Who was really responsible for rescinding travel plan?
It is hard to find someone in Baker County not familiar with the Wallowa-Whitman’s attempt to introduce a Travel Management Plan on our forest. The Forest Service was (is) to implement a system of roads and trails, provide us with maps, and close our treasured “open forest.”
In response, our county decided to go out and inventory the roads and submit a plan. A committee was formed (which included a seat at the table for Hells Canyon Preservation Council) and many took on the road inventory chore.
Tired of federal regulations, I’m voting for Bill Harvey
I’m ready for a change.
I’m tired of spending all my time attending meetings. If I’m not in a meeting, I’m hopelessly buried in some 1,200-page document from our Forest Service or the BLM.
Not impressed with Fred Warner’s efforts
I am not a Baker County resident, therefore these are simply my observations and personal dealings as an outsider looking in and a concerned member of property owners in the County.
I have attempted to work with Fred Warner Jr. on a vast array of issues over the last couple of years, and for the most part, I have found Fred to be ineffective at best and unwilling to engage at the worst.
A county commissioner is supposed to run the monthly business of the county and watch out for the best interest of local residents.
I personally have attempted to engage with Fred on the Mainline Trail Project, which converts the abandoned grade from Sumpter to Bates (Grant County) into a bicycle trail. Over 100 emails I never received any correspondence back from Fred, and very seriously felt like he was openly ignoring my request because he simply desired the trail more than he wanted to address the concerns of the people of Austin, I never understood why Baker County was planning activities in Grant County.
The trail Fred and his staff were planning would have closed roads, created a bike path through my family’s property and several other large pieces of property. Mr. Warner was unwilling to deal with Baker County staff that openly misled the public and kept information from us and I find that inexcusable.
Fred allowed the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest staff to hold meetings in Baker that were public meetings, without notice to the public that they were being held. Those meetings were vital to the public fully understanding the county’s role in agreeing to close down our forest and what deals are being cut.
And, where was Fred at the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision meeting? Nowhere to be seen is where.
Again, while not a county resident, I wonder why anyone would vote for a commissioner that simply refuses to listen to the public and deal with issues head on.
I’m hopeful Bill Harvey will get the opportunity to start addressing all of these issues.
John D. George
Why change a winning formula? Re-elect Warner
I’ve often heard it said, “Never change a winning team.” To that I say, “amen.” During my eight years of service on the Baker City Council, I’ve watched Fred Warner balance budgets and maintain essential services despite dwindling resources, stand eye-to-eye with governmental regulators, and leverage Baker County dollars to complete much needed road projects. I’ve seen him work to achieve consensus and solutions that benefit all Baker County residents, not just a select few. He has put aside any personal bias and represented our citizens well.
The world does need alternative energy
In his April 3, 2014, op-ed in The Record-Courier opposing the Huntington windfarm, Mr. Bill Harvey did us a grave disservice by declaring that our need for renewable energy is “not based on fact or need.” He thus asserted his denial of the existence and impact of global warming, a belief he explicitly stated in his letter to the editor of the Baker City Herald of July 22, 2013.
In seeking to impose his misguided and unscientific beliefs on us, Mr. Harvey is flying in the face of almost all climate scientists, and he is sowing seeds of doubt and confusion around a profound environmental threat to our well-being.
Partisan races = local control
A Baker County initiative petition to change the county commissioner seats from partisan races to nonpartisan races is currently being circulated by Sumpter resident Randy Joseph. Many voters think “nonpartisan” means neutral or not involved in politics. Not so!
County commissioners make and set policy, just like our state representatives and senators. Other elected county officials who are nonpartisan carry out policy — big difference.
It is easy to influence voters with a well-written statement, but it is also easy to deceive them when they have no idea what a person’s true affiliation is.
Baker County citizens — voters — need to keep local control of the replacement process when a commissioner resigns. If these seats become nonpartisan, then vacancies will be appointed by two individuals, one possibly being the governor all the way on the other side of the state. Where would these nominees come from? Who would vet them? The two commissioners left making the appointment? This smacks of a good-old-boy system.
ORS 236.210 and 236.225 in summary: If one Baker County Commissioner resigns, then the remaining two commissioners will make the decision for the replacement.
If two commissioners resign, then the governor of Oregon will appoint one commissioner to make a quorum and then the remaining commissioner, along with the governor’s appointee, will make the decision for the appointment of the third commissioner.
Is this really the voters having a say in local government?
In the past 30 years, there have been four resignations of county commissioners. In July of 1986 both Ben Dunleavy, a Democrat, and Rod McCullough, a Republican, resigned; in 2003 Paul York, a Republican, resigned, and last spring we had the resignation of Dr. Stiff, a Republican.
Baker County currently has the ability to mimic the primary with a nominating convention to determine the nominees for the county commissioner decision. The nominees are fully vetted and voted on by the dozens of elected precinct committee people (PCPs) from all over the county.
Numerous studies have proven nonpartisan races actually reduce voter turnout. Voters lose the ability to screen candidates for core beliefs. Nonpartisan elections equal no interest or research by the voters for the candidates — candidate beliefs are masked. We end up with less informed voters than we have today. (Google: Teams without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan ballot in State and Local Elections.)
A nonpartisan system is promoted by liberals and left-wing groups such as the legislative arm of SEIU, The League of Conservation Voters, and League of Women Voters among a few. The Oregon counties that have gone nonpartisan have done so with the help of these liberal groups and the Democratic Party — which really doesn’t quite smell right, not quite neutral. Nonpartisan races are the road to a single-party system. (If you like your party, you can keep your party! Yeah, right.)
According to the Association of Oregon Counties, there are currently seven counties that are nonpartisan under a home rule charter, which allows the county to define in its rules a replacement process.
Two counties are partisan under Home Rule governance. Baker County is not Home Rule, it is general law governance (statute driven). Seven other counties are nonpartisan and under the county judge format of General Law. There are actually only 13 counties governed like Baker County that are nonpartisan. Hardly the 20 out of 36 that has been stated by the chief petitioners, who are trying to compare apples to oranges.
Once Baker County voters understand the loss of local control, we don’t believe they will support this nonpartisan initiative.
For more information call 541-519-5035.
Van Diepen and Jones are members of the Baker County Republican Central Committee.
Walden’s bill is about politics, not public access to forests
Last week, the Baker City Herald editorial staff wrote, “Rep. Greg Walden has gotten right to the heart of the debate over managing national forests and he only needed to write a four-page bill to do it.”
It’s time for a reality check.
It seems clear that Walden only threw this piece forward because I am on his heels, chasing his lackluster votes. I have heard for years from hunters, farmers, ranchers, loggers and outdoorsmen worried about their forest access and concerned with the deafness of Washington bureaucrats.
They tell me of their frustration in writing endlessly to Walden’s office, their local papers, and their vain attendance in “public comment” sessions.
Mr. Daugherty was on ‘a hopeful frolic of his own’
During the Baker City Council meeting last Tuesday, Randy Daugherty and others expressed their disapproval of the $71 LID assessment for the Resort Street upgrade.
For that meeting City Manager Mike Kee had prepared a written history of the process that resulted in that assessment amount. His statement is available, in full, on the city website.
I was a member of the City Council during that time. Mr. Kee’s recitation of how the assessment came to be $71 is entirely correct. The statements Mr. Daugherty made in the Council meeting are not.
Neither Mr. Kee nor other city staff should be condemned for Mr. Daugherty’s dissatisfaction. He was on a hopeful frolic of his own.
In most trying times, human kindness prevails
On Nov. 1 my husband Darrell and I moved to Baker City from Seneca to be nearer the cancer center in Boise. Though ultimately the winter was a sad and difficult time for us, we had precious moments together there and both felt grateful for the extra effort and the TLC of some of our neighbors on Grove Street; of a number of old Baker friends and friends who traveled from out of town to be with us; several merchants, Linda Hudson of Ideal Partners; Pastor Privett and the ladies of the Nazarene Church, as well as the nursing staff and recreational director at St. Alphonsus Care Center, where they went the extra mile for us.
This is to say that even in the most trying times, human kindness might still be found, and my thanks go to those who saw with their hearts.
Ada McMillan Hilton
We need to reconsider our futile war on drugs
With respect to the dangers of addictive drug usage we need to have a COMPLETE discussion and evaluation regarding the damage they do versus the damage and cost associated with our present attempts at forced drug control. This analysis must include the total cost, which would include the dollar cost of prisons, drug control agencies, nation-wide associated local police force expenditures, and related costs. To this must be added the human costs which include incarcerating otherwise productive people and the lifelong emotional impact on children whose parent or sibling are serving prison time.
Youth appear to be attracted to drugs for two main reasons. One is because drug use is forbidden and therefore exciting. The other is because there is profit in getting an acquaintance “hooked” on drugs in order to help support one’s own habit. All attempts to stop the use of drugs by force of law will merely assure greater profits for the pushers. This fact appears to be ignored by those responsible for our present drug laws.
Our government tells us we live in the freest country in the world. Yet the United States has a greater percentage of its population in prison than any other nation. Nearly half of those prisoners are locked up merely for violating our drug laws. We are using taxpayers’ money to build more prisons so we can incarcerate even more mothers, fathers and youth for violations of futile drug laws.
Internationally the attempt to control drug movement has turned our southern border into a war zone! Gangs are killing each other for supremacy and many innocent people are slaughtered as well. This bloodshed is a direct result of our futile attempt to control drug usage in this country and Mexico obviously knows it.
In addition to the great economic cost the many years of our attempt at forced control of drugs has caused untold misery and ruined lives and deaths, while producing no measurable benefit. Is it not time for reasonable people to seek a less hostile policy that is compatible with our free country?
People need to pay for what they want
Here we go again. I noticed in last night’s paper two non-related stories of citizens wanting someone else to pay for their purchase.
First of all, to address Suzanne Fouty wanting to add 50 cents per month to our water/sewer bills for the spay/neuter program. I want to say at the outset your program is admirable and does good work but, I am so tired of my utility bill being looked at as a piggy bank for something other than water/sewer. The key word is utility bill; I don’t agree with the city adding $1 per month for sidewalks to it, let alone money for spay/neuter and a part-time coordinator’s salary. Apply to the Leo Adler for help or other charitable organizations, have fundraisers, raise the fee you charge for adoption, be creative in seeking funds, but don’t look at my utility bill as a piggy bank. I do take issue with Fouty saying how I feel about 50 cents reflects on how I feel about animals. We had a cat adopt us 11 years ago and she is the joy of our lives; our love for animals is not an issue.
Secondly, I would like to address the Resort Street property owners who don’t want to pay for what they ordered. We live on 11th Street, which was paved in 1980 — no curbs, no sidewalks, no underground utilities, no fancy metal framework to hide our garbage cans behind, and it was assessed at $7 per foot to the property owners. Now fast forward 1/3 of a century, pave a street, beautiful new sidewalks, underground utilities, fancy metal framework hiding your garbage containers and you don’t think you should pay anything? Come on now, you are business owners; we used to have a café downtown. If you came in and ordered a meal, you better believe you wouldn’t leave until you paid for it. Just as you won’t give me a new car for my birthday and my wife a diamond necklace for hers. Now you know, you ordered the steak, now pay for it.
Reminded again why Baker is a great place to live
To Virginia Kostol, who found my money and turned it over to Shannon Kanyid, who got it to me: I thank both of you very much, providing once again Baker is a great place to live.
Sticking up for the venerable VHS tape and the VCR
If you need further proof that our technology actually peaked in the 1980s, I present to you the much-maligned VHS tape.
I currently watch VHS tapes that were manufactured in the late 1970s and early 80s on a VHS machine made not long after. Thirty-five years later and they play just fine.
From an archival standpoint, a VHS tape will last 100+ years if kept cool and dry. Each cassette is a marvel of wheels, pins and magnetic tape. By contrast, a DVD or Blu-Ray is a cheap 15-cent plastic disc that has a shelf life of two to five years. If you have children, make that two to five months. If they are toddlers, it’s more like two to five minutes. One lateral scratch on the label or playing-side and your favorite movie is finished.
Libraries all over the country are replacing the best archival video format they have in favor of an inferior knock-off that will render their entire archive obsolete in just a few years. That means, in order to preserve our national film heritage, a library will have to consistently replace their most popular titles, over and over and over again.
Consumers are being duped into doing the same thing.
Troubleshooting a VCR and/or VHS tape usually requires nothing more than some alcohol, Q-tips, a pair of scissors, some scotch tape and a little patience. Troubleshooting a DVD or Blu-Ray player and/or disc means buying a new DVD or Blu-Ray player and/or disc. This is madness.
If you want a film heritage you can actually pass on to your children, then pony up the 50 cents to a dollar and save a VHS today.
Oh, and the best part: I can still fast-forward through the commercials. Can you?