WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2019
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Crucial
meetings
on public
safety
A series of public meetings that will be scheduled
later this year could have signifi cant effects on public
safety in Baker City and Baker County, and everyone
should consider attending one.
The issue is ambulance service in Baker City and in
about half of the county, including Baker Valley, and
specifi cally which agency provides that service.
The Baker City Fire Department is a current
provider for that service area. MedTransport Inc. of
North Powder is also a licensed ambulance provider.
The Baker County Board of Commissioners has the
legal authority to pick licensed ambulance providers
for the service area. Commissioners recently received
three bids for what’s expected to be a minimum 10-
year contract, awarded by June 1, 2020.
Baker City Fire Department and MedTransport
both submitted bids. So did Metro West Ambulance
Inc. of Hillsboro. County offi cials have not released
details about any of the bids.
Jason Yencopal, the county’s emergency manage-
ment director, said the county embarked on the
bidding process in part because offi cials expect to ask
voters to approve a new tax or fee to cover the cost
of ambulance service, or possibly to create a special
taxing district. It’s not clear whether such a measure
would go to voters throughout the ambulance service
area, including Baker City, or only to voters who live
outside the city limits.
Earlier this year County Commissioner Mark Ben-
nett said county offi cials feel an obligation to consider
all possible options for ambulance service before ask-
ing voters to pay more.
In 2017 City Manager Fred Warner Jr. said the city
might not be able to continue dispatching ambulances
to some areas outside the city limits if the city didn’t
accept a three-year federal grant that allowed the fi re
department to hire three new fi refi ghter/paramedics.
The city did accept that grant, but the money goes
away in 2021.
But the potential ramifi cations of the commis-
sioners’ decision is not limited to ambulance service
— it could affect the city fi re department’s ability to
respond to fi res as well.
Baker City Fire Chief John Clark, along with Jason
Jacobs of the fi refi ghters’ union, have expressed
concern about what would happen if commissioners
don’t pick the Fire Department to continue as an am-
bulance service provider. Ambulance billing supplies
about 44% of the Fire Department’s annual budget of
$2.15 million. City property owners contribute most
of the rest through property taxes. The city doesn’t
receive property tax revenue from properties outside
the city limits.
In a written statement, Jacobs said that if the city
lost the ambulance contract the Fire Department
would have to lay off up to six of its 16 paid staff im-
mediately.
Clark said those staffi ng cuts would not only reduce
his department’s fi refi ghting capacities inside the
city, but it likely would mean the department would
no longer respond to fi res outside the city, where the
department now renders aid to rural fi re districts
through mutual aid agreements.
Property owners inside the city could end up paying
more for fi re insurance, Clark said.
Yencopal said public comments made during the
meetings will be forwarded to commissioners to con-
sider as they review the three bids.
Meeting times and places will be published in the
Herald. Residents should take advantage of the op-
portunity to learn more, and to express their opinions
on this vital topic.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
OTHER VIEWS
On tech integrity, Twitter takes
the lead, but will Facebook follow?
Editorial from The San Jose Mer-
cury News and East Bay Times:
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey struck a
needed blow for tech integrity and de-
mocracy last week when he said that the
social networking company would pull
the plug on political ads.
If only Facebook CEO Mark Zucker-
berg would see the light.
For decades tech companies were
renowned for embracing the highest
standards of business ethics and respect-
ing the needs of their customers.
Zuckerberg has arguably done more
in the last decade to destroy public trust
in tech than any CEO in Silicon Valley
history.
His stubborn refusal to vet political
ads for accuracy threatens the integrity
of our elections — and those of countries
around the world — and the future
of democracy. If that wasn’t enough,
Zuckerberg continues to line his pockets
by invading the privacy of Facebook’s
2.4 billion users. Bill Hewlett and David
Packard must be spinning in their
graves. Zuckerberg may have a fortune
of nearly $70 billion, but history will not
treat him kindly.
Even Facebook employees are ap-
palled. The New York Times recently
published a letter sent to Zuckerberg by
250 Facebook employees in which they
said, “Misinformation affects us all,” and
“Free speech and paid speech are not the
same thing.”
It wasn’t a coincidence that Dorsey
timed his announcement minutes before
Zuckerberg made an earnings call that
showed Facebook’s fi nancial performance
exceeded analysts’ expectations.
“We believe political message reach
should be earned, not bought,” Dorsey
said.
Dorsey also tweeted: “This is about
paying for reach. And paying to increase
the reach of political speech has signifi -
cant ramifi cations that today’s democrat-
ic infrastructure may not be prepared to
handle. It’s worth stepping back in order
to address.”
No one knows how much misinfor-
mation played a role in the outcome of
the 2016 presidential election. At fi rst,
Zuckerberg claimed there was no effect.
But, as evidence poured out, Zuckerberg
apologized after admitting in 2017 that
Russian operatives used Facebook to
spread divisive messages by purchasing
at least 3,000 ads on its site.
Zuckerberg wrote on his personal
Facebook page, “For the ways my work
was used to divide people rather than
bring us together, I ask forgiveness and I
will work to do better.”
Really? If so, it’s hard to tell.
Zuckerberg tried Wednesday to defend
Facebook’s policy of allowing false politi-
cal ads by saying he didn’t “think it right
for private companies to censor politi-
cians and the news.”
That puts Facebook in the position
of knowingly joining forces for fi nancial
gain with those spreading lies and mis-
information for political gain. Separating
fact from fi ction in political ads is time-
consuming work, but it’s a basic respon-
sibility for those who publish them. If
Zuckerberg is not prepared to do the
work, he should stop accepting the ads.
Zuckerberg is right when he says that
political ads make up less than 0.5% of
Facebook’s revenues, or roughly $300
million. But, while that might not be a lot
of money to the billionaire, it’s nearly half
of all the money candidates have raised
so far in the presidential election.
He’s also correct when he says other
companies, including Google-owned
YouTube, publish false or misleading po-
litical ads. But that doesn’t make it right.
That others do it is a pathetic excuse for
Facebook, especially given the company’s
record of enabling political manipulation.
A day of reckoning awaits Facebook
and other tech companies if they fail to
get ahead of basic integrity issues that
threaten long-held American values.
Twitter’s Jack Dorsey took a step in the
right direction. The question is to what
degree will others — especially Facebook
— follow?
Threats to America’s national parks
Editorial from The Los Angeles
Times:
National parks were created more
than a century ago to be refuges for
fl ora and fauna and the land on which
they depend for existence, to protect
them all from the ravages of human de-
velopment. They have become refuges
for humans as well — places where
people can disconnect from the clamor
of modern society and commune briefl y
with the natural world while surround-
ed by spectacular beauty.
To achieve both requires striking
a balance between conserving the
wildness of the parks and building the
infrastructure needed to give humans
reasonable access to it. So far, that
balance has mostly been maintained in
the 58 national parks. But it is now is
in danger of toppling, and not in the fa-
vor of preservation. President Trump’s
Interior Department seems determined
to open up the parks to new business
and recreational uses, even while it
slashes their operational budgets.
President Reagan expressed interest
in privatizing and commercializing
federal lands in the 1980s, and now
Trump is back on the case. Secretary
of the Interior David Bernhardt has
ordered the National Park Service
to allow electric-powered bikes to zip
around on park trails, and he is push-
ing worrisome measures to increase
tourism at Yosemite (as if it needed the
boost) such as allowing boats on Hetch
Hetchy reservoir for the fi rst time.
And further changes have been
proposed: Soon, visitors might be able
to take a break from strolling under
the giant sequoias to stream the latest
hot Netfl ix series, to order the latest
electronic gear on Amazon and have it
delivered right to their Jumbo Rocks
campground (by drone?) or regain their
strength after a hike through Badwa-
ter Basin in Death Valley at an array of
food trucks.
Those are among the actual propos-
als cooked up by the Outdoor Recre-
ation Advisory Committee, a panel
fi lled with representatives of park
concessionaires and other private
industries that would profi t from these
ideas. We might laugh it off as fantasies
of avaricious business people (really?
Amazon deliveries?) were it not for
the fact that it fi ts into a pattern of
efforts by the Trump administration to
privatize services provided by federal
agencies such as Veterans Affairs and
the U.S. Postal Service. The problem is
that while privatization might work for
some federal endeavors, it is in direct
confl ict with the raison d’etre of the
national parks. You can’t simultane-
ously conserve and exploit a natural
resource.
The justifi cation given for these
“improvements” is to attract the next
generation of users. And a case could
be made that improving Wi-Fi coverage
in the parks would be good for public
safety. But it’s insulting to younger
people to suggest they won’t be inter-
ested in an outdoor experience without
all the luxuries and conveniences of
home. And it’s not in anyone’s interests
to chip away at the very thing that
makes the parks worth visiting.
accuracy of all statements in letters to
the editor.
• Letters are limited to 350 words; longer
letters will be edited for length. Writers
are limited to one letter every 15 days.
• The writer must sign the letter and
include an address and phone number
(for verifi cation only). Letters that do
not include this information cannot be
published.
• Letters will be edited for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons.
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Letters to the editor
• We welcome letters on any issue of
public interest. Customer complaints
about specifi c businesses will not be
printed.
• The Baker City Herald will not
knowingly print false or misleading
claims. However, we cannot verify the
Email: news@bakercityherald.com