A4
East Oregonian
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Editor
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
JADE McDOWELL
Hermiston Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Blight isn’t just a Pendleton problem
T
he Pendleton Development Com-
mission made the right decision
last week when it directed its advi-
sory committee to go back to the draw-
ing board on a series of proposals to
address city blight. The issue in question
is the committee’s housing loan proposal
in which a homeowner inside the urban
renewal district could acquire a no-inter-
est loan up to $16,000 fix the outside of
a structure determined to be a blighted
house.
For a homeowner, the key to the loan
would be the fact the city will forgive 20%
of the loan each year the owner passes an
annual inspection until the loan is paid up.
Rental home owners are also eligible for
the program, though they can only qualify
to have up to 50% of their loan forgiven.
Charles Denight, the associate director
of the commission, said if the commission
issued 30 such loans, the urban renewal
district will shell out $353,850 to the loan
program over two years.
Downtown blight came into sharp
focus when a study revealed 25 residential
properties in the downtown area showed
symptoms of blight, such as fading paint
and little yard maintenance.
Staff photo by Ben Lonergan
The city of Pendleton is examining a variety of proposed options for cleaning up and reno-
vating blighted homes in the downtown area.
At a glance the loan program idea to
encourage homeowners to provide upkeep
on their property has some merit. Hand-
ing out cash to get people to do things they
have already demonstrated they don’t want
to do may work. Money, after all, talks.
Yet the loan program isn’t guaran-
teed to be effective. Some homeowners
may not exhibit what President Abraham
Lincoln called “the better angels of our
nature” and, instead of using the loan to
fix their home, could take the money and
run.
The loan program, in short, can’t fix
human nature. Pendleton Mayor John
Turner suggested the city go beyond the
loan program and buy blighted houses and
then link up with local people who spe-
cialize in restoring and “flipping” houses
and then selling them. Turner’s idea also
has merit, but only because it is a clear
example of an elected leader thinking out-
side the box. Entering a program with pri-
vate individuals — with taxpayer money
— who flip houses isn’t a wise, long-term
solution. In the end, it could create more
problems than it solves.
Blight isn’t just a Pendleton problem.
For reasons that are varied — and to some
extent, unclear — city blight impacts cit-
ies across the region. We all want our town
to look good and be a place where visitors
can remember as beautiful and welcom-
ing. Walking down a street of homes with
weeds for yards and shuttered, unattractive
buildings doesn’t make good memories.
That means our elected leaders need
to do more to address this issue, and the
development commission’s focus on the
issue is encouraging. Area lawmakers
could just as easily ignore the blight issue
and place their attention elsewhere. That
they are trying to find a solution should be
good news for voters.
The loan program has some promise
but, as explained last week, isn’t ready for
prime time. We all want to eradicate blight
but if any taxpayer funds are going to be
used for such efforts then our elected lead-
ers must tread very carefully.
OTHER VIEWS
Dems 2020 task: Convince voters to overlook economy
n Oct. 28, 1980, in the final debate of
his race against Jimmy Carter, Ron-
ald Reagan asked a question that has
come to define presidential politics.
“Next Tuesday all of you will go to the
polls, will stand there in the polling place and
make a decision,” Reagan said. “I think when
you make that decision, it might be well if
you would ask yourself, are you better off
than you were four years ago?”
The answer for most voters was no, and
Reagan won the election with 489 electoral
votes to Carter’s 49.
The question, or some close variation of
it, has popped up many times since. “Are
you better off than you were four years ago?”
asked Bill Clinton in 1992. (In 1996, seeking
re-election, Clinton declared, “We are better
off than we were four years ago.”)
“Are you better off than you were four
years ago?” asked Barack Obama in 2008.
It worked for Clinton, and it worked for
Obama. Now, the question is whether it will
work for Donald Trump.
The president’s Democratic 2020 chal-
lengers face a daunting problem: Unless
there is a serious economic downturn, the
answer to the are-you-better-off question
will work in the president’s favor, not his
opponent’s.
The unemployment rate, 3.7 percent, is
the lowest it has been in half a century. June’s
employment report — 224,000 new jobs —
brought another strong performance. The
economy is growing at a slightly better than
3% annual rate. Most important, in the con-
O
cannot stand by and watch that happen.”
text of an election, wages have grown 3.1%
Fast-rising Democratic contender Kamala
over last year with low inflation —- improve-
ment that has not been seen in years.
Harris chose another approach. “I know
Any commentary on the 2020 elec-
predators,” the former prosecutor said
tion should include the warning that things
recently, “and we have a predator living in
could change. But barring a signif-
the White House.”
icant reversal, in 2020 most vot-
Other Democrats have portrayed
ers would likely answer yes when
Trump as a threat to American val-
ues, a threat to the rule of law, and a
asked if they are better off than they
threat to the “norms” that guide our
were four years ago. And then they
politics and lives.
would vote to re-elect the incum-
bent president.
Together, the message could be
That leaves Democrats with
characterized as: Yes, the economy
the task of convincing millions of
is growing, unemployment is low,
Americans to vote against their
and wages are rising. But Amer-
B ryon
ica under a re-elected Trump would
economic interests, to choose a
y ork
become a racist dystopia in which
Democrat over the president, during
COMMENT
all the beliefs Americans hold near
a time of economic satisfaction.
and dear would be under constant
How to do it? Some Democrats
siege. How could any decent person vote to
have chosen to argue that there is something
re-elect the president?
so wrong with the president — he’s a rac-
ist, or he is an agent of Russia, or he is some-
Beyond that, Democrats hope educated
thing equally terrible — that the traditional
voters will be susceptible to anti-Trump
measures of a successful presidency do not
social pressures, to being shamed out of vot-
ing for the president. The idea is that those
apply.
voters will focus on their objections to the
Look at Democratic front-runner
way Trump has conducted himself in office
Joe Biden’s entry into the race. Biden’s
— the tweets! — and not on the economic
announcement video focused entirely on
results of his presidency. Indeed, a number of
the August 2017 white supremacist rally in
polls have shown that a significant group of
Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a count-
er-demonstrator was murdered.
voters who are happy about the economy still
“We are in the battle for the soul of this
plan to vote against Trump.
nation,” Biden said. “If we give Donald
“Trump’s tenure is straining one of the
Trump eight years in the White House, he
most enduring rules in presidential politics:
will forever and fundamentally alter the char- the conviction that a strong economy ben-
efits the party holding the White House,”
acter of this nation — who we are — and I
wrote analyst Ron Brownstein in The Atlan-
tic. “Across many of the key groups in the
electorate, from young people to white col-
lege graduates, Trump’s job-approval rating
consistently runs at least 25 points below the
share of voters who hold positive views about
either the national economy or their personal
financial situation.”
Of course, Democrats can’t ignore the
economy. So far, when they have addressed
it, they haven’t been terribly creative, rely-
ing on the standard-issue Democratic cri-
tique of Republican presidents — that
Trump is creating an economy that benefits
only his rich friends.
“Who is this economy really working
for?” asked Elizabeth Warren at the first
Democratic debate. “It’s doing great for a
thinner and thinner slice at the top.”
It’s not clear how well that will work.
As The Wall Street Journal editorial board
pointed out recently, under Trump, “wages
are rising at the fastest rate in a decade
for lower-skilled workers, and unemploy-
ment among less-educated Americans
and minorities is near a record low.” The
result of the president’s policies, the Jour-
nal argued, “has been faster growth and less
inequality.”
Another way to say that is that millions
of Americans are better off than they were
four years ago. The question in 2020 will be
whether that matters.
———
Byron York is chief political correspon-
dent for The Washington Examiner.
Any new carbon bill should
return money to Oregonians
T
he 2019 session of the Oregon Legislature
was a doozy. With supermajorities in each
house, Democrats didn’t have to worry
about passing most tax bills, which they did with
abandon.
Republicans stewed until those in the Sen-
ate found a way to force their Democratic coun-
terparts to the bargaining table. They picked up
their papers and left the Senate, once in early
May and again in late June. By doing so, they
shut down the Senate by denying a quorum.
Senate President Peter Courtney says for the
short 2020 legislative session he wants a bill that
would cap and trade carbon emissions to “be
ready to go on day one. It’s got to come out of the
Senate in five seconds.”
It’s a nice dream. But it presumes Democrats
and Republicans can reach a deal. The second
walkout by Senate Republicans was caused pre-
cisely because they could not. Even some Demo-
crats didn’t support the bill.
There are dangers for both parties if their only
communication is shouting at one another across
a crowded Senate floor. The last thing Oregon
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of
the East Oregonian editorial board. Other
columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
needs is a Legislature as dysfunctional as Con-
gress has become.
Democrats should remember they don’t repre-
sent everyone. They picked up only a single seat
in the Senate in the 2018 election. While they’ve
been the majority party there for the last decade,
their edge has fluctuated. Were they to lose the
single seat they gained in 2018, their voting
supermajority would be gone.
As for Republicans, they have received con-
siderable flak for the walkouts. Legislating by
walkout may cause some voters to walk away.
The best starting point for a new cap-and-
trade bill is to stipulate that any revenue raised by
it to be returned directly to Oregonians. House
Bill 2020, the cap-and-trade bill that died, gave
the money to the government to redistribute.
Oregon government has a terrible track record
when it comes to government programs designed
to compel Oregonians to go green. A new carbon
bill will be a lot more ready to go if it’s ready to
return the revenue raised to Oregonians.
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies
for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold
letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights
of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime
phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published.
Send letters to the editor to
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave.
Pendleton, OR 97801