Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The daily Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1961-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 23, 2015)
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015 Free from religion So much for democracy I n his letter “God’s Country” (The Daily Astorian, Oct. 16), Ronald Wall contends that our founding fathers were de- vout Christians who intended religion to be an integral part of Americans’ lives. This is not the conclusion reached by essential- ly all conventional historians at major universities. Some found- ers were Orthodox Christians, many were rationalists, other deists, with perhaps an atheist or two thrown in. Contrary to Wall’s letter, George Washington does not appear to have been religious — rarely receiving communion, only going to church on Easter and Christmas, and not request- ing clergy presence at his death. When Washington did mention religion, it was generally in de- istic terms using “Providence,” “The Grand Architect,” and the “Author of all Good” instead of a personal God, and he nev- er wrote a word about Jesus. It seems Washington invoked re- ligion largely to keep his unruly troops in line. Thomas Jefferson, an out- spoken deist, is seen as the con- summate skeptic who took a razor blade to edit the Gospels. James Madison, father of our Constitution, said, “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood and the devotion of the people have been man- ifestly increased by the total separation of church and state.” James Monroe spoke so little about religion historians suspect he was atheist. Madison and Jefferson intro- duced a number of bills to the Virginia House of Delegates to end church establishment, ar- guing that religion did not need the support of government. Jef- ferson’s “Religious Freedom Bill” took a strong stand against state-supported religion, and guaranteed free religious exer- cise to all. The church, according to our founding fathers, held no special place in secular politics. It was one of many voluntary associations in which people belonged like clubs, lodges, and trade unions. They rejected the idea of a Christian state, and saw the state as a secular institution uninterested in people’s souls. The fact that God or Jesus in never mentioned in our Consti- tution is strong evidence that the founders intended our nation to be secular. Few countries have as much religious diversity as ours. One study estimates there are some 2,000 active faith groups and denominations in the U.S. All of these beliefs exist side by side, and we have been spared the excesses of religious conÀicts observed in other parts of the world, because we have our secular Constitution and wise tradition of church/state separation to thank. ED JOYCE Astoria Attribution needed R egarding suggestions about Heritage Square in Astoria (“Out with the hole, in with the new,” The Daily Astorian, Oct. 20), I have a few. There would be no heritage attributable to Astoria without the Clatsop Indians. There would be no heritage attributable to Astoria without John Jacob Astor and the fur trading company. There would be no heritage attributable to Astoria without U.S. President Thomas Jeffer- son, who commissioned the Lewis and Clark Expedition. There would be no heritage attributable to Astoria without Lewis and Clark, and the brave pioneers who forged the Oregon Trail. Capt. Robert Gray, and many other hardy explorers who also contributed to the Oregon and Astoria heritage, should be giv- en recognition if we are truly endeavoring to commemorate our origins. JIM RAY Hammond Beach love S ince my days in Portland, and now here in Gearhart, I have been puzzled by Matt Love’s unrelenting paeans to Oregon’s “historic Beach Bill,” which created Oregon’s public beach access. I am certain that being about double Love’s age, and loving beaches at least as much as he does, I have spent more days there, from my childhood sum- mer days on Coney Island’s beaches, to my daily walks at FRIDAY EXCHANGE O ne of the basic tenants of democ- racy is “majority rules.” Nine- ty-three percent of Americans were in favor of eliminating the loophole in background checks — the Republican majority, instead, voted for the wish- es of the National RiÀe Association (NRA). So much for democracy. Ben Carson, Republican presiden- tial hopeful, when questioned as to how he would address the gun violence, parroted Wayne La Pierre’s insane remedy: To arm the teachers. I would have asked Carson, “And exactly how would that reduce gun violence?” Add- ing more guns is like spreading the Eb- ola virus to cure the epidemic. The Second Amendment was rati- ¿ed on Dec. 15, 1791, and it reads in its entirety: “A well-regulated Militia, be- present on the Seaside, Cannon Beach and Gearhart beaches. During the intervening 60 or so years, I have walked on Cape Cod’s beach in Massachusetts, New York’s Jones Beach and Fire Island, New Jersey’s Atlan- tic City, Florida’s Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Califor- nia’s San Francisco Beach, Pes- cadero Beach, Venice Beach and Hermosa Beach. I do not doubt that I have walked many more miles on beaches than has Love. All of those beaches have been free, empty of commercial enterprises, and for the “exclu- sive use of the public,” whether or not “forever” is open to as much question as Love himself admits of Oregon’s beaches. Love asks, unrhetorically, “You think a writer like me ex- ists in Southern California, Flor- ida or New Jersey?” He answers his own ques- tion, “No.” Of course not. What would be the need? Those states, and probably all other coastal states, have preserved dry sands areas for exclusive use by the pub- lic. Why doth Love protest so much? LOUIS SARGENT Gearhart Respect Gearhart O pen letter to the Gearhart mayor and city council: We are concerned about the marked increase in recent years in short-term vacation rentals (STRs) and their largely nega- tive impact on our community. The many problems include trash strewn everywhere, noise, rowdiness, inconsideration of nearby neighbors, boat trailers parked where they shouldn’t be, and all of the cars, for which there is insuf¿cient parking, not to mention the stress placed on septic drain ¿elds and on our water supply. We bought our home in April 1996. The main attraction of Gearhart for us was that it was a quiet residential community. We knew there were long-ago established family vacation homes here that are an integral part of the history and fabric of our community. But as the Inter- net has made all things possible, Gearhart is now being pulled into the fray. That fabric is fray- ing. The irony of all of this is that which is so desirable about Gearhart is the very thing that is at risk of being destroyed by the current overzealous creation of short-term rentals. Those who own these essentially commer- cial properties clearly and pur- posely sought out Gearhart for its neighborhood quality of life. We’ll go further to say that these same owners would be alarmed if this were happening in their main home neighbor- hoods. They would be appalled, and up in arms about it. Who wants to live next to frequent transient activity going on? They’d be concerned about their standard of living, their quality of life — and rightfully so. We are simply asking that Gearhart be treated with the same respect as they would expect in their pri- mary communities. Item No. 4, page 1, of Or- dinance 677, in the Gearhart Comprehensive Plan says: “The City will recognize the impor- tance of the City’s residential neighborhoods and the need to protect them from the negative impacts of rental property, and to discourage increased levels of traf¿c and similar disruptions.” It’s all right there. We need to continue to hold to this standard. If someone purchased a property with the sole intent of using it as a vacation rental, and ing necessary to the security of the Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Emblazoned in the front lobby of NRA headquarters in Washington, D.C., is: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be in- fringed.” Omitting the purpose and intention of the amendment. A lie by omission. In the Roaring Twenties, the Tom- my gun was the Ma¿a’s Weapon of choice because of its large clip and rap- id ¿re. The weapon was removed from the market, no longer available to the public; that was when we still had a de- mocracy, instead of our present plutoc- racy. Hand grenades were off limits as well; and as well they should be. The ultimate cure for the present now needs those proceeds to pay the mortgage, that concern should not be foisted on the rest of Gearhart by way of leniency regarding STR existence or reg- ulation. The community should not be held hostage and change governance to accommodate those poor investment decisions, which need zoning changes or other special consideration so that those investments could be solvent — not just solvent, but lucrative on the backs of their neighbors. We look forward to a solu- tion that is respectful of this very special spot on the North Coast, Gearhart. WILSON AND JEANNE MARK Gearhart gun violence is to take away the guns. That would be the sensible, reasonable, civilized, morally correct solution to the violence. Our present plutocracy, however, leaves the decision-making to the gun manufacturers. A simple yea or nay vote by the electorate to disarm this country would most likely result in disarming. The 300 million guns in this nation are largely owned by 30 percent of the population. Since we have the most powerful mil- itary in the world, we no longer need a militia nor the right to bear arms. Foolishly, gun advocates claim we were armed to ¿ght the government. Really? Do they think our forefathers were that stupid? MURRAY E. STANLEY JR. Astoria Columbia County. It would cre- ate 1,000 construction jobs and approximately 200 permanent, family-wage jobs. These jobs would be a tremendous bene¿t for many residents in our coun- ty, which has an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent. 2. Climate Change. The reason China is converting its ole¿ns manufacturing from an oil-and coal-based system to a natural gas-to-methanol system? Because it is better for the envi- ronment, reducing greenhouse gases and toxic wastes signi¿- cantly. Don’t we want China, the world’s leading manufacturing nation, to do more to protect the environment? And the idea that China will use the methanol just to make “dollar store junk” is not true. In reality, methanol is used to make many everyday products, from the carpet in your house to the windshield washer Àuid in your car. 3. Value-added manufactur- ing. This isn’t an energy project, and it’s not the exporting of raw materials that some claim it to be. Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) will build a value-add- ed manufacturing facility — the kind that the state of Oregon wants to encourage. Whether we create computer chips, wood products or methanol, manufac- Yes to methanol I read with dismay the editorial “Why ruin our rivers for Chi- na’s rulers?” The Daily Astori- an, Sept. 28) and feel compelled to reply. It appears that The Dai- ly Astorian did not fully research this issue, and missed some im- portant facts. Why build a methanol plant on the Columbia River in Co- lumbia County? I’ll give you three reasons: 1. Jobs. This facility would be a $1.8 billion investment in turing creates good paying jobs that we want in Oregon. The Columbia River has al- ways been an integral part of our economic growth and quality of life in Columbia County. Do we need to protect that asset? Of course, and that’s why we have strict regulatory and permitting processes in place. The reality is, we have less commercial traf¿c on the river today than we did 20 years ago, and many jobs have disappeared from the region. We can have both economic development and good environmental stew- ardship — we don’t have to choose one over the other. The NWIW facility is good for our county and for northwest Oregon CHUCK DAUGHTRY Executive director, Columbia County Economic Team St. Helens Get some backbone O pen letter to Mayor Dianne Widdop, the City Council, the Planning Commission, City Administrator Chad Sweet, and city of Gearhart residential prop- erty owners: The time to enforce exist- ing city codes and zoning ordi- nances which support the com- prehensive plan for the city of 5A Gearhart is long past due. The argument that laws do not exist to regulate short term rental ac- tivity within the city is ill found- ed, as stated in my legal brief, presented to Sweet dated Aug. 22, 2011. Ordinances do exist, it just takes backbone to enforce them. City of¿cials owe residential property owners — who invested in the low-density, single-fami- ly zoned real estate claimed in the comprehensive plan — the simple sanctity of enforcing city zoning ordinances and city code, which keeps their neighborhood livable and safe. If city of¿cials prefer to claim that existing regulations do not exist, then city of¿cials owe it to the people to adopt speci¿c regulations which pre- serve the livability of what they claim is “rural atmosphere,” as stated in the comprehensive plan. This is not an issue for discussion between real estate tycoons and residential proper- ty owners, this is a right granted to property owners by the city when they invested in single family homes. The term “follow the mon- ey” is playing out in Gearhart, where city of¿cials are in over their heads and in some cases ill- to unquali¿ed for the posi- tion into which they have been placed. Gearhart is Mayber- ry, without the logic, common sense and backbone of an Andy Grif¿th to maintain the charm of the city. It takes only one city of¿cial in the right position to realize he or she has courage and back- bone to make a city become, and remain, what its laws prom- ise. Look to Lincoln City, and city after city down the Oregon coast, to see how city of¿cials with courage stood up for the rights of residential property owners by not only adopting strict regulations of short term, transient rentals, but also enforc- ing those regulations, thereby maintaining at least some of the promise they made to residential property owners. Gearhart, live up to your po- tential. Adopt regulation now. Enforce those regulations in the future. NICHOLAS P. BAKER Gearhart If you call a contractor yourself, that still counts as DIY. Look to a U.S. Bank Home Equity Line of Credit for your next major project. You’ll be greeted with competitive rates, flexible payment options and people who genuinely care. HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT Introductory Rate for 5 months Rates as low as % 1.50 APR* Rate available 9/12/15 – 11/20/15. Rates are subject to change. Variable rate after Introductory period % 3.99 APR* Actual rates may vary. Visit your local branch or usbank.com. usbank.com/dreambig | 800.209.BANK (2265) *1.50% Introductory Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is available on Home Equity Lines of Credit with an 80% loan-to-value (LTV) or less. The Introductory Interest Rate will be fixed at 1.50% during the five-month Introductory Period. A higher introductory rate will apply for an LTV above 80%. Offer is available for new applications submitted from September 12, 2015–November 20, 2015. After the five-month introductory period: the APR is variable and is based upon an index plus a margin. The APR will vary with Prime Rate (the index) as published in the Wall Street Journal. As of September 11, 2015, the variable rate for Home Equity Lines of Credit ranged from 2.99% APR to 8.25% APR. Higher rates may apply due to an increase in the Prime Rate, for a credit limit below $125,000, an LTV at or above 80%, a low credit score and/or not having a U.S. Bank personal Package Checking account. A U.S. Bank personal package checking account is required to receive the lowest rate, but is not required for loan approval. The rate will not vary above 18% APR, or applicable state law, or below 1.50% APR. Choosing an interest-only repayment may cause your monthly payment to increase, possibly substantially, once your credit line transitions into the repayment period. Repayment options may vary based on credit qualifications. Interest only repayment may be unavailable. Loan approval is subject to credit approval and program guidelines. Not all loan programs are available in all states for all loan amounts. Interest rates and program terms are subject to change without notice. Property insurance is required. U.S. Bank and its representatives do not provide tax or legal advice. Your tax and financial situation is unique. You should consult your tax and/or legal advisor for advice and information concerning your particular situation. Other restrictions may apply. Mortgage and Home Equity products offered by U.S. Bank National Association. Deposit Products are offered through U.S. Bank National Association. Customer pays no closing costs, except escrow-related funding costs. An annual fee of up to $90 may apply after the first year and is waived with a U.S. Bank personal Platinum Checking Package. See the Consumer Pricing Information brochure for terms and conditions that apply to U.S. Bank Package Checking accounts. Member FDIC ©2015 U.S. Bank. All rights reserved. 150859 9/15