Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Baker City herald. (Baker City, Or.) 1990-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 2, 2019)
MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2019 Baker City, Oregon 4A Write a letter news@bakercityherald.com OUR VIEW Change in traffic stops not all for the better The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled police can- not do something like pull a driver over for failing to signal a turn and then ask about guns and drugs in the vehicle. The decision will change how traffi c stops are done in Oregon. Will it be for the better? We want to see the public protected from unrea- sonable searches. And there is concern that stops for minor traffi c violations lead to little actual improve- ment in road safety and can disproportionately target minorities. But we have the same issue about the decision raised in the court’s dissenting opinion. The decision will mean that during a traffi c stop police cannot engage in questioning they do in routine police work in other settings. And it also may mean police will be less effective at catching criminals. Let’s summarize what happened in the case. The description that follows is largely directly from the decision. Defendant was lawfully stopped for failing to signal a turn and a lane change. During the stop, while defendant was searching for a few minutes for his registration and proof of insurance, the offi cer asked him about the presence of guns and drugs in the vehicle. He requested consent to search the ve- hicle. The offi cer didn’t have a reason to believe there were guns or drugs. He asked about that as part of his routine. Defendant consented to the search. The offi cer located a package of methamphetamine. Defendant contended that the offi cer expanded the permissible scope of the traffi c stop when he asked about the contents of the vehicle and requested per- mission to search it because those questions were not related to the purpose of the stop. The court found for the defendant. What’s interest- ing is why. The court said basically that the constitu- tion and Oregon law dictate that an offi cer is limited to questions “reasonably related to the purpose of the traffi c stop or that have an independent constitu- tional justifi cation.” A substantial issue raised in the dissent is what happens when an offi cer “develops an intuition, on the basis of training and experience, that something is not right, but lacks enough information to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, may the offi cer engage the driver in mere conversation in the hope of eliciting additional useful information?” The court’s decision makes that somewhat unclear. It’s without question that the court made the deci- sion it did for good reasons. But there is a cost in lim- iting the ability of law enforcement to seek criminals. Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald. Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald. 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 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 Email: news@bakercityherald.com Amtrak isn’t the only form of transportation with subsidies Many thanks to Jayson Jacoby for his thoughtful editorial of 23 October 2019 (“Amtrak: Unlikely, but idea has merit”), concerning the return of Am- trak service to Eastern Oregon. Many rural areas of the nation lack adequate public transit. One of the missions of the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates (AORTA) is to bring passenger train service back to this area. Our October 26th meeting in La Grande was an opportunity to promote this idea and garner local support. We want to respond, however, to Jacoby’s statement, “taxpayers have been propping up Amtrak ...”. Actu- ally, taxpayers have been propping up every other form of transportation — airlines, shipping companies, trucking companies, and most of all, private motor vehicles — for many decades before Amtrak was formed. Unlike the Amtrak “subsidies” however, public fi - nancing for these other modes is mostly indirect. Airlines, for example, use airports: vast areas of publicly owned and main- tained property, exempt from property taxes. Airplanes are dispatched by air traffi c controllers — federal (public) employees. Streets, roads, and freeways are publicly owned and maintained, and policed by public employees, whose salaries and benefi ts are paid by taxpayers. Harbors and waterways MARIAN RHYS are also publicly maintained property, policed by the Coast Guard, a public agency. Railroads, on the other hand, operate on private property. Almost all of the rails in the United States — both the land they occupy and the rails them- selves — are owned and maintained by private railroad companies. The rail- roads pay property taxes on not only the land but also all the improvements. Taxes on railroads help subsidize road- ways, as well as aviation and waterway facilities. Trains are dispatched by employees of these railroad companies. Their salaries and benefi ts are paid by those companies, NOT by taxpayers. Amtrak was created in 1971 to re- lieve America’s railroads of the burden of money-losing passenger trains. Pas- senger trains began to be unprofi table as the government continued to tax railroads while subsidizing competition by building interstate highways and airports. The railroads’ loss of express mail service in 1967 was the fi nal nail in the coffi n of private rail passenger service; without that additional rev- enue, the railroads could not continue to provide passenger service. Amtrak never had the means to properly operate, much less promote, the Pioneer train that ran through Eastern Oregon and Idaho. And now Amtrak is under attack for not being “profi table” — an impossible goal for any passenger transportation service. In order for Amtrak, or any other entity, to provide passenger rail service, taxpayers do indeed need to “prop it up”; that is the only way it can run, much less expand service to under- served areas like Eastern Oregon. It is past time to do so. AORTA is not alone in talking about Portland-Boise service. In September the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion released a “Central & Eastern Or- egon Station Report” on the readiness of passenger stations on this corridor to serve future passenger trains. And recently Amtrak raised the need to de- velop passenger rail service in regional corridors, specifi cally naming Portland to Salt Lake City. There are reasons for optimism. Yes, there are huge hurdles to over- come, but the long delayed investments in our national infrastructure may soon see a dramatic course correction. We must be ready! Marian Rhys is a member of the board of directors for the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates. OTHER VIEWS Hong Kong exemplifies democracy Editorial from The Chicago Tribune: After six months of protests, Hong Kong this week delivered a strong rebuke to China over its attempts to broaden control over the semi-autono- mous territory. Pro-democracy candi- dates overwhelmingly won local council elections, sweeping 347 of 452 seats. Democracy in action, no doubt about it — the kind that likely has Chinese President Xi Jinping seething, the kind that President Donald Trump should celebrate. Yet Trump has hemmed and hawed on the question of Hong Kong. Congress gave him the perfect platform to ex- press solidarity with Hong Kong’s pro- democracy movement. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed unanimously in the Senate and was approved 417 to 1 in the House. The legislation would impose sanc- tions on China and Hong Kong offi cials responsible for the crackdown on pro- democracy demonstrators, and require the State Department to annually review the special status the U.S. gives Hong Kong in trade issues. Trump’s reaction to the legislation? A tap dance. “We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi,” Trump recently told the Fox and Friends program. “He’s a friend of mine. He’s an incredible guy. ... But I’d like to see them work it out. OK? We have to see and work it out. But I stand with Hong Kong. I stand with freedom. I stand with all of the things that we want to do, but we also are in the process of making the largest trade deal in history. And if we could do that, that would be great.” Both chambers have a two-thirds majority to override a veto, if that’s the direction Trump takes. Still, vetoing the legislation would send the wrong message to Beijing, a signal that the U.S. is indifferent to Hong Kong’s push for more democracy at a time when the pro-freedom movement there needs America the most. Trump rationalizes that he can’t afford to jeopardize his bid for a trade deal with China. He doesn’t realize China’s decision on a trade deal doesn’t hinge on U.S. policy toward Hong Kong, and specifi cally whether he signs the Hong Kong legislation Congress passed. Whether China agrees to a trade deal depends entirely on whether China thinks such a deal would be good for its economy. “The idea of linkage between Hong Kong and the trade talks is largely a fi gment of Trump’s imagina- tion,” Aaron Friedberg, a China scholar at Princeton University and a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, told The Washington Post. The people of Hong Kong refuse to be bullied by China. Through the recent local council elections, they’ve shown their unshakable commitment to the principles of democracy and freedom. Trump can do the same by signing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democ- racy Act. He should do so. CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS President Donald Trump: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1414; fax 202-456-2461; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov/contact. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900. Pendleton offi ce: 310 S.E. Second St. Suite 105, Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-228-2717. La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850; 541- 962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov. U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182 Rayburn Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave., La Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden.house. gov. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem, OR 97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
