A8 THE BULLETIN • WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Public square
doesn’t always
get protection
I
n 1937, Frank Hague, the mayor of Jersey City, banned the
Committee for Industrial Organization from gathering
in a public place to talk about unions. He called them
communists.
The CIO challenged the ban,
backed by the American Civil Lib-
erties Union. The case eventually
went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court found for the CIO in
1939. The ruling became known
as the public forum doctrine. It
helped prevent the public from be-
ing muzzled by the government
under the First Amendment.
The public has no such protec-
tion in being muzzled by private
companies. If Twitter wants to ban
former President Donald Trump
for life, it may do so. If Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter and YouTube
want to ban you from their plat-
forms, they can.
Maybe you wouldn’t mind.
Maybe you would even be better
off. But the big social platforms
have created unprecedented ways
for people to communicate na-
tionally and worldwide. That also
gives them unprecedented power
when they decide to shut people or
groups out. If the government did
that, there could be a challenge in
court. If Twitter does it, good luck.
Of course, the big social media
platforms are not the only games
in town. There are lesser-known
alternatives. New ones will spring
up. Still, getting gagged by the big
ones certainly curtails reach.
You may believe Trump de-
served to be shut down. Claims of
massive voter fraud in the Novem-
ber election have not been sup-
ported by facts in court. It was also
odd for him to tell the rioters who
assaulted the Capitol to go home
and, in nearly the same breath, “we
love you, you’re very special.”
Social media platforms have
long blocked postings they found
offensive. But if they can just turn
off a sitting president, is something
out of balance? Who else could
they shut down? They have be-
come the de facto editors of ideas
on a global scale. Newspapers and
other more traditional media have
their own struggles with such is-
sues. They just don’t play at the
same level.
As the ACLU said this year,
more than 80 years after the Hague
case, “...(I)t should concern every-
one when companies like Facebook
and Twitter wield the unchecked
power to remove people from plat-
forms that have become indispens-
able for the speech of billions —
especially when political realities
make those decisions easier.”
Health care bill needs
explanation of details
N
o bill this session of the Ore-
gon Legislature may be more
powerful in its seeming sim-
plicity and brevity than Senate Joint
Resolution 12.
It states: “It is the obligation of the
state to ensure that every resident of
Oregon has access to cost-effective,
clinically appropriate and affordable
health care as a fundamental right.
… (That) must be balanced against
the public interest in funding public
schools and other essential public
services.”
There were enough votes to pass
this proposed constitutional amend-
ment onto voters in 2020. It died,
though, due to the Republican walk-
outs. It may indeed move to the
ballot this time. In many ways it’s a
tribute to former state Rep. Mitch
Greenlick, who repeatedly tried to
pass it.
The logic behind it is also sim-
ple. You can’t expect Oregonians to
work and care for their families if
they are not healthy. The Oregon
Health Plan coupled with the Af-
fordable Care Act are nearly com-
prehensive in ensuring one way or
another that people get health care.
Why is this step necessary? It’s a
rock-solid guarantee, advocates for
the measure say.
It does come with questions about
costs and explanations of how any
additional services would be de-
livered. Those were not discussed
during a work session on Monday.
They were not discussed earlier in
February. The legislative fiscal anal-
ysis of the resolution does not even
attempt to do so.
Let’s be clear. We want everyone to
get access to health care. But when
does the Legislature discuss the de-
tails of potential costs of this resolu-
tion or how it will be carried out?
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.
My Nickel’s Worth
Walton Lake project threatens values
Critical context for the U.S. Forest
Service logging plans for the Walton
Lake area on the Ochoco National
Forest is not reaching the public
through the Forest Service or the me-
dia. Missing information includes:
Naturally occurring root rot is wide-
spread throughout fir forest in the
Ochoco, yet the Forest Service is using
it as an excuse to clear-cut 35 acres in
a popular recreation area. The agency
admits in project files that this would
look like a clear-cut and change the
character of the area but publicly calls
it “sanitation.” The Forest Service has
successfully been using hazard tree
felling for decades at Walton Lake to
increase public safety.
No one is opposing legitimate haz-
ard tree felling. The campground has
been kept open through hazard tree
felling and posting warning signs
around the affected area. The Forest
Service acknowledges that forest visi-
tors assume risk from natural hazards.
Many of the trees planned for logging
are not infected with root rot. The For-
est Service signed what we believe is an
illegal logging contract prior to a final
decision. They marked and flagged the
clear-cut area for logging and slapped
a closure on it with fines for violation
of $1,000 for an individual and $10,000
for an organization. The Forest Ser-
vice plans to log an estimated 500 old-
growth firs and artificially convert the
area to ponderosa pine and larch seed-
lings. The logging would violate For-
est Plan standards for recreational and
scenic values. Please tell the Forest Ser-
vice your concerns.
— Karen Coulter is the director of the Blue
Mountain Biodiversity Project.
Wyden protects the environment
I applaud Sen. Ron Wyden for
working to strike the right balance
between safeguarding our natural
wonders and protecting communities
from wildfire in the River Democracy
Act, which he recently introduced
with Sen. Jeff Merkley.
As a volunteer wildland firefighter
at Crooked River Ranch and stew-
ard with the Friends and Neighbors
of the Deschutes Canyon Area, I
work frequently around two Wild
and Scenic Rivers, the Deschutes
and the Crooked. I am grateful that
these two extraordinary rivers are
protected for recreation, wildlife and
clean water.
I am also appreciative that Sen.
Wyden is helping us move forward
with thinning juniper trees and other
vegetation along these Wild and Sce-
nic Rivers to reduce the risk of wild-
fire. These fuels-reduction projects,
which are the result of Sen. Wyden’s
Crooked River Ranch Fire Protec-
tion Act, will create a safer environ-
ment for firefighters, and reduce the
chance of wildfires destroying homes
and threatening lives on the ranch.
Thanks to safeguards Sen. Wyden in-
cluded in his bill in response to com-
munity concerns, these fuels treat-
ments will also improve the health of
native plants and wildlife.
Wild and Scenic River designa-
tion has provided the flexibility to
protect the remarkable values of the
Deschutes and Crooked rivers while
also allowing for fire-risk reduction
activities. I look forward to seeing
more of our vital rivers and creeks
here in Central Oregon and across
the state receive this protection
thanks to the River Democracy Act.
—Jeff Scheetz, Crooked River Ranch
Pass the carbon dividend
The Bulletin issue on Feb. 26 had
a guest column offered by H. Seidler
and M. Reynolds that is important to
all our lives here and globally. They
mentioned a key bipartisan policy
called the Energy Innovation and
Carbon Dividend Act, which Rep.
Ted Deutch is looking to reinstate in
the U.S. House this spring. Currently,
in Oregon, the Senate Committee on
Energy and Environment is having
hearings on the Senate Joint Memo-
rial 5 which, if brought to the floor
out of this committee and is passed in
both houses, requests the U.S. Con-
gress to support and pass the Energy
Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
The latter is a well thought out
piece of legislation that, simply put,
applies fees on carbon emission
sources (for example at mining, drill-
ing sites), places those revenues into
a trust fund in the U.S. Treasury and
using the IRS disburses those funds
monthly and equally to you with a
half share to each of your children
under 19. Check out this article for
a fuller summary, https://outrider.
org/climate-change/articles/ carbon-
fee-dividend, and if you agree this
is good for the future of this nation,
help apply pressure by asking your
state legislators to pass SJM 5. If in-
clined, contact Rep. Cliff Bentz and
Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley.
Let’s get attention on this act, help get
it instated, passed and made into law
in 2021.
— Susan Cobb, Sisters
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
Focusing on density will erode Bend’s charm and character
BY ALLAN BRUCKNER
T
he Bend Chamber of Com-
merce sponsored a discussion
on Feb. 11 with new city Coun-
cilors Rita Schenkelberg and Melanie
Kebler and City Manager Eric King
on the major issues facing the city. A
principle conclusion was that the City
Council will place a “huge emphasis
on planning for the future” (Kebler)
to “create the community we want to
see” (King).
But how does council determine
what the citizenry wants the city to
look like? One difficulty is that nearly
all the City Council is from the 30-to-
45-year age group. But this age group
represents less than one-third of our
population. Another third is older:
Do they want the same thing? And a
quarter are under 18: Do they want to
live in compact apartment dwellings
or would single-family homes with a
yard be more desirable for them?
Without knowing what everyone
wants, it is notable that two plan-
ning theories are now irrevocably
changing the landscape in Bend. First
is the push to develop huge apart-
ments regardless of the impact on the
neighborhood. Examples: develop-
ment of the former Ray’s Food Place
site and the development on Colorado
Avenue overlooking McKay Park.
Both are out of perspective with the
established neighborhood, and the
second will undoubtedly cause major
parking problems for park users.
The big push for more large apart-
ments fails to consider other unin-
tended consequences. Traffic impacts
will be substantial on central Bend’s
old inefficient road system. Such de-
velopments will overwhelm local
parks with no land to build new ones.
Historically the city has been about
65% single-family dwellings. Now the
push is to develop over 60% apart-
ments. But it is almost universally
accepted that a high percentage of
owner- occupied dwelling units is very
impactful in developing a stable civic
population, and it allows citizens to in-
vest in their financial future, as hous-
ing is by far the largest asset for most
citizens. Promotion of homeowner-
GUEST COLUMN
Bruckner
Perhaps one might consider not just today’s in-vogue
planning theory, but also what citizens want. Do the
outdoor-loving people who live here, and are moving
here, want to live in massive multistory apartments or
subdivisions with no yards, or might they continue to
prefer some private space?
ship needs to be a priority for the city.
A second very concerning trend is
how our new subdivisions are being
developed. As Cylvia Hayes recently
wrote in The Bulletin “The huge trees
are gone. The birds are gone. No deer
in sight. Instead just bulldozers and
giant backhoes leveling and flattening
the earth”. This may refer to the eye-
sore on Reed Market at 15th Street,
but it is happening all over town. I
know this is partly due to high land
costs, partly due to land use laws, but
also partly due to our planners em-
phasis on compacting the city with
knee-jerk opposition to any horizon-
tal growth. This is having the effect of
transforming the character of Bend
with bland subdivisions having none
of the charm of the older areas that
makes Bend special. This is rapidly
uglifying our town, making parts of
Bend look like suburban Las Vegas.
So much planning today is group-
think centered around the current
in-vogue textbook planning to con-
centrate everything in the center, de-
spite our traffic problems. Planning
trends come and go. Twenty years ago
Bend was trying to build a second city
center out in Juniper Ridge. This pro-
motion was dead in 5 years, but cost
the city millions. Current planning
will drastically and irreversibly change
Bend. Plus we are now in a pandemic,
with predictions that more might
come. Many are deciding that concen-
trated housing is the wrong approach.
Perhaps one might consider not
just today’s in-vogue planning theory,
but also what citizens want. Do the
outdoor-loving people who live here,
and are moving here, want to live in
massive multistory apartments or
subdivisions with no yards, or might
they continue to prefer some private
space? Bend represents just over 10%
of the county area. The heretical ques-
tion: Would expanding to 15% ruin
our Central Oregon playground? Or
would it help lower land prices, and
thus lower housing costs, and thus
give more residents the opportunity
to own their own homes? What is best
for families and their children?
e e
Allan Bruckner is a former mayor of Bend.