[Edited with significant revisions, 6/22/10]
Good Lord! I knew we had some problems with "Justice" in Baker County, but will the County Commissioners really appoint Don Williams as an impartial Justice of the Peace Pro-Tem?? How bad can it get? I mean, don't they know that there are sane, legally trained people who could handle the job right here in Baker County??? First they want the elected JP's husband to take on there job as substitute (any conflicts there?), then Gary Marlette, and now they want to appoint a known partisan (extreme in my opinion), whose political views run in the completely opposite direction of the electorate as witnessed by the last recall election (the recall he promoted lost in a landslide). Mr. Williams statements and letters also seem to advocate unconstitutional promotion of sectarian prayer at City Council meetings and reveal a lack of compassion for some citizens affected by poverty. Who's next, Brian Cole?? Such an appointment will bring no "justice" or "peace" to Baker City. Commissioners, please get a grip--we do not need any intolerant and divisive personalities determining the fate of our citizens.
Here is the text of the announcement from the Commissioners office:
Agenda:06/23/2010 Commission Session Agenda
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
2. Citizen’s Participation:
a.
3. Review/Approval of Minutes:
a. June 2, 2010 Commission Session Minutes
. . . .
6. Documents to be Signed
a. Order No. 2010-144: Re-appointing Kurt Miller to the Transient Lodging
Tax Marketing Committee
b. Order No. 2010-145: Designating a paper of record
c. Order No. 2010-146: Appointing Don Williams as a Justice of the Peace Pro-Tem
I realize that the religious fanatics and anal retentives will applaud his seemingly irrational arguments, but I address my plea to the rational--do you want a man with these views dispensing "justice" in Baker County??? Would people affected by poverty and/or with property maintenance issues be treated fairly by Mr. Williams?
Don Williams statements, as recorded by the Baker City Herald:
Recall vote is justified
October 09, 2009
To the editor:
A serious absence of ethics: In May of this year, when considering the adoption of a property maintenance ordinance, Steve Brocato had the code enforcement officer survey properties owned by city councilors for compliance with the proposed ordinance. Several councilors owned properties which were not in compliance.
On May 26, one of those councilors, Bev Calder, wrote a scathing letter condemning the proposed ordinance. My letter to the editor on June 22 informed readers the genesis of her ire was most likely found in the fact that she owns and perpetuates one of the worst derelict buildings in the city, located at 1620 Valley Ave. A fact which she did not mention in her letter.
She, Dennis Dorrah and two fellow counselors colluded, (with the exclusion of three of their elected colleagues) and on June 9 fired Mr. Brocato. Over the last two months, Ms. Calder with her colleagues, assured the “derelict building” language was removed from the proposed ordinance. She voted and passed that ordinance, which, in my opinion will allow her to let her building rot in perpetuity at the expense of her neighbors, while the code will require her constituents to deal with their messy yards, and cover non-operating vehicles.
Mr. Brocato’s firing for his bedside manner in dealing with the council and a few incessant complainers, may be arguable. The surreptitious and unethical manner in which he was dismissed by these councilors, is not. By conducting the above survey, (one of his last acts as city manager), Mr. Brocato tried to assure the residents of Baker of the transparency and integrity of the ruling council, qualities that by their action, prove to be very foreign to Ms. Calder and Mr. Dorrah. A recall vote is justified.
Don Williams
Baker City
Council to vote on property rules July 28
Written by MIKE FERGUSON Baker City Herald July 15, 2009 03:19 pm
With one minor change made Tuesday, the Baker City Council will consider a proposed Property Maintenance Code for the first time during its next meeting July 28.
Following first and second readings that night, the new nuisance ordinance could become law as soon as Aug. 11.
. . . .
Interim City Manager Tim Collins said the proposal will actually strengthen the city’s enforcement ability, making it quicker because it removes the requirement that the city send a third set of notices to property owners who are in violation.
That action will place enforcement actions in Municipal Court faster, he told councilors.
This pleased Councilor Milo Pope.
“I desperately want us to adopt this ordinance as it exists,” he said, “and let us get to the business of enforcing this. We can’t keep wollying it around and piddling with it. Let’s assure these folks it will be the agenda at our next meeting and we will start the adoption process.”
. . . .
Don Williams pointed out that the proposed ordinance doesn’t address “perpetual garage sales” in which “inside furniture is being stored outside.”
Collins said he couldn’t find a prohibition against perpetual garage sales in other city ordinances, either, but said he didn’t believe the new ordinance was the place to address the problem.
Suzanne Moses said that in her 15 years living in Baker City, it’s apparent “we’re moving in the right direction” with cleaning up problem properties. “The contrast with how things were 15 years ago is remarkable, and I think it’s important to keep that in mind.”
Alice Lentz said that her work in social services has helped convince her that people do take pride in their community, but that “some people will say, ‘Don’t touch my junk,’ and if it’s not a safety hazard, I’m right there with them. There is a shared responsibility to improve our world and to leave it a better place than we found it, but on what level? On beauty, or on solid safety and community issues, and that is where I’d like to see the emphasis put. I don’t want to see people being portrayed as bad characters.”
In a letter to Collins and City Councilors, Barbara Fleming made a similar point.
“I realize government has a role to play,” she wrote. “Threat of liens are no doubt effective, but seem to me unfair. They suggest an uncaring attitude. I see more a poor, old, tired or jobless person needing assistance.”
Collins said that under the new ordinance, the whole process, from the moment Regan has an initial talk with the property owner to the time the city abates the problem, could be as little as two months.
“Two months for the wheels of justice to turn is exceedingly quick,” Collins said. “That is the quickest that you could expect action.”
The proposed ordinance is available online at www.bakercity.com.
Renovation record speaks for itself
June 26, 2009
To the editor:
Mr. Williams’ letter regarding my property on Valley Street is nothing more than mean-spirited propaganda. The building has been an eyesore for many, many years. Recently it was under threat of demolition and I decided to “rescue” the former church and drug treatment center and turn it into something that contributes to the neighborhood.
This building could be a neighborhood center; a gathering place for the east Baker neighborhood with facilities for family gatherings, art and dance classes, maybe even an elderhostel for travelers visiting Baker City and exploring our history and enjoying our community.
My house on Dewey Street, purchased in ’93, contained over five dump truck loads of rotting garbage, animal hides and offal. The yard was even worse. It took years to transform that hovel into the beautiful home it is today, but I believe it has had a positive impact on my neighborhood.
Baker City is still a land of opportunity. I was able to afford to purchase a home here on my own, even though I bought something most people would condemn and declare hopeless. All it took was some time, some hard-earned money and a lot of elbow grease and sweat.
Many “derelict” properties in Baker City have been revitalized. The list is long and includes some of our most beautiful homes and buildings. I don’t have deep pockets, a trust fund, or a job funded by taxpayers. But I do work hard and have put everything I’ve earned into creating jobs in Baker City that support families and reinvesting in my community.
Since purchasing the Valley Street property last year, I’ve tried to keep the yard mowed (between rain showers) and the sidewalks clear. All of the broken windows have been removed and stabilized with plywood. There are no cats nor transients living in the basement and there are no violations of city ordinances. I didn’t make the old church an eyesore, but it is my goal to make it something the neighborhood will enjoy and benefit from.
Beverly Calder
City Councilor
Baker City
Councilor Should Clean up Property
June 22, 2009
To the editor:
In Councilor Beverly Calder’s letter to the editor of May 26, she decries the proposed new property maintenance ordinance and calls any such attempt of city government to govern the open storage of trash, or one’s failure to maintain structures, “un-American.”
What Ms. Calder failed to disclose in her communication is the most likely impetus for her objections to the proposed ordinance supported by Mr. Brocato; that is, she is the owner of a building in Baker City that would be considered a derelict building and a nuisance under even the most forgiving and liberal definition contained in any such ordinance. If the proposed ordinance is passed, she too would most likely be held responsible for the respectful maintenance of her property.
I am a homeowner on Valley Avenue, in the area between Resort and East streets. Recently, several neglected and unsafe structures have been razed, or revitalized; however, one building in particular in the area stands in constant neglect, and continues to diminish the value of homes nearby. That building is located at 1620 Valley Ave. Once a church, it has long since been abandoned. Its windows are broken out, its cement is crumbling, its asbestos siding is broken, and electrical wiring and conduit hang from its exterior walls. Its unsecured basement is home to a myriad of feral cats, and has been used by homeless probation clients.
It is owned by Councilor Calder, and stands as a monument of disrespect and hypocrisy toward her own community. I would encourage readers to drive by and take a look, and ask yourself if you would like it next to your home. Our elected leaders have a responsibility to set examples as citizens who demonstrate respect for their city, their community and the property values of their neighbors and constituents. If anyone should recuse themselves on casting a vote on this issue, or even serving in a position of City leadership, it should be Ms. Calder. Her time would be better spent showing some respect to her Valley Avenue constituents by doing some significant clean up, renovation, and/or demolition.
Don Williams
Baker City
Re-elect Tim Kerns to commission
October 23, 2008
To the editor:
In Baker County we have a candidate who merits your vote; a candidate who fits the bill to continue to provide good leadership and a voice of reason to county politics: Tim Kerns.
. . . .
Don Williams
Baker City
Council's prayer policy a rarity
August 19, 2008 11:00 pm
To the editor:
In this letter, I continue my comments about prayer at city council meetings, which you published a couple of weeks ago.
On July 22, the issue before city council was supposed to be just a housekeeping change in the invocation policy: remove the word "nonpartisan" and replace it with "nonsectarian." Councilors Beverly Calder and Andrew Bryan had both championed such a change at the preceding city council meeting. But at the July 22 city council meeting, Councilor Calder moved to exclude both terms from the invocation policy, thus leaving the door as wide open as before for all kinds of unconstitutional sectarian prayers, i.e., prayers identified with a particular religion. The motion passed unanimously.
During the discussion before the vote, Don Williams opined that not allowing sectarian prayers was "intolerant." Councilor Terry Schumacher claimed it was in fact illegal to prohibit sectarian prayers at government meetings. (He failed to cite any legal source to back up his claim.)
From their comments, it's pretty clear that Williams and Schumacher are not aware that in the whole state of California it is illegal to say sectarian prayers at city council meetings.
Here's the background for the leading California case. In 1999 Irv Rubin, a Jew, and Roberto Alejandro Gandara, a Catholic, sued the city of Burbank for saying prayers that ended in "in Jesus' name." Rubin and Gandara prevailed over the city of Burbank at trial and before the California Court of Appeals. Both the California and U. S. Supreme courts refused to overturn the decision.
Here's what the court ordered in Rubin v. city of Burbank: City councils may not say sectarian prayers at their meetings and must instruct members of the public invited to give invocations that prayers must be nonsectarian.
P.S.: Invocations are not part of the agenda at city council meetings in 97.5 percent of the 234 municipalities in Oregon, and are not included in meetings of six of the seven city councils in Baker County. Baker City Council is pretty much out there all alone in mixing religion and government in Oregon.
Gary Dielman
Baker City
Who's the greater authority?
July 29, 2008
To the editor:
I'm writing in to comment on the prayer issue from the July 23 paper.
Don Williams put a warning out that if councilors give up the practice of opening meetings with prayer, churches would stop entering floats in parades and offering Easter sunrise services in public parks.
Tammy Marie
Baker City
Council decides prayers will continue
July 22, 2008 11:00 pm
By MIKE FERGUSON
Baker City Herald
The prospect of taking away the prayer that opens many Baker City Council meetings, it turns out, never had a prayer.
. . . .
Don Williams said he worried that instructing people how to pray would "make God generic, a meaningless and uninvited guest to this forum."
Even allowing sectarian prayers, he said, shows "a broad tolerance of what this country is about."
"You have been very tolerant of all prayers, and now you're being asked to be intolerant," Williams said.
He warned that if councilors give up the practice of opening meetings with prayer, churches would stop entering floats in parades and offering Easter sunrise services in public parks.
Bill Harvey, who lives in Haines but owns a Baker City construction business, called it "a joy" to pray for "wisdom, guidance, strength and help."
"I am human, and I can't make all the decisions on my own," he said. "I am sure tonight that many are praying for our city."
Gary Dielman, who sparked Tuesday's discussion when he criticized a prayer offered by Bob Vanderbilt to open the July 8 City Council meeting —Vanderbilt closed his prayer with the words "In Jesus' name, amen," — did not attend Tuesday's meeting.
Dielman declined to comment until he'd heard a tape of Tuesday's meeting.
Councilor Terry Schumacher said he hoped Dielman would take the hint from the outpouring of public support for prayer at council meetings "and quit coming back and doing this."
But Councilor Beverly Calder said that dissent is "an American right" and "quite often represents other unspoken voices."
Councilor Andrew Bryan was one of the few who "saw the logic" of putting a charter change on the ballot to let voters decide whether to include prayer and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance on City Council meeting agendas.
"If we want an invocation and the Pledge, we want to set it on the hardest rock we have," he said. "If people really want the invocation and Pledge, the best way to assure that is to put it in the charter."
"You can put it in the charter or paint it on a wall," countered Councilor Dennis Dorrah. "That still won't change Mr. Dielman or someone else coming in here and raising heck about it."
At least the issue drew a crowd to Tuesday night's meeting, Calder noted.
"You came because this matter is important to you," she told the full house. "It's nice to have full council chambers. I wish we could have something this meaty at every meeting."
Maybe San Jose shows the way
April 23, 2008 11:00 pm
To the editor:
I have followed with interest the recent letter to the editor from Ms. Norick, and the responses it has generated. I must admit I agree with Ms. Norick's opinion (but with a softer approach) regarding the trashy condition in which some people choose to keep their yards in Baker City. It clearly has a negative effect upon the city's image.
I'll not spend much energy responding to the allegation blaming poverty, created by super capitalism, as a fabricated excuse for some folks who choose to collect trash in their yards. Heck, it may even be a psychological reaction to global warming! One thing for sure, though, it has to be the fault of government or some entity (certainly not the owner of the trash). Regardless of the cause, given the current price of steel, one may climb the economic ladder just a little bit higher if they'd give the scrap dealer a call to buy that ol' heap in their yard.
The exchange of opinions on this issue also prodded me to do a little research into the annals of the San Jose Mercury News, where I found an article of May 21, 2006, describing the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative, launched by Mayor Ron Gonzales, who is working with citizens to clean up neighborhoods. Even the infamous "poverty ridden" Richmond-Menker neighborhood has tackled gang and drug problems and has cleaned apartment complexes providing safe play areas for children. Imagine that: poor people cleaning their neighborhood ... how antithetical. Strong code enforcement is also credited with the success of this program.
No response has invalidated Ms. Norick's observation. We need to look for solutions rather than excuses. It would be nice to see our city leadership take the issue of this obvious eyesore seriously. More can be learned by visiting www.strongneighborhoods.org.
Don Williams
Baker City
Showing posts with label County Commissioners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label County Commissioners. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Alert: Baker Sanitary Solid Waste Permit Comments Due Tomorrow
In This Issue:
- About the "Under-the-Radar" Dump Permit
- Sample Letter Requesting a Public Hearing
- Thanks Ahead Of Time For Sending DEQ an Email Requesting A Public Hearing
About the "Under-the-Radar" Dump Permit
The DEQ issued a request for comments on the "Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill" back around Halloween, and it has been traveling under the radar ever since. I just found out about it this morning because Planning Commission Chair Randy Joseph alerted members of a local support group for small land rich ranchers, comfortable retirees, small business people and government workers (Oregon Rural Action) about it on Saturday morning. Comments are due TOMORROW, Monday, December 1st, by 5 PM.
This should concern people in Baker County because a large regional landfill has major impacts to people and the rest of the environment. Baker Sanitary has been cited in the past for non-compliance on permitting, maintenance, and for failure to properly monitor pollution of ground and surface water for possible cancer causing chemicals. The current requirements allow them to continue to monitor themselves for health endangering pollution, a strategy that is fraught with potential dangers. Contaminated ground and surface waters could conceivably end up in local drinking water wells and in the Sutton Creek drainage which ultimately ends up in the Powder River before it enters Baker City, on its polluted route to Richland and the Snake River.
A brief scan of the available documents shows that the actual plans will be submitted after the permit has been issued, so we have little indication, from the provided documents, what the scale of this dump is going to be. Right now, we are already on the receiving end of out-of-county garbage, including large quantities coming from La Grande.
The documents also do not require any improvement in garbage container sizing/rate restructuring or recycling opportunities for local citizens, nor do they include any other benefit in return for allowing a large, privately operated, local monopoly dump to operate on our doorstep. Costs to our quality of life, like water and air pollution, increased traffic, etc., are externalized for us to bear, while the wealth created by the dumping of thousands of tons of garbage goes largely to the private trash industry.
As large a problem as an expanded doorstep dump may be, there is perhaps an even larger one that really puzzles me. How did it come to be that normally concerned individuals are just finding out about this one or two days before comments are due? That is obviously not enough time to respond to a 46 page permit document, a 5 page report, and the original 3 page announcement.
Randy Joseph is the Chair of the County Planning Commission. Are we to believe that the Commission and its chair are just finding out about this? What about the County Commissioners? Do they think we just don't care? The City seems concerned about the effects on City charm of having a large transmission line in the nearby viewshed, about how we maintain our property, and about how we burn or dispose of our trash; don't they care about improved recycling or the negative impacts of a massive trashpile right down the road? Why haven't either the Herald or the Record Courier put this on the front page? I could not find a single article in either paper. I realize how important articles glorifying ranchers, showcasing mainstreet, and paying tribute to a militarist culture are, but you'd think they'd have found room in there among these articles for something about the public's opportunity to comment and list their concerns about an expanding dump in their back yard.
What can we do???
According the the DEQ announcement:
"DEQ will schedule a public hearing if one is requested by 10 or more people, or by an authorized person representing an organization of at least 10 people. An additional public notice will be published to advertise the public hearing." (Sample letter below.)
It looks like ORA is going to request such a hearing. In case they don't, or simply to help in that effort, 10 of us can send in individual emails requesting a public hearing in the matter of the:
Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and Proposed Issuance of Solid Waste Permit for an On-site Household Hazardous Waste Facility
You can send the request and any comments via email or fax to:
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: John Straughan
That is straughan.john@deq.state.or.us
An email is all it takes. Additional help can be sought from other groups, such as Hells Canyon Preservation Council. They too can ask for a public hearing. Send or copy the email to:
Greg Dyson, Executive Director
greg@hellscanyon.org
Sample Letter Requesting a Public Hearing
Here is my email to DEQ requesting a public hearing. You can use it as a template for your own comments or simply cut, paste and change the name and address to your own.
November 30, 2008
Christopher Christie
1985 15th Street
Baker City, OR 97814
541-523-2376
refugee2000@gmail.com
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: straughan.john@deq.state.or.us
Dear Mr. Straughan:
Just this morning, I became aware of DEQ's public permitting process for the Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill. I can not recall seeing an announcement about this project, and no article about it was featured in the local papers. Other citizens are not, or are just becoming, aware of it. There is no time left for most to respond in detail.
I have concerns about the scale of the project, about air and surface/groundwater pollution, monitoring, and about a lack of improvements in choices for collection of garbage and recyclables by the operators of the facility. Additionally, the efforts to publicize the permit process, so as to give the public ample opportunity to respond to possible impacts to their lives, were inadequate.
For these reasons, I am requesting that DEQ schedule a public hearing for the residents of Baker County and other affected areas. DEQ should extend the comment period for a few weeks after the hearings.
Thank you for your just consideration of this request.
Christopher Christie
Baker City, OR
---------
THANKS!
If you have time, you can include any other concerns you may have about the facility and permitting process. You can get additional information from these DEQ sources:
Announcement of Proposed Renewal Permit
Draft Permit
Review Report
The following is from the announcement:
Notice Issued: 10/30/08
By: Liz Clark
Public Notice: Request for Comments
Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and Proposed Issuance of Solid Waste
Permit for an On-site Household Hazardous Waste Facility
The purpose of this notice is to invite you to provide written comments on this proposed permit renewal.
DEQ’s Role:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for protecting and enhancing Oregon’s water and air quality, for cleaning up spills and releases of hazardous materials, and for managing the proper disposal of hazardous and solid wastes. One way DEQ does this is by requiring permits for certain activities. DEQ issues permits to regulate the type and amount of waste disposed, and leachate and landfill gas produced at a regulated facility.
Notice issued: October 30, 2008.
Written comments due:
Written comments due: 5 p.m., December 1,
2008.
Where can I send my comments or get
technical information?
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: John Straughan
Where can I get background information?
Information about this project is viewable online
by clicking the following link(s):
Draft Permit
Review Report
You can review hard copies of the draft permit
and related documents at:
Baker County Courthouse
1995 Third Avenue
Baker City, OR 97814
Monday-Friday from 8am- noon and 1:00pm-
5pm
or
Department of Environmental Quality
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
For a review appointment, call Gail Perry at
(541) 276-4063 or 1-800-304-3513
What is proposed?
DEQ proposes to renew the existing Solid Waste Disposal Site permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and is inviting public comment on the proposed action.
In addition, the permit renewal includes authorization for siting, construction and operation of a permanentmobile Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility at the Baker Sanitary Landfill site. The site is subject to written Department approval of engineering design, construction, operations, waste handling and emergency response plans.
During the comment period the public is invited to make comments related to specific conditions within the proposed permit.
Permit expiration
Oregon law requires facilities with a Solid Waste Disposal Site permit to renew that permit every ten (10) years. Upon renewal, this permit will be effective for eight (8) years, expiring on September 30, 2016.
Who is the applicant?
Baker Sanitary Service, Inc.
PO Box 169
Baker City, OR 97814
Where is the facility located?
Baker Sanitary Landfill and HHW Collection
Facility
39144 West Sutton Creek Road
Baker County Oregon
Who might have an interest?
People who work, live, and recreate in the area.
DEQ-DC1
What does the Baker Sanitary Landfill
and HHW Collection Facility do that
affects land quality?
Baker Sanitary Landfill disposes of municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste and sharps from Baker and Union Counties. It is also proposed to collect and transport out of county for disposal or recycling HHW waste and
conditionally exempt generator waste.
What legal requirements apply?
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459 and Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340
Division 93 give DEQ the authority to issue solid waste permits.
How does DEQ determine what requirements go in the permit?
Various federal and state regulations apply to a facility depending on the type of industry, the type and amount of waste disposed and the location of the facility. All applicable regulations must be contained in the permit, including the appropriate recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with these rules.
What are the known health effects or environmental impacts of the permitted waste disposed of at the Baker Sanitary Landfill and HHW Collection Facility?
Precipitation can percolate through the buried waste leaching out contaminants and possibly transporting them to groundwater. Also, decomposition of MSW waste can generate landfill gas which has the potential to migrate from the landfill to adjacent property and groundwater. Landfill gas contains approximately 50% methane which, under certain conditions, can be explosive. Household, small business and agricultural hazardous wastes have the potential to cause human health impacts and environmental contamination through improper collection, storage, transportation and final disposal. Proper collection and management of these wastes, in strict compliance with Federal, State and DEQ Permit requirements, will avoid the potential for harmful health and environmental impacts.
. . . .
How are the permitted substances measured?
By the tons of waste received.
Compliance history:
The Department issued a Notice of Noncompliance on July 31, 1998, for failure to apply daily cover and for failure to maintain the surface water diversion channel. Both of these violations were satisfactorily addressed. The Department again issued a Notice of Noncompliance on September 4, 2001, for failure to submit plans and specifications and obtain Department approval prior to laterally expanding a landfill unit and for failure to collect, analyze and report groundwater, surface water, or leachate quality data in accordance with the approved Ground Water Monitoring Plan (GWMP).
The first violation was a result of placing waste outside of the approved footprint of the landfill.
The second violation was a result of semi-annual monitoring reports that showed that ground water sampling was not conducted in accordance with the GWMP. These violations resulted in the Department issuing a Notice of Violation,
Compliance Order, and Assessment of Civil Penalty on April 23, 2002.
Both of the violations were satisfactorily addressed as indicated in a letter dated May 24, 2002. The violations were addressed by payment of the Civil Penalty and completion of the tasks outlined in the Compliance Order.
What are the special conditions of this permit?
Prior to start-up of the HHW Collection Facility the permittee will be required to prepare and submit to the Department a HHW Operations and Emergency Response Plan. This plan must be approved and a final inspection of the facility performed by the Department before the HHW facility can begin receiving waste.
What other DEQ permits are required?
No other permits are required by the Department.
DEQ-DC1
What similar activities take place in the vicinity of the facility?
None.
What happens next?
DEQ will schedule a public hearing if one is requested by 10 or more people, or by an authorized person representing an organization of at least 10 people. An additional public notice will be published to advertise the public hearing.
If a public hearing is not requested, DEQ will consider and provide responses to all comments received at the close of the comment period. DEQ may modify provisions in the proposed permit, but the permit writers can only modify conditions of the permit in accordance with the rules and statutes under the authority of DEQ.
Participation in the rulemaking or the legislative process is the only way to change the rules or statutes. Ultimately, if a facility meets all legal requirements, DEQ will issue the facility’s Solid Waste Site Disposal permit.
. . . .
- About the "Under-the-Radar" Dump Permit
- Sample Letter Requesting a Public Hearing
- Thanks Ahead Of Time For Sending DEQ an Email Requesting A Public Hearing
About the "Under-the-Radar" Dump Permit
The DEQ issued a request for comments on the "Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill" back around Halloween, and it has been traveling under the radar ever since. I just found out about it this morning because Planning Commission Chair Randy Joseph alerted members of a local support group for small land rich ranchers, comfortable retirees, small business people and government workers (Oregon Rural Action) about it on Saturday morning. Comments are due TOMORROW, Monday, December 1st, by 5 PM.
This should concern people in Baker County because a large regional landfill has major impacts to people and the rest of the environment. Baker Sanitary has been cited in the past for non-compliance on permitting, maintenance, and for failure to properly monitor pollution of ground and surface water for possible cancer causing chemicals. The current requirements allow them to continue to monitor themselves for health endangering pollution, a strategy that is fraught with potential dangers. Contaminated ground and surface waters could conceivably end up in local drinking water wells and in the Sutton Creek drainage which ultimately ends up in the Powder River before it enters Baker City, on its polluted route to Richland and the Snake River.
A brief scan of the available documents shows that the actual plans will be submitted after the permit has been issued, so we have little indication, from the provided documents, what the scale of this dump is going to be. Right now, we are already on the receiving end of out-of-county garbage, including large quantities coming from La Grande.
The documents also do not require any improvement in garbage container sizing/rate restructuring or recycling opportunities for local citizens, nor do they include any other benefit in return for allowing a large, privately operated, local monopoly dump to operate on our doorstep. Costs to our quality of life, like water and air pollution, increased traffic, etc., are externalized for us to bear, while the wealth created by the dumping of thousands of tons of garbage goes largely to the private trash industry.
As large a problem as an expanded doorstep dump may be, there is perhaps an even larger one that really puzzles me. How did it come to be that normally concerned individuals are just finding out about this one or two days before comments are due? That is obviously not enough time to respond to a 46 page permit document, a 5 page report, and the original 3 page announcement.
Randy Joseph is the Chair of the County Planning Commission. Are we to believe that the Commission and its chair are just finding out about this? What about the County Commissioners? Do they think we just don't care? The City seems concerned about the effects on City charm of having a large transmission line in the nearby viewshed, about how we maintain our property, and about how we burn or dispose of our trash; don't they care about improved recycling or the negative impacts of a massive trashpile right down the road? Why haven't either the Herald or the Record Courier put this on the front page? I could not find a single article in either paper. I realize how important articles glorifying ranchers, showcasing mainstreet, and paying tribute to a militarist culture are, but you'd think they'd have found room in there among these articles for something about the public's opportunity to comment and list their concerns about an expanding dump in their back yard.
What can we do???
According the the DEQ announcement:
"DEQ will schedule a public hearing if one is requested by 10 or more people, or by an authorized person representing an organization of at least 10 people. An additional public notice will be published to advertise the public hearing." (Sample letter below.)
It looks like ORA is going to request such a hearing. In case they don't, or simply to help in that effort, 10 of us can send in individual emails requesting a public hearing in the matter of the:
Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and Proposed Issuance of Solid Waste Permit for an On-site Household Hazardous Waste Facility
You can send the request and any comments via email or fax to:
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: John Straughan
That is straughan.john@deq.state.or.us
An email is all it takes. Additional help can be sought from other groups, such as Hells Canyon Preservation Council. They too can ask for a public hearing. Send or copy the email to:
Greg Dyson, Executive Director
greg@hellscanyon.org
Sample Letter Requesting a Public Hearing
Here is my email to DEQ requesting a public hearing. You can use it as a template for your own comments or simply cut, paste and change the name and address to your own.
November 30, 2008
Christopher Christie
1985 15th Street
Baker City, OR 97814
541-523-2376
refugee2000@gmail.com
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: straughan.john@deq.state.or.us
Dear Mr. Straughan:
Just this morning, I became aware of DEQ's public permitting process for the Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill. I can not recall seeing an announcement about this project, and no article about it was featured in the local papers. Other citizens are not, or are just becoming, aware of it. There is no time left for most to respond in detail.
I have concerns about the scale of the project, about air and surface/groundwater pollution, monitoring, and about a lack of improvements in choices for collection of garbage and recyclables by the operators of the facility. Additionally, the efforts to publicize the permit process, so as to give the public ample opportunity to respond to possible impacts to their lives, were inadequate.
For these reasons, I am requesting that DEQ schedule a public hearing for the residents of Baker County and other affected areas. DEQ should extend the comment period for a few weeks after the hearings.
Thank you for your just consideration of this request.
Christopher Christie
Baker City, OR
---------
THANKS!
If you have time, you can include any other concerns you may have about the facility and permitting process. You can get additional information from these DEQ sources:
Announcement of Proposed Renewal Permit
Draft Permit
Review Report
The following is from the announcement:
Notice Issued: 10/30/08
By: Liz Clark
Public Notice: Request for Comments
Proposed Renewal of Solid Waste Permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and Proposed Issuance of Solid Waste
Permit for an On-site Household Hazardous Waste Facility
The purpose of this notice is to invite you to provide written comments on this proposed permit renewal.
DEQ’s Role:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for protecting and enhancing Oregon’s water and air quality, for cleaning up spills and releases of hazardous materials, and for managing the proper disposal of hazardous and solid wastes. One way DEQ does this is by requiring permits for certain activities. DEQ issues permits to regulate the type and amount of waste disposed, and leachate and landfill gas produced at a regulated facility.
Notice issued: October 30, 2008.
Written comments due:
Written comments due: 5 p.m., December 1,
2008.
Where can I send my comments or get
technical information?
John Straughan, Environmental Engineer
(541) 278-4611 or 1-800-304-3513
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
Fax: (541) 278-0168
Email: John Straughan
Where can I get background information?
Information about this project is viewable online
by clicking the following link(s):
Draft Permit
Review Report
You can review hard copies of the draft permit
and related documents at:
Baker County Courthouse
1995 Third Avenue
Baker City, OR 97814
Monday-Friday from 8am- noon and 1:00pm-
5pm
or
Department of Environmental Quality
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton, OR 97801
For a review appointment, call Gail Perry at
(541) 276-4063 or 1-800-304-3513
What is proposed?
DEQ proposes to renew the existing Solid Waste Disposal Site permit for Baker Sanitary Landfill and is inviting public comment on the proposed action.
In addition, the permit renewal includes authorization for siting, construction and operation of a permanentmobile Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility at the Baker Sanitary Landfill site. The site is subject to written Department approval of engineering design, construction, operations, waste handling and emergency response plans.
During the comment period the public is invited to make comments related to specific conditions within the proposed permit.
Permit expiration
Oregon law requires facilities with a Solid Waste Disposal Site permit to renew that permit every ten (10) years. Upon renewal, this permit will be effective for eight (8) years, expiring on September 30, 2016.
Who is the applicant?
Baker Sanitary Service, Inc.
PO Box 169
Baker City, OR 97814
Where is the facility located?
Baker Sanitary Landfill and HHW Collection
Facility
39144 West Sutton Creek Road
Baker County Oregon
Who might have an interest?
People who work, live, and recreate in the area.
DEQ-DC1
What does the Baker Sanitary Landfill
and HHW Collection Facility do that
affects land quality?
Baker Sanitary Landfill disposes of municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste and sharps from Baker and Union Counties. It is also proposed to collect and transport out of county for disposal or recycling HHW waste and
conditionally exempt generator waste.
What legal requirements apply?
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 459 and Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340
Division 93 give DEQ the authority to issue solid waste permits.
How does DEQ determine what requirements go in the permit?
Various federal and state regulations apply to a facility depending on the type of industry, the type and amount of waste disposed and the location of the facility. All applicable regulations must be contained in the permit, including the appropriate recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with these rules.
What are the known health effects or environmental impacts of the permitted waste disposed of at the Baker Sanitary Landfill and HHW Collection Facility?
Precipitation can percolate through the buried waste leaching out contaminants and possibly transporting them to groundwater. Also, decomposition of MSW waste can generate landfill gas which has the potential to migrate from the landfill to adjacent property and groundwater. Landfill gas contains approximately 50% methane which, under certain conditions, can be explosive. Household, small business and agricultural hazardous wastes have the potential to cause human health impacts and environmental contamination through improper collection, storage, transportation and final disposal. Proper collection and management of these wastes, in strict compliance with Federal, State and DEQ Permit requirements, will avoid the potential for harmful health and environmental impacts.
. . . .
How are the permitted substances measured?
By the tons of waste received.
Compliance history:
The Department issued a Notice of Noncompliance on July 31, 1998, for failure to apply daily cover and for failure to maintain the surface water diversion channel. Both of these violations were satisfactorily addressed. The Department again issued a Notice of Noncompliance on September 4, 2001, for failure to submit plans and specifications and obtain Department approval prior to laterally expanding a landfill unit and for failure to collect, analyze and report groundwater, surface water, or leachate quality data in accordance with the approved Ground Water Monitoring Plan (GWMP).
The first violation was a result of placing waste outside of the approved footprint of the landfill.
The second violation was a result of semi-annual monitoring reports that showed that ground water sampling was not conducted in accordance with the GWMP. These violations resulted in the Department issuing a Notice of Violation,
Compliance Order, and Assessment of Civil Penalty on April 23, 2002.
Both of the violations were satisfactorily addressed as indicated in a letter dated May 24, 2002. The violations were addressed by payment of the Civil Penalty and completion of the tasks outlined in the Compliance Order.
What are the special conditions of this permit?
Prior to start-up of the HHW Collection Facility the permittee will be required to prepare and submit to the Department a HHW Operations and Emergency Response Plan. This plan must be approved and a final inspection of the facility performed by the Department before the HHW facility can begin receiving waste.
What other DEQ permits are required?
No other permits are required by the Department.
DEQ-DC1
What similar activities take place in the vicinity of the facility?
None.
What happens next?
DEQ will schedule a public hearing if one is requested by 10 or more people, or by an authorized person representing an organization of at least 10 people. An additional public notice will be published to advertise the public hearing.
If a public hearing is not requested, DEQ will consider and provide responses to all comments received at the close of the comment period. DEQ may modify provisions in the proposed permit, but the permit writers can only modify conditions of the permit in accordance with the rules and statutes under the authority of DEQ.
Participation in the rulemaking or the legislative process is the only way to change the rules or statutes. Ultimately, if a facility meets all legal requirements, DEQ will issue the facility’s Solid Waste Site Disposal permit.
. . . .
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Real Citizens and the Cost of War
I’ve been out for a while due to feelings of utter hopelessness :-) and also the time constraints associated with the celebration of the gifts of spring and summer, but recent events and the coming of fall have spurred me to new attempts.
In addition to the usual complaints, this and future blogs will present some of those seasonal gifts, in the form of pictures and information about the flowers and other critters we are still blessed with here in Baker County.
Late last month, Alice Lentz and I documented the occurrence of Gnophaela vermiculata, AKA, the police car moth (Can’t we get a better name???) on Vinegar Hill Road in Grant County. It is the first documented occurrence of the moth there, but it has likely been around for eons. It occurs here in Baker County too and is flying right now up high on east side of the Marble Pass road. Not much is known about it apparently, but it drinks nectar from the flowers of Senecio Serra (tall butterweed), as well as goldenrod, and it is unusual for a moth in that it is a day flier.
One of the more distinctive and easily identified butterflies that can be found right now in the Baker County mountains is the great spangled fritillary, Speyeria cybele. The host plant for this butterfly, as with most fritillaries, is the violet. Amazingly, the little first-stage larvae hibernate through the frozen winter and resume feeding in the spring. You can find adults feeding in the mountains now on thistles, like Utah thistle above, and also on tall butterweed and dogbane. If you want to see butterflies, look for these plants at this time of year.
____________________________________________________________________
KUDOS TO REAL CITIZENS WHO STAND UP TO GOVERNMENT!
It was a real hopeful and inspirational few moments today when I opened up the Herald and saw Suzanne and Ed Moses DOING SOMETHING (Again!!!) to tell government that they just can’t proceed willy-nilly to destroy the quality of our lives—like arbitrary and unsupported destruction of Baker City trees that are providing valuable environmental services in an otherwise sterile and completely over-manipulated environment. Suzanne just set herself into a chair under the tree that city crews were busy destroying, and rather than bring a limb crashing down on her head, they stopped cutting. (OK, I admit that it helps to be wealthy Baker City property owners/taxpayers—be careful trying this behavior at home if you are poor!)
Kudos to the City and their police representatives for responsibly acknowledging legitimate a citizen grievance and not over-reacting! But why not ease up on the butchering of trees, even if it is a part of local custom and culture!
Cutting down trees because a branch or two may create a safety hazard, if followed to its logical conclusion, would require cutting down all the street trees in Tree City USA. That logic could see the City’s portion of the Powder River begin to resemble the bleak and barren privately owned ranch properties downstream, where a war on willows has been going on for many years, often accomplished by cows instead of chainsaws.
Thanks Ed and Suzanne for drawing lines/creating boundaries, and telling government that they are responsible to the citizens of Baker City.
-----------------------------------------
AND KUDOS TO STEVE ELLIS FOR REMINDING PEOPLE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT!
Almost all the letters to the editor concerning the forest travel plan in recent weeks emphasize that historic uses by local citizens need to be protected. The argument seems to be that “We’ve had our way with the local publicly owned forest for years and that use alone is enough reason for us to continue it.” (I use the forest myself, but we need to recognize how much use is appropriate for maintaining sustainable use and healthy ecosystems.) The County Commissioners have now appointed the usual suspects to a committee that is supposed to represent all of our interests. As far as I could tell from newspaper reports, not a single "environmentalist" who was not previously associated with a government land or wildlife bureaucracy was appointed to the committee. Correct me if I am wrong. The NGO enviros, whose nationwide membership is in the many millions, seem to be completely under-represented. (This too seems to be local custom and culture as the Democrats did the same thing when appointing a panel discussion on predators.) The reality--that the National Forests are owned by all Americans, a good many of them NGO enviros, and not just the extractive users in North East Oregon--is apparently not a part of the local consciousness.
Who is represented? Traditional exploiters of the forest and special interests, led by the Chair, a Commissioners wife, who’s claim to fame, besides being fabulously wealthy, is that she spearheaded an earlier effort to deny protection of habitat for threatened bull trout. Business as usual for the Commissioners.
A big thank you to the beleaguered Forest Supervisor for obliquely pointing out in tonight’s paper that the goal isn’t to provide as many avenues as possible for local citizens to destroy the forest. His job, and everyone’s ethical responsibility, is to provide a sustainable future for the forest ecosystem, including soil, water, vegetation and wildlife.
___________________________________________________________________
COST OF MILITARISM AND WAR
So people are dying due to our ignoring the maintenance needs of national infrastructure. And they are dying due to our nearly genocidal and totally illegal activities in Iraq. The blame lies squarely with President Bush, a corporate/military industrial complex controlled Congress (including the complacent and corrupt Democrats), the mainstream media, and roughly 50% of the American people. Yes, those gullible among you who voted for George W. Bush also bear responsibility for this outrageous and criminal war and the trashing of the American future. You elected a psychopath and war criminal, and if you had been paying attention, you would have known he was lying us into a war. As I told some of our knee-jerk militarist “citizens” in Stockman’s bar prior to the 2004 elections, “He lies to you every time he opens his mouth.” And hey, I don’t care if you like me or not. My duty is to tell you the truth.
When you vote in the representatives of military profiteering and big oil, you pay a price in blood and treasure. You condemn your children to an impoverished future and you derail possibilities for the building of a decent and equitable society. You give your sons and daughters to people who care nothing about them, you, or your needs. The most recent example of how much they care about our society: Your infrastructure is crumbling around you and people are dying because of it. Additionally, the fact that many go without the minimal medical care found in most industrialized countries is another cost that creates needless deaths of Americans. Those less well off among you who have supported this criminal administration are the biggest suckers in the world. Perhaps it is like Jesus said: “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.” Or do you???
My unsolicited advice: Quit listening to the mainstream media—they too lie to you almost every time they open their mouths!
So infrastructure crumbles and people die.
I heard on the radio today that it would cost around $60 Billion to bring the 25% of our faulty bridges back to life and safe use. Other reports indicate that it is more like $200 Billion. ( http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103 )
Not a single report on the mainstream media tonight connected the infrastructure problems we face to the extravagant expenditures for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to our self-destructive relationship with Israel (over $100 billion since 1948, and terrorists galore!). Just last week the Bush administration gave away over $60 Billion to Israel and a few of our Arab despot allies. Bush is bringing freedom and democracy to the world—WHAT HYPOCRISY!!!
We’ve been warned by the civil engineers since at least 2003 that our infrastructure is crumbling—there is no excuse. The corporate controlled government simply doesn’t care how many of you die as long as they can keep the money flowing to themselves and their friends. When will people wake up and stand up—not just for our local trees, but for what is left of our alleged “democracy?”
IGNORED REPORTS:
ENGINEERS: U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ESTIMATED AT $1.6 TRILLON
09/10/2003
http://www.buildingonline.org/news/viewnews.pl?id=2533&subcategory=37
Again, wake up people, we reap what you sew!
___________________________________________________________________
From a Friend
NUKYULER SCIENCE
A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science.
The new element has been named "Bushcronium." Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
The symbol for Bushcronium is "W". Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass".
When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
____________________________________________________
HOMO HYPOCRITICUS
European Hypocrisy
By Saifedean Ammous
http://tonykaron.com/2007/07/30/european-hypocrisy-a-palestinian-view/
While in Paris a few weeks ago, whenever I would discuss Middle East politics with anyone, I would be overwhelmed with the traditional refrains of classical anti-Americanism: “they have no culture and deal with the world as if it had no culture”, “they have no morality in their foreign policy”, “they go to war for oil and money” and so on with inane over-simplified stereotypes. Soon after would come the cackle of self-righteous pride: “we Europeans are different”, “we want our foreign policy based on a concept of morality”, “we attempt to promote justice in the world and fix up the mess left behind by the Americans”. I would then usually be told something about all the aid that Europeans give to Palestinians as proof of the decency of Europeans as opposed to the rabidly Zionist Americans who give billions to fund Israel’s murderous army.
Would that this were true.
Europe’s policy with regard to Palestine/Israel is so racist, short-sighted, counter-productive and hypocritical that it could almost pass for American policy.
When looking at the current situation in Palestine, an observer will find an illegal Israeli occupation that has been festering for 40 years, combined with illegal ethnically-exclusive colonies built on stolen Palestinian land, and the world’s only ethnically-segregated road network, where many routes can only be accessed by Jews. An internationally-illegal apartheid barrier surrounds Palestinian towns and villages, not only cutting them off from one another, but also cutting off farmers from their lands, children from their schools, patients from their hospitals and workers from their jobs. Israel controls all of the Palestinians’ openings to the outside world, stifling not only Palestinians’ freedom of movement, but also their economy and trade. One of the world’s strongest armies, the IDF, is regularly unleashed on civilian populations in Palestine, murdering thousands and killing innocent children with complete impunity. The Israeli government has as its Deputy Prime Minister an unabashed Fascist who openly and regularly calls for ethnic cleansing and mass murder of Arabs as a solution to the conflict. Israel continues to deny millions of Palestinians their legal right to return to their own homes from which they were ethnically cleansed in 1948, restricts land-ownership to Jews only, and has discriminatory racist laws in countless areas from marriage to immigration.
In the face of this travesty of justice, what is the only thing that the Europeans do? Demand that the oppressed, the Palestinians, only elect political parties that “recognize Israel’s right to exist” as a precondition for sitting on one table and discussing what to do about all these travesties.
Let us first bear in mind that the idea of Hamas—or any Palestinian political party for that matter—recognizing Israel’s “right to exist” is a patently meaningless idea that makes as much sense as Manchester United Football Club recognizing Tanzania’s “right to exist”. Nowhere is it written that nation states have a “right to exist” themselves. What is meant by “recognition” in an international setting is what happens when countries exchange embassies and establish diplomatic relations. Nowhere but in Palestine has the idea of a non-state entity recognizing a state ever been seriously discussed. Further, the imbeciles who repeat this canard conveniently ignore that Israel is not merely “not recognizing Palestine’s right to exist”, but actively, deliberately and comprehensively destroying any chance of a Palestinian state ever existing. But, for the morally-superior Europeans, Hamas’ “recognition” of Israel is the thing that bothers them the most about Palestine/Israel today, and not all of the crimes listed above. The kicker, of course, is not just that this is a morally and logically absurd position, but that Israel’s actions are the root of the conflict, and not whether Hamas recognizes Israel. This recognition won’t change anything on the ground and won’t affect the lives of anyone in any way, but the walls, settlements, killings, checkpoints and Israel’s racist policies will. Only when these are ended can there be peace, regardless of what Hamas “recognizes” or declines to “recognize.”
All of the aforementioned crimes by Israel constitute clear violations of the EU Neighborhood Policy terms under which EU neighbors get preferential access to EU markets and a slew of other benefits and perks. The EU regularly uses its economic and diplomatic influence to try and get countries to desist from carrying out racist policies: it makes trade deals dependent on improvements in human, labor and minority rights; it has made Turkey’s accession to the EU dependent on Turkey’s human rights record, and has stopped Austria from bringing Jorg Haider into the government. Far from taking any action to try to pressure Israel to stop some of its crimes in Palestine, the EU has cowardly chosen a policy of rewarding their transgressions with more carrots, and Israel continues to enjoy extremely generous benefits from its relationship with European countries, even being sold arms by many of them.
The tragic aspect of Europe’s policy with regard to Palestine today is not just that is practically indistinguishable from the policy of the US, but that it comes bundled with great self-righteousness and an unshakable belief that it is not only the correct policy, but is also vastly morally superior to anything anyone else is doing. The financial aid provided by Europe is the major rationale supporting this smugness.
As the Europeans continue to do nothing to stop Israel from destroying the livelihood of the Palestinian people, they take out their checkbooks and assuage their conscience by providing money to the Palestinians. Before the election of Hamas, this money went to prop-up the increasingly unpopular Palestinian Authority in order to guarantee its survival and a continuation of the painful status quo. After Hamas’s election, they tried to surpass the PA by sending money through increasingly complex, inefficient, and often counter-productive mechanisms.
Here is a small microcosm of how this madness works: A Palestinian town has a wall built surrounding it from all sides, making it impossible for previously prosperous farmers to access their land, patients to reach their doctors and children to reach their schools. Naturally, the town is devastated. That’s when Europeans send in their conscience-assuaging, smugness-propping aid “experts” to “save” the town, in the process relieving Israel from having to deal with the consequences of its crimes. They provide the farmers with food instead of the food they could have produced themselves, and proceed with projects to teach Palestinians “alternative industries”, “new business models”, “good local governance”, “participatory development”, “creative educational techniques” and countless other meaningless prattle that the Palestinians would gladly give up for having the wall removed, an independent state and some sense of normalcy bestowed on their lives. Naturally, these projects have a short shelf-life; the funding soon dries up, the “experts” leave, but the apartheid wall remains, the livelihood of a whole town is devastated, and the mirage of Palestinian independence is even more distant. And worst of all: the next time an unfortunate Palestinian like myself visits Paris, they will be bombarded with self-righteous recitation of countless such micro projects, and expected to bow in deference of the mighty superiority of European morality.
This combination of criminal politics combined with generous futile charity is what Ann Le More brilliantly dissected in her appropriately entitled paper: Killing with Kindness: Funding the Demise of a Palestinian State.
More at link above.
____________________________________________________________________
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." -- Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
In addition to the usual complaints, this and future blogs will present some of those seasonal gifts, in the form of pictures and information about the flowers and other critters we are still blessed with here in Baker County.
Gnophaela vermiculata
Late last month, Alice Lentz and I documented the occurrence of Gnophaela vermiculata, AKA, the police car moth (Can’t we get a better name???) on Vinegar Hill Road in Grant County. It is the first documented occurrence of the moth there, but it has likely been around for eons. It occurs here in Baker County too and is flying right now up high on east side of the Marble Pass road. Not much is known about it apparently, but it drinks nectar from the flowers of Senecio Serra (tall butterweed), as well as goldenrod, and it is unusual for a moth in that it is a day flier.
Speyeria cybele, Female, upper wings
Speyeria cybele, lower wings
Speyeria cybele, lower wingsOne of the more distinctive and easily identified butterflies that can be found right now in the Baker County mountains is the great spangled fritillary, Speyeria cybele. The host plant for this butterfly, as with most fritillaries, is the violet. Amazingly, the little first-stage larvae hibernate through the frozen winter and resume feeding in the spring. You can find adults feeding in the mountains now on thistles, like Utah thistle above, and also on tall butterweed and dogbane. If you want to see butterflies, look for these plants at this time of year.
____________________________________________________________________
KUDOS TO REAL CITIZENS WHO STAND UP TO GOVERNMENT!
It was a real hopeful and inspirational few moments today when I opened up the Herald and saw Suzanne and Ed Moses DOING SOMETHING (Again!!!) to tell government that they just can’t proceed willy-nilly to destroy the quality of our lives—like arbitrary and unsupported destruction of Baker City trees that are providing valuable environmental services in an otherwise sterile and completely over-manipulated environment. Suzanne just set herself into a chair under the tree that city crews were busy destroying, and rather than bring a limb crashing down on her head, they stopped cutting. (OK, I admit that it helps to be wealthy Baker City property owners/taxpayers—be careful trying this behavior at home if you are poor!)
Kudos to the City and their police representatives for responsibly acknowledging legitimate a citizen grievance and not over-reacting! But why not ease up on the butchering of trees, even if it is a part of local custom and culture!
Cutting down trees because a branch or two may create a safety hazard, if followed to its logical conclusion, would require cutting down all the street trees in Tree City USA. That logic could see the City’s portion of the Powder River begin to resemble the bleak and barren privately owned ranch properties downstream, where a war on willows has been going on for many years, often accomplished by cows instead of chainsaws.
Thanks Ed and Suzanne for drawing lines/creating boundaries, and telling government that they are responsible to the citizens of Baker City.
-----------------------------------------
AND KUDOS TO STEVE ELLIS FOR REMINDING PEOPLE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT!
Almost all the letters to the editor concerning the forest travel plan in recent weeks emphasize that historic uses by local citizens need to be protected. The argument seems to be that “We’ve had our way with the local publicly owned forest for years and that use alone is enough reason for us to continue it.” (I use the forest myself, but we need to recognize how much use is appropriate for maintaining sustainable use and healthy ecosystems.) The County Commissioners have now appointed the usual suspects to a committee that is supposed to represent all of our interests. As far as I could tell from newspaper reports, not a single "environmentalist" who was not previously associated with a government land or wildlife bureaucracy was appointed to the committee. Correct me if I am wrong. The NGO enviros, whose nationwide membership is in the many millions, seem to be completely under-represented. (This too seems to be local custom and culture as the Democrats did the same thing when appointing a panel discussion on predators.) The reality--that the National Forests are owned by all Americans, a good many of them NGO enviros, and not just the extractive users in North East Oregon--is apparently not a part of the local consciousness.
Who is represented? Traditional exploiters of the forest and special interests, led by the Chair, a Commissioners wife, who’s claim to fame, besides being fabulously wealthy, is that she spearheaded an earlier effort to deny protection of habitat for threatened bull trout. Business as usual for the Commissioners.
A big thank you to the beleaguered Forest Supervisor for obliquely pointing out in tonight’s paper that the goal isn’t to provide as many avenues as possible for local citizens to destroy the forest. His job, and everyone’s ethical responsibility, is to provide a sustainable future for the forest ecosystem, including soil, water, vegetation and wildlife.
___________________________________________________________________
COST OF MILITARISM AND WAR
So people are dying due to our ignoring the maintenance needs of national infrastructure. And they are dying due to our nearly genocidal and totally illegal activities in Iraq. The blame lies squarely with President Bush, a corporate/military industrial complex controlled Congress (including the complacent and corrupt Democrats), the mainstream media, and roughly 50% of the American people. Yes, those gullible among you who voted for George W. Bush also bear responsibility for this outrageous and criminal war and the trashing of the American future. You elected a psychopath and war criminal, and if you had been paying attention, you would have known he was lying us into a war. As I told some of our knee-jerk militarist “citizens” in Stockman’s bar prior to the 2004 elections, “He lies to you every time he opens his mouth.” And hey, I don’t care if you like me or not. My duty is to tell you the truth.
When you vote in the representatives of military profiteering and big oil, you pay a price in blood and treasure. You condemn your children to an impoverished future and you derail possibilities for the building of a decent and equitable society. You give your sons and daughters to people who care nothing about them, you, or your needs. The most recent example of how much they care about our society: Your infrastructure is crumbling around you and people are dying because of it. Additionally, the fact that many go without the minimal medical care found in most industrialized countries is another cost that creates needless deaths of Americans. Those less well off among you who have supported this criminal administration are the biggest suckers in the world. Perhaps it is like Jesus said: “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.” Or do you???
My unsolicited advice: Quit listening to the mainstream media—they too lie to you almost every time they open their mouths!
So infrastructure crumbles and people die.
I heard on the radio today that it would cost around $60 Billion to bring the 25% of our faulty bridges back to life and safe use. Other reports indicate that it is more like $200 Billion. ( http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103 )
Not a single report on the mainstream media tonight connected the infrastructure problems we face to the extravagant expenditures for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to our self-destructive relationship with Israel (over $100 billion since 1948, and terrorists galore!). Just last week the Bush administration gave away over $60 Billion to Israel and a few of our Arab despot allies. Bush is bringing freedom and democracy to the world—WHAT HYPOCRISY!!!
We’ve been warned by the civil engineers since at least 2003 that our infrastructure is crumbling—there is no excuse. The corporate controlled government simply doesn’t care how many of you die as long as they can keep the money flowing to themselves and their friends. When will people wake up and stand up—not just for our local trees, but for what is left of our alleged “democracy?”
IGNORED REPORTS:
ENGINEERS: U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ESTIMATED AT $1.6 TRILLON
09/10/2003
http://www.buildingonline.org/news/viewnews.pl?id=2533&subcategory=37
Again, wake up people, we reap what you sew!
___________________________________________________________________
From a Friend
NUKYULER SCIENCE
A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science.
The new element has been named "Bushcronium." Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
The symbol for Bushcronium is "W". Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass".
When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
____________________________________________________
HOMO HYPOCRITICUS
European Hypocrisy
By Saifedean Ammous
http://tonykaron.com/2007/07/30/european-hypocrisy-a-palestinian-view/
While in Paris a few weeks ago, whenever I would discuss Middle East politics with anyone, I would be overwhelmed with the traditional refrains of classical anti-Americanism: “they have no culture and deal with the world as if it had no culture”, “they have no morality in their foreign policy”, “they go to war for oil and money” and so on with inane over-simplified stereotypes. Soon after would come the cackle of self-righteous pride: “we Europeans are different”, “we want our foreign policy based on a concept of morality”, “we attempt to promote justice in the world and fix up the mess left behind by the Americans”. I would then usually be told something about all the aid that Europeans give to Palestinians as proof of the decency of Europeans as opposed to the rabidly Zionist Americans who give billions to fund Israel’s murderous army.
Would that this were true.
Europe’s policy with regard to Palestine/Israel is so racist, short-sighted, counter-productive and hypocritical that it could almost pass for American policy.
When looking at the current situation in Palestine, an observer will find an illegal Israeli occupation that has been festering for 40 years, combined with illegal ethnically-exclusive colonies built on stolen Palestinian land, and the world’s only ethnically-segregated road network, where many routes can only be accessed by Jews. An internationally-illegal apartheid barrier surrounds Palestinian towns and villages, not only cutting them off from one another, but also cutting off farmers from their lands, children from their schools, patients from their hospitals and workers from their jobs. Israel controls all of the Palestinians’ openings to the outside world, stifling not only Palestinians’ freedom of movement, but also their economy and trade. One of the world’s strongest armies, the IDF, is regularly unleashed on civilian populations in Palestine, murdering thousands and killing innocent children with complete impunity. The Israeli government has as its Deputy Prime Minister an unabashed Fascist who openly and regularly calls for ethnic cleansing and mass murder of Arabs as a solution to the conflict. Israel continues to deny millions of Palestinians their legal right to return to their own homes from which they were ethnically cleansed in 1948, restricts land-ownership to Jews only, and has discriminatory racist laws in countless areas from marriage to immigration.
In the face of this travesty of justice, what is the only thing that the Europeans do? Demand that the oppressed, the Palestinians, only elect political parties that “recognize Israel’s right to exist” as a precondition for sitting on one table and discussing what to do about all these travesties.
Let us first bear in mind that the idea of Hamas—or any Palestinian political party for that matter—recognizing Israel’s “right to exist” is a patently meaningless idea that makes as much sense as Manchester United Football Club recognizing Tanzania’s “right to exist”. Nowhere is it written that nation states have a “right to exist” themselves. What is meant by “recognition” in an international setting is what happens when countries exchange embassies and establish diplomatic relations. Nowhere but in Palestine has the idea of a non-state entity recognizing a state ever been seriously discussed. Further, the imbeciles who repeat this canard conveniently ignore that Israel is not merely “not recognizing Palestine’s right to exist”, but actively, deliberately and comprehensively destroying any chance of a Palestinian state ever existing. But, for the morally-superior Europeans, Hamas’ “recognition” of Israel is the thing that bothers them the most about Palestine/Israel today, and not all of the crimes listed above. The kicker, of course, is not just that this is a morally and logically absurd position, but that Israel’s actions are the root of the conflict, and not whether Hamas recognizes Israel. This recognition won’t change anything on the ground and won’t affect the lives of anyone in any way, but the walls, settlements, killings, checkpoints and Israel’s racist policies will. Only when these are ended can there be peace, regardless of what Hamas “recognizes” or declines to “recognize.”
All of the aforementioned crimes by Israel constitute clear violations of the EU Neighborhood Policy terms under which EU neighbors get preferential access to EU markets and a slew of other benefits and perks. The EU regularly uses its economic and diplomatic influence to try and get countries to desist from carrying out racist policies: it makes trade deals dependent on improvements in human, labor and minority rights; it has made Turkey’s accession to the EU dependent on Turkey’s human rights record, and has stopped Austria from bringing Jorg Haider into the government. Far from taking any action to try to pressure Israel to stop some of its crimes in Palestine, the EU has cowardly chosen a policy of rewarding their transgressions with more carrots, and Israel continues to enjoy extremely generous benefits from its relationship with European countries, even being sold arms by many of them.
The tragic aspect of Europe’s policy with regard to Palestine today is not just that is practically indistinguishable from the policy of the US, but that it comes bundled with great self-righteousness and an unshakable belief that it is not only the correct policy, but is also vastly morally superior to anything anyone else is doing. The financial aid provided by Europe is the major rationale supporting this smugness.
As the Europeans continue to do nothing to stop Israel from destroying the livelihood of the Palestinian people, they take out their checkbooks and assuage their conscience by providing money to the Palestinians. Before the election of Hamas, this money went to prop-up the increasingly unpopular Palestinian Authority in order to guarantee its survival and a continuation of the painful status quo. After Hamas’s election, they tried to surpass the PA by sending money through increasingly complex, inefficient, and often counter-productive mechanisms.
Here is a small microcosm of how this madness works: A Palestinian town has a wall built surrounding it from all sides, making it impossible for previously prosperous farmers to access their land, patients to reach their doctors and children to reach their schools. Naturally, the town is devastated. That’s when Europeans send in their conscience-assuaging, smugness-propping aid “experts” to “save” the town, in the process relieving Israel from having to deal with the consequences of its crimes. They provide the farmers with food instead of the food they could have produced themselves, and proceed with projects to teach Palestinians “alternative industries”, “new business models”, “good local governance”, “participatory development”, “creative educational techniques” and countless other meaningless prattle that the Palestinians would gladly give up for having the wall removed, an independent state and some sense of normalcy bestowed on their lives. Naturally, these projects have a short shelf-life; the funding soon dries up, the “experts” leave, but the apartheid wall remains, the livelihood of a whole town is devastated, and the mirage of Palestinian independence is even more distant. And worst of all: the next time an unfortunate Palestinian like myself visits Paris, they will be bombarded with self-righteous recitation of countless such micro projects, and expected to bow in deference of the mighty superiority of European morality.
This combination of criminal politics combined with generous futile charity is what Ann Le More brilliantly dissected in her appropriately entitled paper: Killing with Kindness: Funding the Demise of a Palestinian State.
More at link above.
____________________________________________________________________
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." -- Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
NEWSPAPER WATCH (Democracy and Social Arrangements in Baker City part 2)
NEWSPAPER WATCHCITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Now that Herald editor Mark Furman has left for academia, it will be interesting to see how the opinion page at the Herald evolves. Will they continue printing the grandiose quotes about the importance of our allegedly “free press,” i.e., the Herald, to a functional democracy in the face of their selective reporting and constrictive letters policy? (Mark Twain is supposed to have noted that “It’s a free press if you happen to own one” or something like that.)
On Thursday, April 12th, the Herald wrote that Jayson Jaycoby is now editing the opinion page--a promotion that will hopefully help he and Lisa raise the child they appear to be expecting. It was already clear from the writing style in Wednesday’s (4/11) editorial that Jayson is now on the editorial board. Judging from his statement in that Thursday’s column that he spent his first 18 summers on he West Side and will spend his 19th summer in Baker City this year, Jayson must be all of 36 or 37 years old. How reassuring! We can only hope that his ability to turn a phrase also means he is wise beyond his years. I, for one, will not be holding my breath. I have been treated to Jayson’s judgments of what is newsworthy, and my comments about growth during the citizen’s participation portion of City Council meetings, among others, are apparently not in that class.
OK, you might say, what is so special about your comments at City Council meetings? Not much perhaps, except that we do pretend to be a democracy. I am not alone in that category as many citizen’s remarks do not make the papers, even though they should. Newspaper reporters and editors have the power to decide whether your comments see the light of day, and those with power are prone to abuse it. Sure, Bill Harvey’s comments on development fees get in, but then he’s an esteemed “custom builder” representing a portion of a financially powerful industry. Twice at council meetings, in addition to my own opinions, I have cited as a source, one of the few books that explains the disproportionate costs paid by current residents for the growth that occurs in their cities and towns—costs that benefit and should be paid for by developers and new residents. That book is “Better, Not Bigger,” by Eben Fodor.
Better Not Bigger
Fodor is Oregon's foremost defender of "current residents" in the battle against destructive development. Why would the local papers and reporters like Jayson Jaycoby at the Herald or Brian Addison of the Record Courier want to keep Fodor’s advice and wise counsel from the citizens of Baker County? One might think that because Jayson’s father in law sells real estate, that he may be biased about growth, I don't know. On the other hand, maybe he and his paper need growth to increase circulation, revenues and paychecks. The latter may be applicable to Brian Addison as well, as Brian too has never repeated the title of the book or my comments on growth in his reporting. Oh, and did I mention that 7 out of 13 advertisers on the Herald’s web page have to do with selling real estate? Is it possible that the Herald doesn’t want to report items that might offend its advertisers? Growth is favored by many other merchants as well, because growth stands to increase their customer base and profits. The fact that you are going to pay for a disproportionate share of the cost, or that it takes two red light cycles to get across Main Street on Campbell (if you were lucky enough to squeeze in off a side street) just isn’t important to them.
(another benefit of growth)
Measure 37, too, has been a contentious topic across the state for some time. Finally, 3 months after Governor Kulongoski kicked off a campaign to fix it, the Herald’s Mike Ferguson mentions it in an article yesterday. Don’t worry if you missed it though, because you won’t learn anything from Mike's article. He quotes Commission Chair Fred Warner Jr. as saying “We’ve still got 10 or 15 more. For now, this is all the staff could get done and get good reports on.” Both Mike and Brian Addison were present at the January 17th, 2007 Commissioner’s meeting where I commented on several Measure 37 demands, including one by Commissioner Fred Warner Junior himself. Not one word of the many pages of comments I gave the two reporters ended up in the paper. Measure 37 wasn’t even mentioned despite over an hour’s time being spent on it. That was the week that Kulongoski spoke on the subject, and yet, nothing about Measure 37 was worth reporting on.
We wouldn’t know from the local papers that there have been 139 Measure 37 claims, affecting thousands of acres, filed here in Baker County and that claims affecting over half a million acres have been filed in Oregon. We haven’t learned from the local papers that a poll earlier this year determined that 61% of Oregonians thought the measure should be repealed or fixed, or that 52% would vote against it if given the chance today. We haven’t been informed that most of the Baker County claimants, including Fred Warner Jr., didn’t even bother to follow the requirements of County Ordinance 2005-01, which adopted logical procedures to be followed when demanding compensation from the County. At least Commissioner Kerns made a stab at identifying the specific land use regulations he thought interfered with his right to develop property, even if James L. Kerns and Fred Warner Jr. didn’t. The ordinance, at Section 2 (7) asks for “A statement and documentation indicating the alleged reduction amount in the real property fair market value showing the difference in the real property fair market value before and then after the challenged regulation was enacted.” Few, if any applicants bothered to comply with the ordinance, and no waiver by the County was stated, so I guess we are to only selectively enforce County ordinances. When I pointed this out, I was told I could go to court, but that they were in any event going to make waivers of the requirements explicit in future reports on the claims.
My unreported message was that Measure 37 was not intended to provide huge windfalls for unsubstantiated claims seeking unlimited individual exemptions for vague uses. Most demands had not shown an actual reduction in value due to any specific regulation applied to any specific use, and given the cumulative impacts of the many M-37 claims, the citizens of this county deserve more than the anything goes free-for-all that is now occurring. They deserve a careful, thoughtful and fair administration and enforcement of County ordinances and state laws that apply to Measure 37. I spent many hours researching a contentious subject and participating in our alleged democracy. As far as the papers were concerned, the hearing didn’t even happen. (You can find the preface to my comments near the end of today’s longish blog)
Another event that didn’t happen was the Baker City Council Goal Setting Session on February 3rd, 2007. The papers didn’t report on the goals set by the new City Council. They apparently weren’t important. I read the minutes, such as they are (it wasn’t recorded to my knowledge), and went to the next Council meeting to comment because I was concerned that some of the Councilors were gearing up for a growth binge. (I hope I’m wrong about that, but the signs are that 4 or 5 of the Councilors favor fairly dramatic growth. I’m afraid that descriptions like “Vibrant” and “Bustling” are code words for long lines, congestion, blocked views, dirty air, high taxes and home prices, as well as sounds of “ka-ching” at our local merchants and realtors cash registers.) OK, so I wrote up two pages of comments and made another stab at “Citizen Participation.” Not only did the papers not report on my comments about growth, the Council didn’t even include them in the internet packet of the proceedings so that others could read them if they wished. I don’t know if that is because Mayor Petry is a realty broker/contractor whose firm advertises in the Herald, or not.
The most recent example of the Herald’s willingness to support good old American participatory democracy was there not finding room to print a letter I sent them this week opposing the burn barrel ban. I hadn’t written them a letter sind the 1st of February, or there abouts. You can find it at the end of this rant.
This sort of treatment is not just reserved for me. I know of others treated similarly, and the unifying thread seems to have three strands: 1. Don’t offend our advertisers. 2. Don’t speak out too strongly or effectively against growth and its consequences. 3. The Herald knows a whole lot more about what’s important than you or I do, after all, they are a solid and essential pillar of our “democracy.” What would we do without them???
ON OTHER MATTERS HERALD
PROCREATIONAL WISDOM FROM THE HERALD?
On Tuesday, April 10th, the Herald editorial board opined that “killing feral cats fails to address the underlying problem: procreation.” Huh??? Does the Herald know something we don’t? Do dead cats actually reanimate themselves to participate in the mating game? I know the sex drive is strong, but this sounds like another version of the second coming (no pun intended).
Morris Home on Clear Creek Near Bates
ON THE MALHEUR NATIONAL FOREST’S INCREDIBLY FORGIVING TREATMENT OF THE PERMIT VIOLATIONS NEAR BATESThe recent article and editorial on “Saving a bit of Bates" was so one-sided and ill-considered that I will devote a whole future blog for it and related recreational residence issues. The Forest Service has been doing the two older women a considerable favor for years and the Herald makes it look like a case of elder abuse. Anything to make it look like you’re wearing a white hat—even if you have to turn the truth on its head.
Spring Flowers on Earth Day
Last Sunday was Earth Day and hundreds of thousands of people celebrated that fact. In Los Angeles, thousands came out to celebrate and paint the children’s faces. In San Diego, it was reported that more people than live in all of Baker City visited the festivities at Balboa Park during the day, where among other things, young students sold barn owl nest boxes to earth-friendly passers by. In Baker City, the Herald didn’t even report on it. They reported on some pseudo enviro group called the Water and Stream Health committee trying to find away to steal yet more water from Mother Nature. Just a few days before, the Herald was promoting Miner’s Jubillee, while ignoring the whole destructive legacy of mining in Baker County. Why don’t we celebrate Earth Day? Surely if the only local requirement is for our merchants to make a buck, they could make as much selling souvenirs of Salmon, Sage Grouse, and other imperiled species as they do phony gold nuggets and whiskey during the Jubilee.
COMMENTS NEVER TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY
The following are Citizen's Participation comments not reported on or printed by either the Herald or the Record-Courier:
August 15, 2006
Mayor Chuck Hofmann
Councilors Bass, Peterson, Daugherty, Haynes, Petry & Ellingson
City of Baker City
PO Box 650
1655 First Street
Baker City, OR 97814
Dear Mayor & Councilors,
I appreciate being able to voice my concerns and opinions about the proposed golf course development and about growth in Baker City.
As you know, in 1995 the citizens of Baker City overwhelmingly voted down a $600,000 tax levy to expand the golf course, but money was borrowed from the cemetery trust fund to expand it anyway. I am under the strong impression that the vast majority of Baker City residents do not use, and many cannot afford to use, the golf course facilities. Considering that most Baker City taxpayers did not want to pay for the expansion, and benefit little, if at all, from the golf course, they have surely invested enough in the golfing pleasures of those who are fortunate enough to have the money to pay the green fees. The users of the golf course should be responsible for the remaining debt.
If the city decides to enter into a scheme to sell the remaining 15 acres to developers, and I’m not convinced they should, the money from the sale should repay the cemetery trust fund first, with the remainder going into a fund to benefit all the citizens of Baker City.
If the property is developed, the property should include low and moderate-income housing units in proportion to the percentage of low and moderate-income people in Baker City, so as to reflect our economic and social diversity. We don’t need elite enclaves in Baker City, especially if the enclave’s golfing playground is financed in part by all Baker City citizens.
The cost burden created by any necessary extension of water and sewer lines, and other infrastructure to this and other possible developments, along with potential costs associated with any needed increases in water storage and sewer capacity, are the kinds of things the City apparently hopes to discuss with current residents while creating what has been termed “Comprehensive Development Policy Reform.” As noted in the discussion paper, LID non-remonstrance reform is needed, hopefully to ensure that the sort of disastrous financial pain that was inflicted on the innocent bystander, current residents adjacent to the recent Elm Street LID, is not repeated in other areas of our community.
Before we ask ourselves how we want to grow, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we want to grow. Along with the Elm Street LID fiasco, people are beginning to notice the other negative impacts of growth, as experienced with the congestion on east Campbell Street and as will be soon be experienced by residents on “D” Street. Many of us live here because we value the quality of life provided by our small size, wide open spaces and affordable living arrangements—we don’t want to become another Bend and don’t need upscale sidewalks or curbs on every street. Most importantly, we don’t want to pay for the destruction of the very qualities of life that compel us to call Baker City our “home.” If there is such a thing as doing growth “right,” I would offer that it is growth that is well planned & controlled, recognizes population limits and local carrying capacity, pays its own way, and serves the interests of all current citizens—not just the interests of the “Growth Machine,” i.e. land speculators, developers, contractors, real estate agents, and others who directly or indirectly profit from growth. While some of you may be a part of the “Growth Machine,” you must realize that it is required for you set aside your own interests in favor of the interests of all the citizens of Baker City. Those interests include:
• improved quality of life
• better public services
• enhanced environmental quality
• protection of agricultural and resource lands
• preservation of the historic heritage, and
• economic security for current residents, including no gentrification or displacement of low income residents.
(taken in part from “Better Not Bigger;” by Eben Fodor)
If growth won’t provide these things then it should not be allowed to occur.
As always, “who benefits?” and “who pays?” are important questions. What happened to residents on “F” and Elm Streets wasn’t fair or equitable. Raising the rates for water and sewer, as has happened recently, in order squirrel away money for anticipated development driven sewer and water infrastructure upgrades, would not be a fair and equitable solution to the question of who should pay. It would be an unfair tax on current residents to benefit the “Growth Machine” and future residents. If we have reached the limits of our watershed to provide water, and the limits of our infrastructure to carry water and effluent, then perhaps we should learn to live within those limits. The burden should be on the “Growth Machine” and city officials to show why we would possibly need more development and the costly new infrastructure needed by it when the current systems serve our needs and we are content with what we have. Most of us understand that current residents invariably subsidize growth and that government too often forces us to do so when it is not in our best interests.
Perhaps the council and Baker City residents already know all there is to know about growth, but if not, there is a good, inexpensive book that the council and residents can use to understand the costs, impacts and myths associated with it. The book is “Better Not Bigger” by Eben Fodor. It can help people control growth as opposed to being controlled by it, and can help create a sustainable and very livable community. Beyond the obvious decline in quality of life often caused by growth, it explains why growth is financially costly to current residents, it explains that most jobs go to outsiders, not current residents, and it explains why growth tends to raise local taxes.
Someone once said that there are two stages of the public policy process: too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it. I hope that will not be the case in the future, and that you and the next elected city council will be open, accessible, accountable, responsive, frank, and fair with Baker City residents as you move forward with the discussion about Comprehensive Development Policy Reform.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Christopher Christie
-----------------------
Preface to January 17th comments to County Commissioners
Baker County Board of Commissioners
1995 Third Street
Baker City, OR 97814
Re: Measure 37 Claim M37-06-028
Dear Baker County Commissioners:
Please accept these comments on Measure 37 Demand/Claim # M37-06-028, Fred Warner Jr.
Like many residents of Baker City and County, I live here because of the open and un-crowded conditions, the clean air and water, and the natural as well as agricultural landscapes. I enjoy the open and undeveloped agricultural areas of the County while conducting 1 to 3 raptor surveys during the fall, winter and spring months, during the spring and fall migratory bird surveys, and during the two Christmas bird counts, as well as at other times. It is encouraging to see farmland being used for one of its best uses of providing people with food and fiber, rather than for homes and other non-farm development. I also enjoy the area viewing and photographing other wildlife, wild flowers, and open landscapes. I know that unchecked development can destroy all of these important values and our quality of life in a relatively short time, as it has in so many areas in the West and elsewhere. A few decades or less is all it takes, so we have been fortunate to have sensible land use ordinances protecting our County and State since the mid-70’s.
Unchecked development in the County is already impacting the quality of life for county and city residents, and is having particularly serious impacts on Baker City in the form of congestion and the need for traffic control improvements. As you know, county development tends to destroy our quality of life in many ways. Due to the passage of Measure 37, the County had received 139 demands for compensation, covering thousands of acres, as of the end of 2006. If the County waives the applicable land use regulations for all of these demands, the increasing housing and population growth with attendant urban sprawl will:
• reduce farm, range, and timberland and other open space
• negatively impact agricultural and rural lifestyles
• deplete and potentially contaminate ground water
• increase air pollution which will result in more regulation of wood stove and automobile emissions
• damage or eliminate our views of Baker County’s magnificent landscapes
• increase traffic congestion
• increase crowding and competition for local resources like fish, game, firewood and solitude.
• increase taxes to pay for expanding county services as well as infrastructure like schools and roads.
• increasingly fragment remaining wildlife habitat and winter range, thus endangering the presence and survival of the local animal species we all enjoy
• impact sensitive environmental areas
• increase local fossil fuel use
These are just some of the reasons that land use regulations have been put in place during the last three decades or so.
With the passage of Measure 37, all of these things that many value, except for an individual’s right to make a buck off land speculation, are being seriously challenged. There is some question whether the people that voted for the measure intended to put in place a measure, that if poorly implemented, could destroy their quality of life. That is why it is important for those implementing the measure to proceed cautiously and seriouslywithin the law, and to ensure they follow both Oregon state law and Baker County ordinances when doing so. [next several pages removed]
=======================
Comments to Baker City Council
February 13th, 2007
Christopher Christie
1985 15th Street
Baker City, OR 97814
541-523-2376
refugee2000@qwest.net
Dear Baker City Councilors (Bass, Bryan, Calder, Dorrah, Duman, Petry, & Schumacher)
My Name is Christopher Christie. I live at 1985 15th Street.
At the Baker City Council Goal Setting Session on February 3rd, there was a fair amount of talk about growth. Only one of you, Mayor Petry, a building contractor and realtor, stated that they ran for office “To make sure Baker City grows,” but every one of you, and many of the City staff, mentioned growth as an important issue or something to expect in our future. Some thought we should have quite a bit of it and others talked of planning and moderation. The vision spoke to vibrancy, solid infrastructure, scheduled air passenger service, successful commercial districts, and new schools.
The problem though is that the future and the effects of growth can be surprising when all the factors affecting them are not taken into consideration or are simply ignored. People usually sell growth with a pitch that promises jobs and prosperity for all; a steak on every grill, so to speak; a cure-all for the ills of struggling communities. Your kids will get local jobs, even if you don’t have any kids or even if they don’t live here any more. But the reality can be quite different.
For starters, there didn’t seem to be a recognition that both nationally and globally, we are entering the era of decline in per capita fossil fuel energy supplies. Peak oil is happening now. In not too many years, tourist travel will become increasingly prohibitive financially, especially air travel. Our economy and our way of life will be affected, both here and elsewhere. The dysfunctional nature of the “infinite growth is good” pyramid scheme will become apparent to all as we get in touch with the finite nature of the resources we have squandered. We need to consider energy constraints and how they are going to dramatically affect our future.
And if growth does occur over the next decade or so, what will it really bring? The promise is that growth will provide jobs for your children and others in the community. Maybe, maybe not. In one study of 50 American cities, it was found that there was no statistical correlation between the growth rate and the unemployment rate—you just become a bigger, more crowded city with a similar unemployment rate. New job opportunities are not guaranteed to locals, and as you well know, many local jobs go to newcomers who are also looking for opportunities. Studies have shown that 30 to 50% of new jobs go to immigrants (Fodor, Better Not Bigger). The basic formula over a period of time is that if you double the size of your community, you will ultimately double the number of people who are unemployed. Sure it will help many realtors, contractors and small business owners, like those of you on the City Council, but it shouldn’t be sold as a promise to make jobs for locals or reduce the unemployment rate.
And then there is the issue of who benefits and who pays. There is, of course, a cost for doubling or tripling the population in order to double or triple the number of unemployed, and these costs are often hidden. Economic development and new housing, with the resultant increase in population, increases the demand for expensive infrastructure and public services. This all costs the taxpayer money and causes other kinds of grief in the form of crowding, congestion, and environmental degradation. Public subsidies are often involved, as for example the exemption from property taxes that Baker City offers certain employers. Other subsidies involve increased taxes for growth induced increases in infrastructure such as schools, sewer system and storm drain costs, water supplies and delivery, transportation, police and fire protection, garbage disposal, library service, parks and recreation, government services, etc., etc. Obviously, stable cities don’t have a need for expanded facilities, growing cities do. Growth could increase per capita charges and property taxes by hundreds of dollars annually for Baker City citizens.
Growth can also destroy, or seriously degrade, the overall quality of life for Baker City residents. The deterioration will be experienced in increased congestion, as can be seen on Campbell Street, to reduced air quality and increased regulation of wood stove heating, to increased competition for local resources like firewood and solitude, as well as in the loss of any real sense of community.
Because growth tends to be destructive of the quality of life for current residents, and is most often subsidized by them, it should be approached cautiously. If the City Council is determined to make Baker City grow, then as some of you have indicated, it should be well planned. In addition, the costs should be allocated fairly and growth should pay its own way. A new and updated community vision needs to be developed with broad citizen participation, not just with the input of City staff and the Chamber of Commerce. Community standards need to be improved to protect Baker City and our quality of life from the undesirable impacts associated with growth.
Planning should include the development of a community impact statement created by people and planners who are not conflicted by their involvement in the growth industry. It should include scenarios for what can be expected at different population sizes, and should include a no growth scenario. The public should be fully informed of the current infrastructure capacity, including water supplies, sewer system capacity, transportation grid capacity, etc. The public needs to be informed about how much of their current water and sewer charges, if any, are being used to plan and pay for increased capacity to provide for future development. We need to know how many people can be supported by current capacity and how close we are to that capacity.
To determine a fair allocation of costs between current residents and future development, a cost- benefit analysis should be done. If new facilities are needed to make development possible, then those truly benefiting from that growth should pay for it in accordance with the amount of benefit. Reductions in taxes for current residents whose lives will be negatively impacted by growth should be considered. To protect current residents and ensure that they do not have to pay for the cost of development that benefits others, system development charges and impact fees should be created for all capital improvement categories for which local jurisdictions may collect such charges and fees, as listed in ORS 223.299 (1)a. The City Council should consider a resolution asking that ORS 223.299(1) be amended to add police, fire, library, and school facilities to the list of capital improvements for which local jurisdictions may collect impact fees and system development charges.
Lastly, it is worth repeating the “Catch 22 of Growth” from Eben Fodor’s book, Better, Not Bigger. It goes like this: “The better you make your community, the more people will want to live there, until [ultimately] it is no better [and perhaps worse] than any other community.” I know that you do not want to destroy our quality of life or make current residents pay for growth that does not benefit them. I hope you will consider these suggestions to ensure that neither of these things will happen.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Christopher Christie
Many of the ideas in this letter, and much more, can be found in Eben Fodor’s Book, Better, Not Bigger.
--------------------------
April 23rd Open Letter to the City Council:
Dear Councilors,
I have read that a resident has asked that the City consider banning burn barrels, and that at the April 24 meeting, you will be expanding the discussion to open burning as well. Apparently the resident is upset that some burn some trash that is currently illegal to burn. I would request that the City not write a new law to ban a current practice, but rather enforce laws that are already in effect to remedy the problem. If people would report illegal, toxic, or otherwise offensive burning, and if the city were to send an officer out occasionally to sniff for violators, then enforcement of current law would help to curtail illegal burning. Additionally, burn barrels would appear to be safer than open burning, which is also legal and not affected by a barrel ban. I would venture a guess that all of the open and barrel burning fires in Baker City combined during a typical year would not amount to as much smoke and CO2 as is created by a single controlled burn in the forest. Allowing people to burn could also increase the longevity of the local landfill.
Composting is best, but lets not ban another current practice ala "Dogs in the park." We just need to enforce laws already on the books. Enforcement will likely jog people's memories as to what is, and what is not, legal to burn.
Sincerely,
Christopher Christie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
