials/Respect-the-gavel ). What it didn’t mention was that the same resolution also requires respect for the citizen who in a democracy is allowed to voice an opinion or recite facts within the amount of time allowed to other speakers, even if the City Manager or a particular Councilor disagrees. I. E.:
Section 5. a) All members of the Council shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to city employees, and to public members appearing before the Council and shall refrain at all times from rude and derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments, and statements as to motives and personalities.
In the case in question, Councilor Pope, who may be having difficulty differentiating between the role of a judge, and that of a Councilor, suggested to me, without getting approval from the Mayor, that my attempt to make a case for system development charges was a waste of their time. To me, that is both an insult to me, and to the democratic process, especially so since I was not given the same amount of time as the representative from the building industry.
2. The minutes often do not reflect the points citizens make during the citizens participation or other portions of the Council meetings. This is a form of censorship and information control. For example, last meeting I noted that some other cities were using the first round of stimulus money to improve the Oregon-wide problem of deteriorating infrastructure, such as streets and sidewalks (Ashland, for example.). They translated these specifics to “several projects . . . could have been selected,” leaving the reader to wonder if I had perhaps asked that they spend it on an addition to my house or sidewalks and curbs along my property frontage. They didn’t even mention that I also noted that instead of using the first round of stimulus money to benefit all Baker City citizens by reducing the backlog of streets in need of repair, they used it to pave and construct sidewalks on a short section of Birch Street. That construction is a gift and subsidy to the home owners and a speculator who own property along that section, as well as a gift to the people in the new developments to the north. Normally, the residents along the area paved would have been required to pay for the streets and sidewalks, as they were forced to do last year on “F” Street for the Elm street development.
Interestingly, Councilors have an opportunity to object to the minutes and get them changed, but citizens don't. What's up with that???
Another example is that I noted that the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance is not up on the City website for citizens to read so that they could become familiar with the proposed changes. The minutes indicated simply that there are “documents he would like to be able to access,” as if it were a personal problem rather that a matter of transparency and good democratic process to inform people in a timely manner of the changes being proposed. After all, the City Planner already met with at least one business group to discuss the new ordinances.
3. The new Property Maintenance Ordinance appears to be an attempt to criminalize poverty and semi-rural lifestyles and is similar to gentrification projects that realtors, developers and economic development interests have used to coerce or displace the poor in cities across the country.
It appears that real estate, builder/developer, economic development, business, and speculator groups have essentially captured Baker City government. (These are some of the same kinds of groups who brought you the housing and finance bubbles that led to economic collapse.) Instead of the Federal government coming here to “help” us (as in “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help”), these groups, and newcomers to City government, are here to help us and sanitize our little town to make it safe and accommodating for their own economic interests and the tastes of wealthier residents, as well as for home buyers, and tourists from the larger cities in the west.
There is money to be made and the poor are standing in the way.
Several years ago PBS aired an online discussion about gentrification and the community tensions it brings. In a portion about gentrification in rural communities, one participant explained that:
“Rural areas experience gentrification; however, it differs in important ways from the gentrification that occurs in urban communities. While urban gentrification typically affects a specific neighborhood, rural gentrification affects a whole town or county. Further,.., [rural] gentrification is primarily an issue of class. Wealthy whites have migrated to amenity-rich rural enclaves to avail themselves of the natural beauty and resources these rural communities have to offer. . . . [some poor rural] residents who are pressured by gentrification and the dynamics that typically occur (e.g., rising housing [and rental] costs) would be forced to leave the county to escape these pressures.”
Unfortunately, for many low-income people, there is really nowhere else to go.
Mr Chance, the hit man for the economic elites, and others, have cited a high rate of complaints about property condition to justify the new Property Maintenance Ordinance, so I asked Mr. Chance for supporting data on April 27. It makes sense that the Council and interested citizens should be able to access information about these complaints in a “trust but verify” sort of way. If they are going to attack the lifestyles of some city residents, we ought to be able to know the nature of the complaints, how many there are, whether they were submitted by real estate agents, the date they were submitted, etc. I received no reply, so I put in an Oregon Public Records Request for the data. I received a reply last week indicating that the City wants me to pay $208.00 for the information. Assuming that Councilors will be interested in the information as well, perhaps one of the Councilors will share it with the rest of us.
Here are some examples of problematic provisions:
- The new opening to the general provisions generally implies that poor people and people who don’t share the values of the business or administrative classes create “visual blight” and are a drag on the economy and other people’s property values. “Visual blight” might be something speculators in housing would be interested in, but it is none-the-less a value judgment that may or may not have anything to do with health and safety.
- If a low income person can’t afford to keep up on regular maintenance of their home or fence, and someone complains that it is “unsightly,” they can be fined $500 for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
- If a person accumulates salvage wood or building materials to use later, or piles up tree clippings and other materials for drying and eventual burning, they can be fined $500 for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
- If a person brings 4 to 8 foot lengths of firewood back from the forest, the ordinance requires the wood be cut up immediately in fireplace or woodstove lengths and stacked, or the individual will face a $500 fine for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
- The new ordinance would define any “parts vehicle” that is not currently operable as a “discarded vehicle,” even though it is not discarded, but is instead useful and is being recycled. If an inoperable parts vehicle is not placed within a building on one’s property within 72 hours, the person faces a $250.00 fine for the infraction and for each day that it is not remedied.
There are other examples of onerous regulation in the ordinance and also provisions for a doubling or quadrupling of fines for subsequent violations. The problem with them is that they are not really related to health and safety. They are value judgments made about what is alleged to be unsightly and about the way some people live, often not through their own choosing. What good does it do to fine people who are barely getting by to begin with, or who have always lived the way they live without causing harm to others? If a person could afford a building to put their parts car in, they wouldn’t need a parts car.
Another obvious problem is that anyone, including city officials or political opponents, can use them in a vendetta against someone they don't like for whatever reason, knowing that the accused will never know the name of the accuser.
That realtors, builders, and economic development gurus are major forces behind this latest effort can be seen clearly in the ordinance, in statements made at “focus” group meetings, and in the statements of a builder and a realtor at the last council meeting. One builder, who lives out of town, mentioned that someone he considers his friend, City Planner Chance, actually sat down with his special interest group to go over proposed ordinance changes with them. This has apparently occurred, but they still haven’t put the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance up on the web site for affected residents and ordinary citizens to read. A realtor, Jerry Corn, noted that he went to visit Mr. Chance within 10 days of his being selected as City Planner, and that he complained to Mr. Chance about the way some people live in Baker City. Even though he lives over on Cedar, he said that “Ninth and Campbell has been a thorn in my side for years.” (Oh, and why is that Mr. Corn???) Mr. Chance told him the existing “ordinance doesn’t have the teeth nor the enforcement to take care of Ninth and Campbell or other derelict properties.” The City now proposes to “take care” of the alleged problems by creating a new oppressive and classist Property Maintenance Ordinance with many of the changes being imported from Bend and Seaside, Oregon. It is obvious why the Board of Realtors unanimously endorsed Mr. Chance.
Hopefully, Council will see the value of respecting the class and lifestyle diversity that currently exists in Baker City, and will remove any provision that is not clearly related to health and safety.
_________________________________
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wolves Again. . . .
This is a in part a re-post of a blog from December 6, 2007 about wolves and the persecution of predators.
I re-posted the original several paragraphs below due to the current interest in the wolf situation generated by the April incident near Keating, Baker County, Oregon, and because Oregon Public Broadcasting did a Think Out Loud segment this morning concerning the conflicts arising due to the wolf's homecoming. I had wanted to ask about the rancher's responsibility to protect their livestock and whether much effort was expended to do that prior to the Baker County wolf incidents. After remaining on hold for almost 15 minutes, the program ended without my being able to speak and without the moderator asking the question which had been provided earlier to the screener.
People are aware that living in the country presents certain risks, including the possible loss of domestic animals to native predators. When people are aware of a threat, they usually provide adequate security for their animals. I myself raise chickens and I provide them with secure pens made of dog kennel fencing with extra chainlink buried along the edges of the pens to prevent digging under. So what I'm wondering, what with some 6 guard dogs, and the sheep so close to the house, just how were the wolves able to get to the lambs, and how could they have done it without the dogs raising enough ruckus to alert the owners that they had a problem to attend to? They knew (despite Congressman Walden's claims http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Walden-Move-the-wolves-to-wild-areas ), as everyone out here knew, that the wolves had come home, and an April 16th Oregonian article, "Wolves kill 23 lambs. . . ." wrote that "Jacobs saw a wolf last year, and neighbors have reported them in the area recently, he said."
A search on "Wolf proof fencing" reveals that many designs for wolf-proof fencing have been developed. One article from 1982 describes such fencing being developed in 1935. (THE USE OF FENCES FOR PREDATOR DAMAGE CONTROL http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=vpc10 )
The facts are that wolves are responsible for about 1% of livestock losses in Idaho, a state with around 1600 wolves at the time of delisting. In Wisconsin, a state with about 2600 wolves, about 30 to 50 livestock animals are lost due to wolf depredation each year. With over 3 million cattle and calves alone, this represents a very small fraction of 1% of cattle, calves and sheep (something like less than 1/100th of a percent) in Wisconsin. These are hardly the kinds of numbers that could justify the current hysteria about wolves coming back to Oregon that exists among ranchers and others.
Defenders of Wildlife provides the following facts and more at http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/wolf_predation_and_livestock_losses.php
Wolf Predation Plays Small Role in Livestock Losses in 2005
"In the continental U.S., health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.
- Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005.
- Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves killed that year.
- Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.
- Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.
- Predation by coyotes was the largest cause of sheep loss in 2005, accounting for 23% of all losses, followed by health problems & weather-related issues.
- In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5% of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005.
Only 5% of all cattle losses in the continental U.S. in 2005 were attributable to predators. In addition, only 0.11% of all cattle losses in 2005 were due to predation by wolves. Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle, domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005. Interestingly, theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation."
So why is it that everyone else takes it as reasonable that they are completely responsible for protecting their animals, but the Cattleman's Association and many ranchers think they are different? They might say, well, after we and the government won our little war on the wolf, we expected that people would let us continue the persecution forever, even on public lands. Fortunately, this isn't 1946; people now realize the value of predators, and they want their wolves back. Ranchers will just have to start acting like the rest of us by bearing the expense of protecting their animals, and if they put them on public lands where wolves are present, they should expect some uncompensated losses. They already receive large government subsidies and only pay $1.35 a month, less than what it costs to feed a hamster, for having a cow and her often half-grown calf eating and tearing up riparian areas on the public lands. No doubt they can deduct it from their tax liabilities, if any.
It was interesting to hear the Cattlemen's Association President talk about the "passion" ranchers have for wildlife, and to hear a caller from N. Powder speak about the East-West divide and the lack of respect shown for ranching tradition in Eastern Oregon and elsewhere in the west. My blog from December 2007, describes some of that passion and tradition. It explains the relationship between ranching and the persecution, and extirpation or near extirpation, of native predators, including the wolf. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found, details with words and pictures the morbid and passionate tradition. Today, at the behest of ranchers, Baker County still uses taxpayer dollars to gun down coyotes from helicopters every winter.
You can download Defender's "Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts" at:
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/livestock_and_wolves.pdf
Chris
Wolves
Gray Wolf (Canis lupis) [USF&WS Photo]
I enjoyed the Herald Tuesday’s article by Jayson Jacoby on the dispersal of wolves into North East Oregon. It was gratifying to see it as it helps confirm my sighting of a pair of wolves near Lick Creek (Wallowa County) in August of this year. I reported the sighting to the Fish & Wildlife Service that month, but apparently they were unable to independently confirm it. Good that the snow held the tracks found by a local rancher, hopefully not one of the “shoot, shovel, and shut-up” up crowd, so that wolves could be confirmed this year. We should be relieved that the wolf has finally come home. I look forward to hearing their howls in the coming years but predator persecution has a long history in America, and in Eastern Oregon in particular (2 of 4 recent wolf migrants have been shot). Hopefully the State and Federal government will take their responsibilities seriously and protect the wolves from those who have vowed to stop their reintroduction here.
In America, the practice of predator persecution by the agricultural “producer” community has its roots in the insecurity of an expanding agrarian pioneer population dating back to the arrival of Europeans on this continent during the 1600’s. It has since spread to the hunting industrial complex, which has concerns that it will reduce numbers of “game” species, like elk and deer, which in turn could reduce the number of tags allowed and licenses sold. This could lower income to the State hunting bureaucracy, to gun shops and ammunition dealers, and ultimately to local communities who depend on the flush of hunter dollars in the fall. (On the other hand, it might bring the curious into the area hoping to view or hear wolves.)
Bounties on wolves were offered as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Colony, at which time, some 250,00 or more wolves roamed America’s wild lands. By about 1700, wolves had been eliminated from the Eastern United States. According to the Wild Rockies Alliance, “Professional ‘wolfers’ working for the livestock industry laid out strychnine-poisoned meat lines up to 150 miles long. Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites.” The persecution reached its apex in the late 1800’s and into the early years of the last century, by which time it is estimated that some 55,000 wolves a year were being executed. Between 1918 and 1920, over 128,500 wolves were slaughtered in the Western U. S.
A palpable hatred for both predators and other “varmints” is revealed in articles printed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found.
Some quotes:
“Uncle Sam, tired of a drain on his resources of from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 every year through the slaughter [slaughter is to be reserved for humans alone] of domestic stock by predatory animals, now keeps constantly in the field a force of hunters who are instructed to wipe out these nonproducers. In their place, and safe from their depredations, it is the aim to populate the range country [I.e., primarily public lands] with flocks and herds….”
. . . .
“Losses of live stock from ravages of predatory animals are among the most spectacular and exasperating of those suffered by the stockman. Disease may decimate his flocks and herds, or drought or wintry storms may result in the starvation or death of numbers of valuable animals. None of these disasters, however, arouses such resentment and determination to settle the score as arises in the heart of the ranchman when wolves or other stock destroyers enter corrals or operate on the open range [public lands], maiming and killing his cattle or other domestic stock.”
. . . .
“Men with keen insight into animal psychology and the ways and motives of wild creatures had sought out improved methods of luring them to destruction when their presence was detrimental to the live-stock business.”
. . . .
“Careful field studies of the abundance, habits, and relationship of predatory animals to the live-stock industry had been made by the Biological Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture for many years.”
. . . .
“. . . the death of the Custer wolf was hailed with delight by stockmen throughout the region where the depredations had occurred, and has added to the impetus to a movement for cooperation with the Department in order to meet more adequately the needs of the live-stock industry.”
“Evidence that Uncle Sam’s Hunters Get results”
In another part of the article titled “’Getting’ the Chief Offenders,” a caption, under a photo of trapped coyotes and wolves, and of a “hunter” spreading poisoned baits, states: “Trapped coyote—more than 250,000 of his ilk have been accounted for [killed] in five years by Federal and cooperating hunters.” [Emphasis added]
It is clear from these attitudes that the American people are expected to sacrifice their public ecosystems, and all the species there-in, (not to mention their tax dollars flowing to the U.S.D.A predator control efforts, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management) to the economic interests of ranchers. In practice, that is exactly what has occurred. Like every thing else in our corrupt American “democracy,” the theft of our public lands and ecosystems has been financed by the economic power of special interest groups like the various Cattlemen’s Associations. This is accomplished through their financial contributions to members of Congress, especially in districts where extractive industries and ranchers have large landholdings with the significant economic and social power that those holdings bring.
And it is not just native predators who suffer. Prairie dogs and other important rodents have suffered as well. As the picture above illustrates, prairie dogs, and those who depend on them, like the black-footed ferret, have been the targets of the stockman’s jihad. Hawks and many other species depend upon the availability of a prey base, which consists largely of rodents, for their survival.
Black-Footed Ferret [USF&WS Photo]
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog [USF&WS Photo]
Swainson’s Hawk [Photo © Christopher Christie]
My question, and that of many in the environmental community, is why should ranchers or hunters have control over which of our native predators should be allowed to have access to their historic habitat on our public lands? The wolf has an important role in maintaining the health of our public ecosystems. If public lands ranchers insist on putting their livestock in a situation where they will naturally become prey, then that is their problem. Our lands should not be managed for the benefit of ranchers and hunters, our lands should be managed for the benefit of native ecosystems and the services they provide for all of the American people.
[For old letter on predator control see:
http://www.rangebiome.org/editorials/oregonwolves.html ]
I re-posted the original several paragraphs below due to the current interest in the wolf situation generated by the April incident near Keating, Baker County, Oregon, and because Oregon Public Broadcasting did a Think Out Loud segment this morning concerning the conflicts arising due to the wolf's homecoming. I had wanted to ask about the rancher's responsibility to protect their livestock and whether much effort was expended to do that prior to the Baker County wolf incidents. After remaining on hold for almost 15 minutes, the program ended without my being able to speak and without the moderator asking the question which had been provided earlier to the screener.
People are aware that living in the country presents certain risks, including the possible loss of domestic animals to native predators. When people are aware of a threat, they usually provide adequate security for their animals. I myself raise chickens and I provide them with secure pens made of dog kennel fencing with extra chainlink buried along the edges of the pens to prevent digging under. So what I'm wondering, what with some 6 guard dogs, and the sheep so close to the house, just how were the wolves able to get to the lambs, and how could they have done it without the dogs raising enough ruckus to alert the owners that they had a problem to attend to? They knew (despite Congressman Walden's claims http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Walden-Move-the-wolves-to-wild-areas ), as everyone out here knew, that the wolves had come home, and an April 16th Oregonian article, "Wolves kill 23 lambs. . . ." wrote that "Jacobs saw a wolf last year, and neighbors have reported them in the area recently, he said."
A search on "Wolf proof fencing" reveals that many designs for wolf-proof fencing have been developed. One article from 1982 describes such fencing being developed in 1935. (THE USE OF FENCES FOR PREDATOR DAMAGE CONTROL http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=vpc10 )
The facts are that wolves are responsible for about 1% of livestock losses in Idaho, a state with around 1600 wolves at the time of delisting. In Wisconsin, a state with about 2600 wolves, about 30 to 50 livestock animals are lost due to wolf depredation each year. With over 3 million cattle and calves alone, this represents a very small fraction of 1% of cattle, calves and sheep (something like less than 1/100th of a percent) in Wisconsin. These are hardly the kinds of numbers that could justify the current hysteria about wolves coming back to Oregon that exists among ranchers and others.
Defenders of Wildlife provides the following facts and more at http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/wolf_predation_and_livestock_losses.php
Wolf Predation Plays Small Role in Livestock Losses in 2005
"In the continental U.S., health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.
- Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005.
- Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves killed that year.
- Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.
- Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.
- Predation by coyotes was the largest cause of sheep loss in 2005, accounting for 23% of all losses, followed by health problems & weather-related issues.
- In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5% of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005.
Only 5% of all cattle losses in the continental U.S. in 2005 were attributable to predators. In addition, only 0.11% of all cattle losses in 2005 were due to predation by wolves. Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle, domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005. Interestingly, theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation."
So why is it that everyone else takes it as reasonable that they are completely responsible for protecting their animals, but the Cattleman's Association and many ranchers think they are different? They might say, well, after we and the government won our little war on the wolf, we expected that people would let us continue the persecution forever, even on public lands. Fortunately, this isn't 1946; people now realize the value of predators, and they want their wolves back. Ranchers will just have to start acting like the rest of us by bearing the expense of protecting their animals, and if they put them on public lands where wolves are present, they should expect some uncompensated losses. They already receive large government subsidies and only pay $1.35 a month, less than what it costs to feed a hamster, for having a cow and her often half-grown calf eating and tearing up riparian areas on the public lands. No doubt they can deduct it from their tax liabilities, if any.
It was interesting to hear the Cattlemen's Association President talk about the "passion" ranchers have for wildlife, and to hear a caller from N. Powder speak about the East-West divide and the lack of respect shown for ranching tradition in Eastern Oregon and elsewhere in the west. My blog from December 2007, describes some of that passion and tradition. It explains the relationship between ranching and the persecution, and extirpation or near extirpation, of native predators, including the wolf. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found, details with words and pictures the morbid and passionate tradition. Today, at the behest of ranchers, Baker County still uses taxpayer dollars to gun down coyotes from helicopters every winter.
You can download Defender's "Livestock and Wolves: A Guide to Nonlethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts" at:
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/livestock_and_wolves.pdf
Chris
Wolves
Gray Wolf (Canis lupis) [USF&WS Photo]
I enjoyed the Herald Tuesday’s article by Jayson Jacoby on the dispersal of wolves into North East Oregon. It was gratifying to see it as it helps confirm my sighting of a pair of wolves near Lick Creek (Wallowa County) in August of this year. I reported the sighting to the Fish & Wildlife Service that month, but apparently they were unable to independently confirm it. Good that the snow held the tracks found by a local rancher, hopefully not one of the “shoot, shovel, and shut-up” up crowd, so that wolves could be confirmed this year. We should be relieved that the wolf has finally come home. I look forward to hearing their howls in the coming years but predator persecution has a long history in America, and in Eastern Oregon in particular (2 of 4 recent wolf migrants have been shot). Hopefully the State and Federal government will take their responsibilities seriously and protect the wolves from those who have vowed to stop their reintroduction here.
In America, the practice of predator persecution by the agricultural “producer” community has its roots in the insecurity of an expanding agrarian pioneer population dating back to the arrival of Europeans on this continent during the 1600’s. It has since spread to the hunting industrial complex, which has concerns that it will reduce numbers of “game” species, like elk and deer, which in turn could reduce the number of tags allowed and licenses sold. This could lower income to the State hunting bureaucracy, to gun shops and ammunition dealers, and ultimately to local communities who depend on the flush of hunter dollars in the fall. (On the other hand, it might bring the curious into the area hoping to view or hear wolves.)
Bounties on wolves were offered as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Colony, at which time, some 250,00 or more wolves roamed America’s wild lands. By about 1700, wolves had been eliminated from the Eastern United States. According to the Wild Rockies Alliance, “Professional ‘wolfers’ working for the livestock industry laid out strychnine-poisoned meat lines up to 150 miles long. Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites.” The persecution reached its apex in the late 1800’s and into the early years of the last century, by which time it is estimated that some 55,000 wolves a year were being executed. Between 1918 and 1920, over 128,500 wolves were slaughtered in the Western U. S.
A palpable hatred for both predators and other “varmints” is revealed in articles printed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found.
Some quotes:
“Uncle Sam, tired of a drain on his resources of from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 every year through the slaughter [slaughter is to be reserved for humans alone] of domestic stock by predatory animals, now keeps constantly in the field a force of hunters who are instructed to wipe out these nonproducers. In their place, and safe from their depredations, it is the aim to populate the range country [I.e., primarily public lands] with flocks and herds….”
. . . .
“Losses of live stock from ravages of predatory animals are among the most spectacular and exasperating of those suffered by the stockman. Disease may decimate his flocks and herds, or drought or wintry storms may result in the starvation or death of numbers of valuable animals. None of these disasters, however, arouses such resentment and determination to settle the score as arises in the heart of the ranchman when wolves or other stock destroyers enter corrals or operate on the open range [public lands], maiming and killing his cattle or other domestic stock.”
. . . .
“Men with keen insight into animal psychology and the ways and motives of wild creatures had sought out improved methods of luring them to destruction when their presence was detrimental to the live-stock business.”
. . . .
“Careful field studies of the abundance, habits, and relationship of predatory animals to the live-stock industry had been made by the Biological Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture for many years.”
. . . .
“. . . the death of the Custer wolf was hailed with delight by stockmen throughout the region where the depredations had occurred, and has added to the impetus to a movement for cooperation with the Department in order to meet more adequately the needs of the live-stock industry.”
“Evidence that Uncle Sam’s Hunters Get results”
In another part of the article titled “’Getting’ the Chief Offenders,” a caption, under a photo of trapped coyotes and wolves, and of a “hunter” spreading poisoned baits, states: “Trapped coyote—more than 250,000 of his ilk have been accounted for [killed] in five years by Federal and cooperating hunters.” [Emphasis added]
It is clear from these attitudes that the American people are expected to sacrifice their public ecosystems, and all the species there-in, (not to mention their tax dollars flowing to the U.S.D.A predator control efforts, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management) to the economic interests of ranchers. In practice, that is exactly what has occurred. Like every thing else in our corrupt American “democracy,” the theft of our public lands and ecosystems has been financed by the economic power of special interest groups like the various Cattlemen’s Associations. This is accomplished through their financial contributions to members of Congress, especially in districts where extractive industries and ranchers have large landholdings with the significant economic and social power that those holdings bring.
And it is not just native predators who suffer. Prairie dogs and other important rodents have suffered as well. As the picture above illustrates, prairie dogs, and those who depend on them, like the black-footed ferret, have been the targets of the stockman’s jihad. Hawks and many other species depend upon the availability of a prey base, which consists largely of rodents, for their survival.
Black-Footed Ferret [USF&WS Photo]
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog [USF&WS Photo]
Swainson’s Hawk [Photo © Christopher Christie]
My question, and that of many in the environmental community, is why should ranchers or hunters have control over which of our native predators should be allowed to have access to their historic habitat on our public lands? The wolf has an important role in maintaining the health of our public ecosystems. If public lands ranchers insist on putting their livestock in a situation where they will naturally become prey, then that is their problem. Our lands should not be managed for the benefit of ranchers and hunters, our lands should be managed for the benefit of native ecosystems and the services they provide for all of the American people.
[For old letter on predator control see:
http://www.rangebiome.org/editorials/oregonwolves.html ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
