B6 THE BULLETIN • SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Should the city
disclose details
of housing?
A
city of Bend staff member said at a public meeting
earlier this week that the city would not release
the locations of two places where it had approved
temporary transitional housing for the homeless.
We challenged that. And the city
released the relevant documents.
This issue, though, gets compli-
cated quickly.
The homeless have a right to
safety and privacy, just as anyone
else. Bend residents also have a right
to know what their city is doing.
Should Bend residents be able to
know the addresses? Yes. But should
the city make an effort to actively
publicize the locations? Should the
newspaper? Those aren’t questions
with easy answers.
More snow is falling in Bend as
we write this. It hasn’t been as bad as
winter as some, but for the homeless,
yes, it has been bad.
At least one homeless man, David
Savory, died on the street in Bend.
Homeless shelters were full. A good
Samaritan tried to check him into a
motel and offered to pay for it. Mo-
tels refused because he did not have
identification.
It has been encouraging to see a
powerful shift in the city’s commit-
ment to do more to help the home-
less. It has a new fee to raise money
for such services. It is hoping to be
able to purchase a hotel itself for
temporary housing and to provide
services there. And there is more.
One other thing the city is work-
ing on is a parking safe program.
As we said, there are two locations
approved in the city now. The new
program would allow the city to
continue to allow overnight camp-
ing and transitional overnight
parking after the city’s COVID-19
emergency order expires. There
are proposed restrictions, such as
there must be access to bathrooms,
hand-washing and trash disposal.
There are other requirements such
as supervision. The Bend City
Council is scheduled to discuss the
proposal at its meeting on March 3.
Should the city be required to no-
tify people who live within a certain
distance of such a location? Should
the neighborhood association be no-
tified? Should the city provide even
more notice than that?
When we spoke Friday morning
to a person who runs one of the lo-
cations currently approved by the
city, she told us she houses people
who are victims of domestic vio-
lence. We can’t imagine many people
in Bend would want the city or the
newspaper to broadcast such a loca-
tion. Do you?
Historical editorials:
Newspaper misleads
e e
Editor’s note: The following historical editorials
originally appeared in what was then called
The Bend Bulletin on Feb. 10, 1905.
B
end is coming to be quite a dis-
tributing point for postal mat-
ter. In the past four months
two post offices have been estab-
lished that are served from here —
Tumalo and Laidlaw — and there is
proposed that another will be estab-
lished about 16 miles southeasterly
where quite a settlement is growing
up on “ditch” lands. And Bend itself
had no post office a year ago.
…
It has remained for the Prineville
Review to cast a slur upon Mrs.
Groesbeck — or attempt to do so.
In all her unpleasant matrimonial
experiences, with its many acts of
foolishness on both sides, there has
been no taint on the character of
Mrs. Groesbeck. Her husband never
in his most violent mood charged
her with unfaithfulness. Nor was any
such complaint made against him.
When the Review intimates that
it has a letter making such charges
on either side of the Groesbeck dif-
ficulty “written by a man of good
breeding and education” it simply
lies. We imagine if Gerald Groes-
beck were in the country the Re-
view would soon have no cause to
regret its slimy (word unreadable),
for, erratic as he was, he had a sense
of decency that would defend the
fair name of his wife, though they
could not agree on more important
matters. In this wanton and pusil-
lanimous attack upon an absent, in-
nocent and defenseless woman, the
Review is living up to its traditions.
What a fine exhibition of large-
minded manliness it is!
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
Rep. Nearman should acknowledge
his duty and resign from office now
GUEST COLUMN
BY ANTHONY BROADMAN
A
s the nation watched the re-
play of the deadly Jan. 6 at-
tack on our nation’s Capitol,
we cannot forget that, in December,
events in Salem foreshadowed the at-
tempted coup in Washington, D.C.
During a special session of the state
Legislature to deal with the pan-
demic, armed extremists assaulted
journalists outside the state Capitol
building and attacked law enforce-
ment officers working to protect leg-
islators and staff. Thankfully, the Ore-
gon State Police were able to hold the
line, and the attackers were unable to
breach the Senate and House cham-
bers. But police were injured and
there were several arrests of the mili-
tants. It could have been far worse.
In the aftermath of that attack, I
was horrified to learn that after the
attackers failed to break down a door
into the Capitol — which was closed
that day due to COVID-19 — secu-
rity footage showed that state Rep.
Mike Nearman, R-Independence,
literally opened the door. Now, as
reported by The Bulletin and other
papers, Rep. Nearman is currently
under criminal investigation for what
could be felony charges. He is also
under investigation by the House
Conduct Committee.
The reality is that while the breach
of Oregon’s state Capitol and the
resulting injuries and arrests were
shocking, they
weren’t surprising.
As Oregon Public
Broadcasting has
reported, we in Or-
egon have a long
history of enabling
far-right, anti-gov-
Broadman
ernment extremism.
Over the past few
years, threatened and actual violence
has become routine. It has to stop. We
should all remember that last year
the state Capitol had to be shut down
due to credible threats of violence
during the Republican walkout after
a rally attended by violent militants
and white supremacist groups. Our
politicians gave speeches and courted
these extremists. Rep. Nearman him-
self has a long history of anti-immi-
grant, anti-LGBTQ and anti-worker
extremism.
I join more than 60 community or-
ganizations and elected officials who
are calling on Rep. Nearman to save
taxpayer money and trouble and re-
sign immediately. If he will not, he
should be removed from office. This
is not a partisan issue. As a nonparti-
san elected official I expect to be held
accountable for my actions. I under-
stand that part of my service to the
people of Bend includes keeping staff
and other politicians safe — espe-
cially when I disagree with them.
As public officials we must reject
the growing extremism and violence
in political rhetoric and actions.
The Constitution is clear and gives
lawmakers the authority to expel a
member for disorderly conduct. Tak-
ing action to remove him from office
is important to protect our democ-
racy.
I applaud Republicans who are
starting to distance themselves from
extremists. Now they must go fur-
ther, and both parties in Salem must
take action. We deserve leaders with
the courage to uphold our freedoms
and our rights — especially the right
to a peaceful democracy. Lawmak-
ers who cater to bullies and traffic in
extremism simply do not deserve to
be in office. Republicans and Dem-
ocrats in Salem must come together
to hold any elected leaders who have
done us harm to account. We must
move forward together, assured that
our leaders govern in our name and
deliver what our families need, from
pandemic relief to vaccine distribu-
tion. Together we can make Oregon
a state where liberty and justice are
for all. Not only will political violence
tear our state apart, but we do not
have time for it. The challenges facing
us demand our leaders’ earnest atten-
tion, now.
e e
Anthony Broadman is a Bend city councilor.
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no more
than 250 words and include the writer’s
signature, phone number and address
for verification. We edit letters for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons. We re-
ject poetry, personal attacks, form letters,
letters submitted elsewhere and those
appropriate for other sections of The Bul-
letin. Writers are limited to one letter or
guest column every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words; they must be signed;
and they must include the writer’s phone
number and address for verification. We
edit submissions for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject those
submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted
columns alternate with national colum-
nists and commentaries. Writers are lim-
ited to one letter or guest column every
30 days.
Please address your submission to either
My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and
mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email
submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
Climate is on the federal agenda; a carbon tax should be, too
BY MARK REYNOLDS and HELEN SEIDLER
E
arly into 2021, the federal gov-
ernment is off to a roaring start
on climate change. Democrats
have indicated climate change is a pri-
ority issue they intend to tackle. Pres-
ident Joe Biden signed a raft of exec-
utive orders related to climate change,
elevating the issue across the federal
government. The Senate majority
leader directed all relevant Senate com-
mittees to begin holding hearings on
climate. And the speaker of the house,
no stranger to the fight for climate leg-
islation, is ready for round two.
Republicans, too, know their con-
stituents are struggling with the im-
pacts of climate change, and their
younger voters in particular are eager
for representation in this national dis-
cussion. Rep. Cliff Bentz, represent-
ing Oregon’s Congressional District 2,
clearly states that fire and water issues
are top priority for him. There’s no
question of congressional climate ac-
tion this year — it must happen.
As Rep. Bentz and Sens. Jeff Merkley
and Ron Wyden evaluate policy op-
tions, they should consider the broadly
popular carbon tax or fee. A carbon
tax can quickly slash our emissions and
save lives — plus, when designed right,
it can actually pay people and bene-
fit American business. Endorsements
from the scientific community, health
organizations, economists, and busi-
nesses show that this is the consensus
solution. Let’s explore why.
As we understand by now, it’s im-
perative that the world reach net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
That target comes from the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
game-changing 2018 report. In that
report, the IPCC specified that “car-
bon pricing is a necessary condition of
ambitious climate policies.” A steadily
rising carbon tax could slash emissions
enough to reach the net-zero by 2050
target. The National Academies of Sci-
ences, Engineering and Medicine re-
inforced that message in a new report,
naming a carbon tax as one of the
solutions to reach net-zero. Scientists
are committed to solving this problem,
so they’re throwing support behind
the most effective solution available.
Deep emissions cuts will not only
help the climate, but will also be a
huge boon to public health. We could
GUEST COLUMN
With scientists, public health
professionals, economists and businesses
supporting a carbon tax, Congress should
listen closely. Public polling shows 60% of
people nationwide and 55% of people in
Rep. Bentz’s district want Congress to do
more to address global warming.
save 4.5 million American lives over
the next 50 years by replacing pol-
lution with clean air. That’s why the
Lancet Commission endorses carbon
pricing, calling it “the single most
powerful strategic instrument to inoc-
ulate human health against the risks
of climate change.” Health profession-
als in Bend and through Oregon have
signed a declaration in support emis-
sion reductions via carbon pricing.
In addition, a carbon tax can provide
economic benefits to Americans. A
fee and dividend structure, sometimes
called a “carbon cashback,” will put the
Reynolds
Seidler
carbon fee revenue into people’s pock-
ets to spend as they see fit. If these pay-
ments are monthly, as in the Energy
Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act,
85% of Americans come out ahead or
essentially break even. Treasury Sec-
retary Janet Yellen is a longtime sup-
porter of this approach. She affirmed
in her January confirmation process
that she is “fully supportive of effective
carbon pricing,” adding, “I know that
the President is as well.” Local econo-
mists from Central Oregon agree.
A carbon tax is also better for busi-
ness. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
recently announced its support of a
“market-based approach to accelerate
emissions reductions.” A carbon tax is
considered a market-based approach,
giving businesses the ultimate say on
how they shift to clean energy. It is
more predictable and durable than
regulations, which can change with
the stroke of a new president’s pen.
Sunlight Solar and Worthy Brewing
have endorsed the legislation seeks to
implement carbon tax policy.
With scientists, public health pro-
fessionals, economists and businesses
supporting a carbon tax, Congress
should listen closely. The American
people themselves expect results. Pub-
lic polling shows 60% of people na-
tionwide and 55% of people in Rep.
Bentz’s district want Congress to do
more to address global warming. That
desire defies partisanship with ma-
jority support for climate action from
Republican and Democratic voters.
An effective carbon tax would put
America on the fast track to a healthy,
prosperous future.
e e
Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’
Climate Lobby and Helen Seidler in co-lead of the
Bend chapter of the group.