Tag: government

Conflicting fairnesses (or, since when is life supposed to be fair?)

I heard overnight from a friend who is livid that Bend city councilors sent a proposed room tax increase – a compromise that probably pleases no one 100 percent, the very definition – to voters in November.

He says the public has no full understanding of such things as tourism economics and that the councilors shirked their duties and should resign. Etc. etc.

Was really surprised by that. First of all, aren’t city councils required to send tax hikes to voters – by state law, city charter or both — and wouldn’t the outcry be much larger if they did this without asking the voters?

And since when is an “educated vote” required? That’s as problematic to make happen (quizzes at the polling place before you get to vote? Oh wait, we don’t have polling places any more) as the notion that only “those who pay” — property owners – should get to vote on property tax hikes. What property owner doesn’t pass on all or part of such taxes to their renters? And whose fault is that?

Life isn’t fair, but so many expect it to be perfectly so. And yes, the odds of this tax hike passing are great, since it’s a tax on someone else – the visitors to our community.

Some have cried “taxation without representation!”

Huh?

How about the notion that visitors to a community by their very visit make use of roads, sewer, water and sometimes emergency services that residents pay for — and thus should shoulder a percentage – the exact amount in never-ending argument — of those costs?

It all reminds me of the favorite line, “Growth should pay it’s own way.” Like “information wants to be free,” it’s nice pablum, but completely impossible in the real world.

Bend is growing again, and that tug of war, wrestling match (grow the city! No, say no to developers! Keep Bend as it is!) will be back, with all the impossible-to-please-all decisions they entail.

A city or county cannot reject a building or a resort, say, because “we don’t want any more” or “we have enough already.” It’s simply … well, illegal, under state land use laws. It’s like saying “I want to do whatever I want with my land – property rights! – but my neighbor shouldn’t be able to do anything that affects me.” Impossible to make happen, impossible to enforce – and totally illogical to request. And yet, some do. Many, in fact.

Why are all the things we “learned in kindergarten” so hard for folks to remember or accept later in life? Ah, because by then, with all our life experiences, we “know better.”

Not;-)

How can we move forward – not sideways?

I often get myself in serious trouble with the anti-government folks on KTVZ.COM’s article comments by saying that media – or more precisely, journalists – like government, can’t “win” these days – that we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t and damned if we can’t decide, that people believe we’re in our professions for the lowest of instincts (“Sensationalism!” “Ego trips!”) and not for “the greater, community good.”

So please permit me to expound a bit on what I mean (otherwise known as “digging myself a deeper hole”;-)

Of course, there are “winners” or “losers” in both professions (with us it’s about ratings and ad revenues, with politicians it’s votes and campaign contributions). Does that make us inherently bad, not to be trusted? I humbly submit, the answer is “no.”

To be sure, neither government nor the news media have a rosy image these days. We’re seen as exploiters, as people who don’t care about the impacts we have on everyday folks’ lives, who “use” others for our own means. If media would just expose the government’s (and big business’s, heck, everyone’s!) wrongdoing and nasty doings – if term limits would just “throw the bums out” – we’d live in a nirvana, a utopia – and woe befalls anyone who doubts those views.

To be certain, there are some in our professions – like every profession – who live up, or more precisely down, to those broad-brush stereotypes. But many others who try to do our best, and for the most part, are worthy of respect and attention. Separating the two is easier said than done. Your “bum” could be my “hero,” and vice versa.

But it’s hard not to say the current low opinion of public servants and reporters/editors is also a matter of hypocrites playing the public’s heart strings like a Stradivarius. Many things bring this to mind – the conservative talk show hosts who dominate the airwaves but rail against the “mainstream media” (if you’re on 20 hours a week or more, why aren’t you now “mainstream”?) and, of course, against the current administration as well.

If there’s one thing I appreciate about Glenn Beck, for example – despite the fact the few times he’s talked about something I have personal knowledge of, he got the facts wrong – is that he says he was railing against the White House policies before the current occupant. Portland radio host Lars Larson also does the same thing, sometimes confounding those who expect him to toe any particular conservative line by saying “this issue is different.” That’s right, think for yourselves, people!

Other commentators bemoan the ever-higher levels of not just partisanship, but poison partisanship, in which all the ills of one’s own life and that of our communities can be blamed on … somebody. Illegal aliens. Government bureaucrats.  Politicians who raise taxes for fun and just don’t listen to the people (as if the people all speak with a unified voice!)

I also get myself in constant trouble for playing the role of devil’s advocate – of saying the answers are not as simple as some would have you believe, that there are unintended consequences to most “solutions” (Sheriff Joe’s Arizona “tent city” jail comes to light – if it were that great, and not a lawsuit magnet, why wouldn’t other law enforcers follow in their footsteps? Because, of course, they are egotistical empire-builders!)

Which brings me to an idea I’ve debated in my mind and sometimes, with others, for many a year – the idea made possible by technology of moving to a more true democracy, rather than a republic, one in which the Internet affords all of us an opportunity to weigh in on and help make decisions on public issues large and small. If we dare.

But would a direct Internet government short-circuit the political egos and the lobbyists greasing the skids (and their own palms) to get what they want? Or would it turn into something like Wikipedia – so complex that, while anyone can take part, only a relatively small clique of participants do much of the heavy lifting?

Or worse yet, would every issue become one where WE are played like a Stradivarius – where community decisions ultimately are decided based in large measure on who has the best spokesman, the guy/gal with the best teeth/hair promoting their position on this issue or that? A mix of “American Idol” and C-SPAN, fighting for attention and participation in a celeb culture?

Health care reform is a prime example – a good majority of the public say we want “reform,” but the definition and consensus is as elusive as Bigfoot – and just as dangerous, should we encounter it. The devil is always, always in the many, many details.

So how about this – anyone can have a voice (oh, the cacophony!) in this direct online government, but only those who pass a test on knowledge about the subject can weigh in with their votes? Again, the devil’s advocate in me sees big trouble with that – who writes the test, who sees a slant in one direction or another on or between the lines, etc. etc.

Besides, who among us has the time or inclination to read 1,000-page bills on every issue we expect government to address? And what will those “executive summaries” leave out? No, we want to leave it to government to figure it out.

So, we’re stuck with a situation where many of us, for example, hate Congress but love our congressman or woman. Where we blame government and the media for things like the recession – saying we were in cahoots to rah-rah growth and bubbles that always burst, and didn’t warn (the media’s role) or prepare us for/head off (government’s role) the inevitable tailspin.

 No wonder we’re so frustrated! We want change, but break down over whether this or that “change” is what “we” meant.

 If I have any hope, it’s that a cause will emerge at some point to find a hero of moderates and a platform, not of issues, but of how to reasonably, sensibly approach them – that extremists from either end of the spectrum are equally distrusted, as they should be – that we prize, teach and promote critical thinking of the kind that can keep us from becoming anyone’s “sheeple.”

If I created a social network promoting such a viewpoint, would it bring attention, scorn or derision? (Or apathy?) People trying to tear it down, or those trying to build it up and advance something beyond today’s petty wars of attrition and frustration?

I must also speak up on behalf of that much-maligned journalistic goal of objectivity. Everyone has an opinion, so let’s have it out in the open! I weigh in at times, with the comments on our Website, but I try like heck to keep them out of the news articles I and others write.

People need impartial summations of the various views/proposals before us, and if that’s so-called “he said she said” journalism, I plead guilty to this artificially created “crime.” I don’t want newspaper editorials to tell me what to think, much less the articles in print, on the air or online. Commentary, clearly labeled, is wonderful, marvelous. But in “straight news” stories, please just provide me the information and let me make up my own mind!

As usual, I sure don’t have the answers. But as a reporter, my goal always has been to ask the right questions, and not be fooled by simple answers to complex questions. And to ask follow-ups, and not start writing until I understand the issue well enough to relate it to others, in as simple a manner as possible.

I guess it all boils down, in the end, to whether you think the media, the government or anything else is made up of fallible, all-too-human people who are just trying to get through the day/week/their lives, who have good intentions and motives, and sometimes (Frequently? All the time?) screw up – or if you see “them” instead as evil, lazy, manipulative, etc., etc.

If Anne Frank, before the Nazis cut short her life, can write that she still believes, after all, that “people are good, at heart,” why can’t we? Is that really seen as childhood naiveté, rather than a sane, simple way to go through life – not gullible, but not stone-hearted either?

Isn’t there a balance? Isn’t there a middle ground? There has to be. Or we’re sunk.

In a way, what the Internet has done is empowered ALL of us to be journalists – to research and sift through the information, apply critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves if there’s a position/proposal we can get behind on the issues of the day.

As Pogo the comic-strip once famously said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Can we admit that to ourselves, and try to learn from it?

Somewhere in America… Election Day

Odds are, this happeed somewhere….

“I’m backing Obama,” says Mr. A.

“Why?” says Mr. B.

“Because his name is five letters long.”

“Huh?”

“Look, Bush is four letters long – nice and short, compared to that seven-letter Clinton fella. Just like his daddy, nice and short.”

“Yeah, so…?”

“Well, McCain – that’s six letters. Poor headline writers. Think of all the wasted ink and paper!”

“And Obama…”

“Yep, just five letters. That’s fine, one more letter. That’s change I can believe in. But from four letters to six? That’s too much. Wild. Radical. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

“Yeah, but what about syllables? We haven’t had a three-syllable president since… well, when, Kennedy?”

“Hadn’t thought of that. Hmmmm…. that could be a reason to vote for him.”

(Randon thought inspired by the persistent realization that you cannot require an informed vote, or make someone pass a test first. They can back or bounce you based on your smile, your hairstyle or just “something about you.” Or how long your name is…)

Remembering Bill Friedman

Bill Friedman’s wife, Shoshana, asked me to post this at the CaringBridge Website set up in his honor. Alas, the piece is too long for there, because they have a 5,000-character limit. So instead, I’m posting it here and linking to it. Hope that’s OK.

REMEMBERING BILL FRIEDMAN

By Barney Lerten

November 15, 2008

 

As a reporter, I’ve often said, jokingly, that the worst thing I could do to some people is to quote them accurately.

 

I recall a certain former city manager who once told me a joke, as we talked on the phone. I was laughing – but I was typing. A few days later, Larry – I mean, that unnamed city manager – called me up. The words were in print, and he was not laughing. But he learned anew the power of those three little words – off the record – and what can happen when they’re not used.

 

But when it comes to Bill, the best thing I can do, to salute and reflect on his simple, quiet, but powerful role in Bend government over the past decade or so, is to quote him accurately – something I always try to do, but do better now, covering the council via TV and typing, then I ever did scribbling in the front row at City Hall. Then, now and forever, my handwriting is atrocious.

 

So that should be my first salute to Bill – his voice and timbre was unique, his cadence – starting with a slight stammer – like Jimmy Stewart in his prime, though no one would ever confuse the two. He spoke slowly enough that I could capture his words in my scribbles, and not so slowly that it felt like a day in fourth grade as others read their essays at a maddeningly glacial pace.

 

No, it was as if he wanted you to ride along with his thought process, almost hear the mental gears turning – and make clear that he wasn’t letting his mouth get ahead of his brain, as some politicians – we’re talking other places, not here – often do.

 

His attire was unique as well, for years – hence all the white shirts and jeans surrounding us – and as someone blessedly free of the neck-noose tie in recent years, we were a kindred spirit in that regard.

 

I tell people I have little if any memory, only archives – and the fates have conspired to destroy, lose or burn many of those, which accounts for the nearly fire-hazard stacks of fading newsprint in my home office. So that is where I turned, when asked – and how could I refuse the honor? – to find some ‘quotable quotes’ from Bill, for this occasion.

 

One of the first and funniest I found came from a March 2003 Bend Bugle, when the city was wrestling, as always, with what to charge developers and how to account for all that rapid growth.

 

At one point in the frustrating dialogue, Bill made a simple, three-word funding suggestion: “Magic pixie dust.”

 

“So far,” he said, “It’s a total disaster. The builders have to pay more … and 60 percent has to come from somewhere else. Everybody’s even – we’re all going to lose.”

 

Seven months later, a similar remark: “This is a lose-lose-lose proposition. We can’t get there from here, even with increased taxes.”

 

But perhaps, that same month six years ago, came a truly symbolic time, close to here – dedication of the Bill Healy Bridge – when Bill, a long-time supporter of the controversial project, said he’d thought about borrowing Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg – ‘Four score and seven years ago” – since it seemed to have taken that long to happen.”

 

So the councilor who had donned a Dr. Seuss ‘Cat in the Hat” hat and read a made-up fairy tale, ‘The Lonely Little Log Deck,” during a debate, offered thanks to both those who said yes and no to the bridge, for making it a better span – as he put it, “for taking the time to care.”

 

Skip ahead four years, to May of last year, and when he called a 50 percent hike in some building fees “outrageous and unconscionable,” and the state-driven budget process “unfortunate,” he still managed to put a positive spin on things, as I wrote then, “sounding hopeful that everyone would come to consensus on where to go.”

 

“I’m not uncomfortable,” he said. “This is the way democracy works. I think we’re going to have a good result and move forward.”

 

Last September, as the Juniper Ridge debate roiled, Bill tried to sound a note of reason, as he urged his colleagues not to back the idea of a public vote on the project.

 

As he put it, “We can abdicate our responsibility in some very unfortunate ways.” But he also said, “We need to listen to the community, build ways to discuss” the issue.

 

He was not a man bound to tradition, as in his continued efforts to increase safety and sanity in Bend, by banning fireworks.

 

“I agree it’s an American tradition,” he said. “The question is, should every tradition from the past be carried into the future?”

 

That takes us to last spring, when councilors took a chance – brave or foolish, take your pick – and did not cut Bend Area Transit’s budget, several months before this fall’s fateful third vote on a service that many surveys have shown residents want – they just don’t want to pay more for.

 

“It’s an interesting gamble, but it is a gamble,” Bill said.

 

And as the appreciative audience of mostly senior transit riders filed out of the council chambers to a waiting Dial-A-Ride bus, many thanking councilors for their decision, and the council waited to move on to the next agenda item, Bill told Michael Funke, the stalwart labor organizer, “The ball’s in your court.”

 

Funke replied, “The ball’s in all of our courts.”

 

It’s only fitting that was one of the last times I quoted Bill. Because when it comes to loving, caring about and investing our time, energy – and yes our hard-earned money – in keeping Bend livable and successful, indeed, Bill would tell us all, were he here today, “The ball’s in your court.”

 

And if we approach each issue, large or small, with the grace, wisdom, and yes humor that Bill Friedman displayed in ways large and small, we should all in the end, win or lose, be able to quote Bill accurately, and tell everybody we know: “This is the way democracy works.”

Sorry so long (Best of luck Barack, farewell Bill)

Wow, time flies when you’re not blogging – sorry about that;-) Elections were … well, let’s just say we learned lessons about how early to prepare for new stuff. But it did go pretty well;-)

So now, a watershed moment in American history. Let’s all hope and pray for better days ahead, and that bipartisan is still possible. We shall see.

And tonight came word of a sad passing of what folks used to call a “city father” of Bend – Councilor and former mayor Bill Friedman has passed away at age 72. I liked Bill – I don’t know if I ever saw him lose his temper, but he was a strong voice for good planning to deal with Bend’s rapid growth over the past decade. It’s easy to look back and make judgments, but I have no doubt every vote he cast was done with Bend’s best interests at heart.

He loved to be witty, and to sit back, let others weigh in and then slowly, calmly, crystallize his thoughts. I wrote on the Website tonight about a memorable moment, when he donned a Dr. Seuss ‘Cat in the Hat’ hat to read a fable of ‘The Lonely Little Log Deck,” as he argued for the controversial Southern River Crossing (now Bill Healy Memorial Bridge). A fun moment, from someone who often tried to break a testy council moment with a gentle moment of levity.

He shall be missed, by many.

Personally, I’m going to try for more blog entries. If I can’t do this at least weekly, something’s wrong. Adding WordPress to the laptop’s taskbar should help remind me.

Actually had less news for a change this weekend (yay) allowing time for things like reading, not just skimming The Bulletin (had to drop The Oregonian, who can afford $75 a month!) and last night actually watched a movie with darlin Deb (that “Journey to the Center of the Earth” remake, a fun trip;-)

There’s Bend, and then there’s ‘Bend’

A few years ago, Bend became all of Deschutes County – at least, in the eyes of Uncle Sam. When it created the Bend Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA, it included every square inch of Deschutes County – Brothers to Sisters, Tumalo to Terrebonne, Redmond to La Pine. I once knew why, but I forget.;-)

Then there’s the other big government entity that says what’s where – the U.S. Postal Service.

To their way of thinking, “Bend” extends beyond Sunriver, almost to La Pine, west halfway to Sisters, and north halfway to Redmond – in terms of mailing addresses, that is.

So are those folks “Bend” residents? Of course not, they are MILES from the city limits, and never will be part of Bend – and if I know those rural residents as well as I think I do, they’re darn GLAD not to be really “in” Bend, whatever their catalogs, junk mail and bills tell them every day.

I raise the issue because we did a story of a big drug bust down south of Sunriver, and after using “South county” for a while – a most unwieldy term – I dared to call it a “La Pine” home where it happened.

Well, not exactly – but a heck of a lot closer than Bend is!

So of course, I came in for some grief, trying to “lump” these criminals in to give La Pine a black eye.

Puh-leeze. All I want to do is give people a better sense of where these locations are, good, bad or ugly. If someone from Oregon Water Wonderland is elected president – hey, it could happen – I bet folks would be glad to say they are from “La Pine,” or “Sunriver,” or even “Bend.” Even if they’re not really from any of them.

Geography, politics, crime and … well, human nature. Is this a great country or what?