Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 5, 2016)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. August 5, 2016 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor Mike O’Brien Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Wyden, Brown do ‘The Sidestep’ on monument W e understand the plight of some Oregon politicians when it comes to the national monument proposed for 2.5 million acres in Malheur County. We understand that Sen. Ron Wyden and Gov. Kate Brown identify most with Portland and Eugene. We understand that in the political game there is no need to give a straight answer to any question that offers them no benefi t. But still.... There was a time when even politicians stood for something. That’s how they were elected. They would say what they thought about a variety of issues important to the electorate, which in turn would decide whether to hire them as their representatives. Oregon politics, however, appears to have mutated into a muddle of ambiguity. This is a world where there are no direct answers, and a “yes” or “no” question is answered with a monologue that dodges the question. In the case of the Owyhee Canyonlands national monument proposal in Malheur County, Wyden was recently asked whether he supports it. The senator assured those at an Eastern Oregon town hall meeting he had told the Obama administration that area residents oppose it. This is interesting in itself, Oregon has not. “I didn’t hear an answer,” Malheur County Farm Bureau President Jeana Hall told the Capital Press. “I think I heard a ‘maybe’ somewhere in there.” Similarly, Brown, who like Wyden is in the midst of an election campaign, has been equally mealy-mouthed. “While this is ultimately a federal decision, I have heard from many Oregonians with strong views about the Owyhee,” she said. “There’s agreement as to the beauty and uniqueness of the Canyonlands and disagreement over whether a monument designation can best ensure those characteristics will be enjoyed because Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told a U.S. House committee on March 1 that she was unaware of any active plan in the administration to designate the Owyhee Canyonlands national monument. If there are no plans for the monument, why is the administration still talking about it? Wyden was asked whether he supported the proposal. Wyden said it’s his duty to respect how Oregon residents vote on issues. Malheur County residents voted 9-1 against the monument in a special election in March. He also said that while Malheur County residents have voted on the issue, the rest of for future generations. I have communicated those viewpoints to federal administration offi cials and will be closely following this issue in the months ahead.” It appears to us that Oregon’s “leaders” have decided it’s too risky to lead. The political documentary fi lm “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” includes a song called “The Sidestep,” which is sung by the fi ctional governor of Texas. The chorus goes like this: “Ooh, I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t. I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step, cut a little swathe and lead the people on.” It’s a song all too familiar to a lot of Oregonians. Farmland open houses were ‘disingenuous’ O UR V IEW By JIM BERNARD AP Photo/Elaine Thompson File For the Capital Press Neither Trump nor Clinton offer Plan B on TPP H illary Clinton and Donald Trump are running for president. Their expressed positions on issues, and the positions of their respective party platforms, are easily distinguishable. Except for trade, where there’s not much difference between Republican or Democrat standard bearers. If farmers and ranchers were to decide on this issue alone, they would have a hard time picking the candidate who best represents their interests. Trade is the lifeblood of agriculture in the Northwest and California. Everything from apples to nuts is dependent on trade. Eighty percent of the wheat grown in the Northwest is bound for Asian markets. Without access to those markets, producers are fi nished. Both sides are for trade — fair trade. And by that they mean trade that doesn’t cheat middle class Americans out of good-paying jobs. Democrats are also concerned with foreign labor standards and environmental regulation. Republicans want our partners to respect American intellectual property and stop manipulating their currencies. By those standards, they all say, many previous deals have been very bad. And the recently submitted Trans- Pacifi c Partnership — a 12-nation, 6,000-page behemoth awaiting a vote in Congress — could be the worst. Clinton once called TPP the “gold standard” of trade deals, but last fall after the deal was written Clinton said it didn’t meet her standard. Sen. Tim Kaine, her running mate, was for it as recently as a week before being nominated for the vice president slot, when he promptly came out against the pact. Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement partners Current TPP partners Potential future partners Alaska (U.S.) Canada U.S. Japan China Hawaii (U.S.) Thailand Mexico Cambodia Malaysia/ Singapore Peru Vietnam Brunei-Darussalam Australia Chile New Zealand Source: aflcio.org Alan Kenaga/EO Media Group Courtesy of Zachary Moskow, wikipedia.org Clinton speaks at an event in Philadelphia on April 20. TOP PHOTO: The Port of Se- attle is shown. Neither Republican Donald Trump nor Democrat Hillary Clinton support the Trans-Pacifi c Partnership, a 12-nation trade treaty. Trump has always been against TTP, calling it “terrible for America.” Though China isn’t a party to TPP, Trump says it gives China opportunities to get in “through the back door.” As governor of Indiana and a congressman before that, Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, has long supported multi-nation trade deals — including TPP. He too underwent a post-convention conversion. There have been many trade deals over the years. Some of them were good, some of them bad. Even in the best, someone in the United States loses as other of their countrymen win. And it is thus with the TPP. In granting access to its market to our farmers, Vietnam will expect more favorable terms for its manufactured goods here. What country would make a deal in which it received nothing in exchange for its concessions? Without TPP, what’s Plan B? Both Clinton and Trump say they’ll reopen the negotiations on TPP and other pacts and get a better deal for America. Maybe, but those kinds of negotiations take time. In the meantime, some of our toughest competitors could get a toehold in some of our best markets in Asia. Supporters of TPP, including President Obama, are still pushing for a vote on the deal — perhaps after the election and before the inauguration, when everyone will be protected from the voters. That’s a little sleazy. But, better to have a deal in hand for the next president to tweak than allow our competitors months — and potentially years — to exploit our lack of favored standing with established customers. Letters policy Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community. Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your submis- sion. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commen- tary submissions should also include a photograph of the author. Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. Emailed letters are preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker publication. Letters also may be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383. I t’s worse than “disingenu- ous.” That’s the word used in a story by a local newspa- per about the so-called public process the county engaged in around three recent open hous- es. The subjects: changing the designation of properties from rural reserves to an undesignat- ed status to allow them to be developed — making them far more valuable in the process. The three properties at the heart of this effort include Langdon Farms south of the Willamette River owned by the Maletis Brothers, Springwater Road owned by Terry Emmert, and another 400 acres east of Canby, Ore. Despite the major impact on cities and residents, the three public open houses for citizens were scheduled the week be- fore the Fourth of July holiday with short notice. Only prop- erty owners within 250 feet of the proposed study area were notifi ed. Affected cities, mayors, Community Participation Or- ganizations and hamlets all say they were not notifi ed. They were outraged, and I agree with them. Thanks to the quick actions by Friends of French Prairie and other community organi- zations in Wilsonville, approxi- mately 400 people attended the three open houses. Only one person spoke in support of this proposal, Chris Maletis. That shouldn’t be a sur- prise. Thousands of citizens participated in the Urban/Ru- ral Reserves process to pre- serve foundation farmland, prevent urban sprawl and give certainty to farmers and urban developers. After years of court chal- lenges, the court ruled that areas south of the Willamette River were properly designat- ed as foundation farmland. Instead of accepting the court’s and the public’s verdict, Clackamas County Chair John Ludlow and commissioners Tootie Smith and Paul Savas Guest comment Jim Bernard voted to spend $200,000 to study employment lands in ar- eas that have already been de- cided — and that would benefi t only a few property owners. At the same time, those same property owners have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the campaigns of the chair and those commissioners. These properties are in the heart of agricultural land and have been rejected as urban land in all previous public pro- cesses. And for good reason: Our citizens need jobs close to their communities where services already exist; not on virgin farmland down in the Willamette Valley, where communities do not have the infrastructure to support these industrial uses — and taxpay- ers would be on the hook for paying for them. Why should this matter to all Clackamas County citi- zens? The Clackamas County Commission adopted fi ve stra- tegic priorities in Performance Clackamas. Chief among these was: “Build Public Trust Through Good Governance.” This process does exactly the opposite. I personally attended two of the three open houses. No one I spoke with received notice from the county nor did I encounter even a single individual that supported the proposal. There was a work session scheduled on this subject on Aug. 3. A vote is not usually called during a work session, but there is nothing preventing that from happening then or at any other time if a majority of commis- sioners decides otherwise. That must not happen. Instead, we should restore the integrity of a process that has raised far too many ques- tions — and far too few an- swers about who the county commission is truly serving. Jim Bernard is a Clack- amas County, Ore., commis- sioner. Readers’ views Ecology has not updated test- Letter writer ing on sludge for 10 years, yet critical of these two have chased the dol- lar instead of protecting public candidates health. Over 200 nitrates were Mike Letia, a Yakima County commissioner, and U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse have made the Yakima Valley the “toilet bowl” of the state. Both Newhouse and Letia have supported using toxic sewage sludge on food prod- ucts in the Yakima Valley. Letia, by being on the Ya- kima Health District bringing in untested sludge from over 27 locations. Newhouse by promoting sludge use in his farming community. The state Department of found in wells next to dairies, yet Newhouse supports not holding polluters accountable for their manure. Will anyone care when there is no more clean wa- ter in the valley? The City of Mabton, Outlook School, pri- vate wells have been polluted. Both candidates prefer that taxpayers pay for the pollu- tion with their health and their pockets. Neither candidate de- serves to be in offi ce. Jan Whitefoot Harrah, Wash.