A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
City’s camping
rules reasonable
T
he proposed Baker City ordinance
regulating overnight camping in
parks and some other public places
is reasonable and sensible.
On Tuesday, April 26, the City Coun-
cil approved the fi rst two readings of
the ordinance that Police Chief Ty Duby
brought to councilors April 12. Th e City
Council could pass the fi nal reading at its
next meeting.
Duby told councilors that the ordinance,
which is modeled aft er existing regulations
in other Oregon cities, including Coos
Bay, is designed to address problems with
homeless people camping on public prop-
erty.
Th e ordinance states, in part: “It shall
be unlawful for any person to set up tents
or any other temporary shelter or to use
house trailers, campers or automobiles for
the purpose of overnight camping in any
city park, nor shall any person remain in
any city park aft er closing hours; provided,
however, organized youth groups under
competent adult supervision may be per-
mitted overnight camping privileges.”
Th e ordinance defi nes parks as includ-
ing the Leo Adler Memorial Parkway. Th e
ordinance also prohibits camping in several
other specifi c public properties, including
within 150 feet of any school, preschool
or childcare center, or at the Baker Heri-
tage Museum at 2480 Grove St., the Baker
County Courthouse, Sam-O Swim Center,
the YMCA gym on Church Street and
the YMCA Fitness Center on Pocahon-
tas Road.
Th e ordinance also states that if some-
one is living in a vehicle, it must be moved
at least every 24 hours and for at least the
distance of a city block.
Th e ordinance also bans camping on
public property in residential zones, while
it would be allowed, with time restrictions,
on public property in the general-commer-
cial, general industrial and light industrial
zones. Th e ordinance prohibits camping
during the period 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Th e ordinance applies only to public
property. People are not allowed to camp
on someone’s property, at any time, regard-
less of the zone.
Duby was prompted to propose the ordi-
nance aft er the Oregon Legislature passed
a bill in 2021 which states that cities and
counties with ordinances regulating camp-
ing on public property must ensure those
ordinances are “objectively reasonable as
to time, place and manner with regards to
persons experiencing homelessness.”
Th e state law also allows homeless
people to challenge in court such city or
county ordinances.
In other words, Baker City’s new ordi-
nance, along with those in eff ect in other
cities, are on somewhat shaky legal ground.
But while we wait for the situation to
play out in the courts, it’s wise for Baker
City to have an ordinance in place that
gives police offi cers the authority to deal
with people camping in parks and the oth-
er public property listed in the ordinance.
Without that ordinance, the city
wouldn’t be able to prevent people from
camping on some public property if the
person wasn’t violating another ordinance,
such as the one prohibiting people from
blocking a sidewalk or other public right-
of-way.
Duby got to the heart of the matter when
he told councilors on April 12 that the 2021
state law, “while off ering compassion and
support to those experiencing homeless-
ness, can fail sometimes to protect both
the citizens of our community and the very
homelessness the law is designed to protect.”
Th e city’s ordinance strikes an appropri-
ate balance. It doesn’t outlaw homelessness
— something that could hardly be enforced
— but it also rightly recognizes that having
city parks become camps is not acceptable.
—Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
YOUR VIEWS
City, county officials have
misplaced priorities
end? Thank you Commissioner Nichols for
ignoring that disgraceful display of futility.
Then there’s the very definition of dys-
For two years I have watched our city and function ... our city council. Here we have
county government descend into a confus- a mayor and three councilors rejecting a
ing madness. Are they competing for the
free, all expenses paid, safety upgrade to
most ridiculous local government in the
every railroad crossing in the city! The
State of Oregon? It would be laughable if
downside? Less noise. They’ve chosen in-
it wasn’t so sad and embarrassing. Instead
stead to subject our most vulnerable (grade
of focusing on the health, protection and
school children, the elderly, the infirmed.
welfare of their constituents, including our ...) to a fractured education, health com-
precious businesses, they’ve chosen an-
plications and ear damage, all in the name
ger, bitterness and divisiveness, spawned
of...what? They claim the people need to
from their inability to accept the “fact” they vote on this? Hmmm. Just like the peo-
were members of a losing minority in the
ple voted on that unnecessary, special in-
last elections. Time to move on one would
terest paving project by the golf course
think. ... but no.
and a myriad of other monetary expen-
As fringe partisan special interest groups, ditures added to their tax liability? Using
masquerading as Baker City councilors and this skewed logic there should be no prob-
commissioners, your local representatives
lem with every council decision being put
ignore critical problems, relevant business
to a vote of the people. Oops! Guess we
and their jobs, deciding instead to focus on wouldn’t need a council then huh?
senseless and meaningless resolutions? The
We all know what this is about. A last
time and energy Harvey and Bennett wasted ditch attempt by an impudent special inter-
on BCU, and their crybaby snowflake griev- est group to maintain a semblance of power
ances, is beyond comprehensible. To what
and control. Angry bitter pride, pure and
simple! Thank you, Councilors Guyer, Spriet
and Alderson for ignoring this obvious vin-
dictiveness.
Feeling nostalgic? “Siri/Alexa play me a
blaring train horn. ... or maybe an “ambu-
lance” siren??
Michael Meyer
Baker City
What does the term ‘pyrrhic victory’
actually mean?
In an April 23 letter to the editor Gary
Dielman states that a synonym for pyrrhic
victory is “meaningless.” A pyrrhic victory
actually, is a victory at too great a cost. The
origin of the term comes from King Pyrrhus
of Epirus whose army defeated the Romans
in 279 BCE but lost too many of his troops.
Maybe passing county resolution: “Reaf-
firming the constitutional rights of Baker
County Citizens” is meaningless but it is no
pyrrhic victory.
Neal Jacobson
Baker City
COLUMN
Reining in Big Tech’s power over publishing
BY DOUGLAS SCHOEN
Thousands of local papers have shuttered
their doors in recent years, and those sur-
viving are facing unprecedented challenges
in remaining both economically viable and
as the lifeblood of their communities.
All the while, Big Tech monopolies like
Alphabet and Meta — through sites like
Google News and Facebook News — have
come to dominate the news and publish-
ing industries by expropriating the work of
smaller and local operators via their news
aggregator sites.
The Founding Fathers enshrined pro-
tections for a press free from government
regulation in the First Amendment to the
Constitution because a free and diverse
press is the backbone of a healthy and vi-
brant republic. But the Founders could not
have envisioned a future in which nearly all
news and information would be controlled
by just a handful of private entities.
This is not only blatantly unfair — it is a
threat to the free press and, thus, to democ-
racy itself.
The American people not only under-
stand the severity of this threat, but more-
over, are united on the need to curb Big
Tech’s undue power and unjust profiteering
in the news and publishing industries.
New polling by Schoen-Cooperman Re-
search — which was conducted among a
representative sample of U.S. adults, and
commissioned by News Media Alliance
— reveals widespread public concern over
Big Tech’s outsize influence with respect
to news and publishing, as well as broad-
based support for Congress taking action to
rein in these monopolies.
Indeed, roughly 4 in 5 Americans are
concerned that Big Tech companies have
too much power over the news and pub-
lishing industries (79%), manipulate these
industries for their own gain (78%), and are
driving small and local news outlets out of
business (76%).
Further, approximately three-quarters
agree that “Big Tech’s monopoly over the
news and publishing industries is a threat to
the free press and unfair to publishers, espe-
cially to small and local outlets” (76%).
In addition to being broadly concerned
about this problem, Americans want change
and are looking to their elected leaders in
Washington to deliver.
Roughly 4 in 5 Americans agree with
statements to this effect, including “I sup-
port Congress taking steps to give small and
local publishers more power in negotiations
with Big Tech companies” (81%), as well as
“Congress needs to rein in Big Tech by pass-
ing reforms that would make the publishing
industry fairer for smaller media entities and
local operators” (77%).
In terms of specific reforms, our survey
measured public support for a bill that was
introduced this year known as the Jour-
nalism Competition and Preservation Act,
or JCPA. This is a bipartisan proposal that
would allow news publishers to negotiate,
under the authority of a federal intermedi-
ary, fair terms for use of their content by Big
Tech companies.
Remarkably, after reading a brief descrip-
tion of the JCPA, strong majorities support
Congress passing the JCPA (70%) and be-
lieve it is important for Congress to pass the
JCPA (64%).
Respondents also indicated that a po-
litical candidate’s support for the JCPA —
or lack thereof — would affect their vote
in an election. By a 4-to-1 margin, U.S.
adults would be more likely, rather than
less likely, to back a candidate for Congress
who supported the JCPA.
Additionally, 7 in 10 agree that “elected of-
ficials who oppose the JCPA are allowing Big
Tech companies to continue manipulating
the news and publishing industries for their
own gain, leaving small and local publishers
powerless” (69%).
In addition to being supportive of the
JCPA, the public broadly favors general
reforms to this effect. Strong majorities
support Congress passing laws that would
allow news publishers to band together to
collectively negotiate fairer terms for use
of content by Big Tech (71%) and increase
regulations on Big Tech to curb their
power over the news and publishing indus-
tries (57%).
And by roughly a 3-to-1 margin, Amer-
icans would be more likely, rather than less
likely, to back political candidates who sup-
port both reforms.
Over the last two decades, though the
world of news and information has changed
dramatically with the expansion of Big Tech,
the United States’ antitrust and anti-monop-
oly laws have not changed with it.
Congress now has a mandate from the
American public to rein in Big Tech and
pursue long-overdue reforms that will safe-
guard local journalism’s survival — and ul-
timately will make the news industry fairer,
freer and more democratic.
On a personal note, in my experience as a
professional pollster who has worked in the
industry for more than 40 years, it is rare for
an issue or piece of legislation to garner this
level of broad-based and enthusiastic public
support.
Elected officials from both parties have
a unique opportunity to deliver on re-
forms that are both substantively import-
ant and politically viable — by advancing
the JCPA or a similar version of the bill
— which our data indicates would have a
demonstrably positive electoral impact for
these members.
If America is to have a news industry that
is truly free and fair, we must stop allowing
Big Tech companies to expropriate the work
of smaller and local publishers without con-
sequence. Congress can start by passing leg-
islation like the Journalism Competition and
Preservation Act into law.
█
Douglas Schoen is a Democratic campaign consultant
and author of several books including “The Power of
the Vote: Electing Presidents.”
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-
1111; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. office: 313 Hart Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510;
202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland office: One
World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250,
Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900.
Baker City office, 1705 Main St., Suite 504, 541-278-1129;
merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. office: 221 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244;
fax 202-228-2717. La Grande office: 105 Fir St., No. 210,
La Grande, OR 97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885;
wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz (2nd District): D.C. office: 1239
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.,
20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-225-5774. Medford office:
14 N. Central Avenue Suite 112, Medford, OR 97850;
Phone: 541-776-4646; fax: 541-779-0204; Ontario office:
2430 S.W. Fourth Ave., No. 2, Ontario, OR 97914; Phone:
541-709-2040. bentz.house.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem, OR
97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario): Salem office:
900 Court St. N.E., S-403, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-
1730. Email: Sen.LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem office: 900
Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460.
Email: Rep.MarkOwens@oregonlegislature.gov
Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker
City, OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049.
Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read: oregon.treasurer@ City Council meets the second and fourth Tuesdays
at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers. Councilors Jason
ost.state.or.us; 350 Winter St. NE, Suite 100, Salem OR
Spriet, Kerry McQuisten, Shane Alderson, Joanna
97301-3896; 503-378-4000.
Dixon, Kenyon Damschen, Johnny Waggoner Sr. and
Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum: Justice
Dean Guyer.
Building, Salem, OR 97301-4096; 503-378-4400.
Baker City administration: 541-523-6541. Jonathan
Oregon Legislature: Legislative documents and
Cannon, city manager; Ty Duby, police chief; Sean Lee,
information are available online at www.leg.state.or.us.
fire chief; Michelle Owen, public works director.