A8 THE BULLETIN • SUNDAY, MARCH 7, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
A big bill for
improving the lives
of Bend’s homeless
W
hen it was introduced, Oregon House Bill 2004 was
innocuous. It called for a study related to housing
issues. That was it.
But the bill sponsored by House
Speaker Tina Kotek was simply a
placeholder. It has many proposed
amendments, and all of them as of
Friday, at least, include $2.5 million
for the city of Bend for a navigation
center.
That makes this bill a big deal
for Bend. State Reps. Jason Kropf,
D-Bend, and Jack Zika, R-Red-
mond, have signed on to the bill as
sponsors.
What is a navigation center? It’s
about providing services to the
homeless and finding ways for
them to navigate their way to a bet-
ter life.
The city of Bend does not have
precise plans for such money. It
doesn’t know if the amount it would
receive will change or if it will even
get it. In the 2020 session, there was
a similar proposal. The Republican
walkout meant that the 2020 bill
died.
The city does have some tentative
ideas about what it might do. First
of all, the city likely would not pro-
vide direct services to the homeless.
It would partner with other orga-
nizations: nonprofits that do that
kind of work. The goal would be a
kind of one-stop shop for homeless
people to get access to services. It
might include meeting basic needs
such as providing food, finding
shelter, ensuring people have access
to the public benefits they qualify
for, offering caseworkers to help
them manage medical needs and
more.
It might also be better if the city
had more than one location for a
navigation center. One could be
at the city’s planned purchase of
It might also be better if the city
had more than one location
for a navigation center. One
could be at the city’s planned
purchase of a hotel to serve the
south part of town. There could
also be a center located more to
the north. Homeless individuals
and families must sometimes
make harrowing choices about
spending what money they do
have. Spend it on gas to get to
work? Spend it on gas to get to a
medical appointment?
a hotel to serve the south part of
town. There could also be a center
located more to the north. Home-
less individuals and families must
sometimes make harrowing choices
about spending what money they do
have. Spend it on gas to get to work?
Spend it on gas to get to a medical
appointment? Proximity and access
are critical when you have to make
decisions like those.
The biggest problem with this
pledge of money for a Bend navi-
gation center is that it is ephemeral.
The city would need to find a way
to sustain it over time. Perhaps the
city’s new fee on building permits
would help. If the Legislature in-
vests in helping Bend’s homeless, the
community needs to back up that
investment.
Bill diverts more money
to footpaths, bike paths
W
e have not checked out the
testimony on every bill in
the Legislature. In terms
of volume of written testimony,
though, Senate Bill 395 may be near
the top.
It increases the required expendi-
ture on footpaths and bicycle trails
from 1% to 5% of amounts received
from the state Highway Fund. That
would mean a reduced percentage
of money allocated to directly serve
cars and trucks.
It is supported by groups from
Central Oregon, such as Com-
mute Options and Central Oregon
LandWatch.
“While we recognize the benefits
of highway projects, spending on
improvements for biking and walk-
ing routes can prove to have an even
higher benefit with a lower invest-
ment of resources,” Commute Op-
tions says.
“Any means to provide safer
routes for all and encourage fewer
cars on the road is a plus.”
It has its fair share of opposition,
as well. The Association of Oregon
Counties opposes it. It points out
that the bill “removes local control
over community investments and
mandates the diversion of four per-
cent of county road budgets (ap-
proximately $12 million to 14 mil-
lion annually).”
The bill was still in the Joint Trans-
portation Committee as of Friday.
If you would like to weigh in on
the bill, contact your legislator.
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.
Bend needs diversity of housing
that city councilors are backing
BY KATHERINE AUSTIN
AND DAVID WELTON
W
e read with dismay the
March 3 guest column by
Allan Bruckner. While we
respect the former mayor’s service to
Bend, we strongly disagree with his
message. Mr. Bruckner complains
that the City Council is in the 30-45
age range and can’t speak for younger
or older residents. I, Kathy, am 69. It is
not age that allows one to understand
the needs of others. The new council-
ors canvassed many citizens in their
run for council, including me, and
they bring a fresh eye to our emerging
challenges with empathy and wisdom
beyond their years.
It seems that for some, it is diffi-
cult to understand that for our fellow
citizens, the need for home changes
over time and under different circum-
stances. We do not all want the same
thing. As Mr. Bruckner pointed out,
post-WWII, the city historically built
primarily single-family homes. This
has caused a crisis of availability and
affordability for those that cannot af-
ford that type of housing.
What is urgently needed in Bend is
a variety of housing types that address
the needs of our diverse citizenry.
Urgently needed are apartments, du-
plexes, triplexes, quads, townhomes
and cottage clusters that offer a range
of rental and ownership opportuni-
ties. Right now, none of our low and
GUEST COLUMN
moderate or even above median in-
come residents can afford to buy a
home in Bend. They deserve to live in
a dignified home as renters until such
time that they are able to buy if indeed
they ever want to. Saving for a down
payment is difficult enough without
curtailing the supply of rentals, and
thus raising prices.
While complaining about added
traffic, Mr. Bruckner urges us to
sprawl outward. This will only in-
crease the need for more cars and traf-
fic to reach services and jobs. There
are plans to grow out into our current
urban growth boundary. Any new
development needs to be done in a
way that provides not only a variety of
housing but services and jobs, as well.
This will allow for alternative trans-
portation including walking and bik-
ing as well as driving. Hardly a trendy,
new idea, neighborhood corner
stores used to be common through-
out towns. We agree that we need a
new tree ordinance to preserve more
of our trees and natural resources,
but using the land we have already
included in our city more judiciously
lets us spare more truly wild land out-
side town from development
We all need outdoor spaces. That
doesn’t mean everyone wants a large
yard to maintain. Our parks and rec-
reation department has provided us
with world-class parks all over the
city and has a goal of everyone being
in walking distance to a park. Busy
young service workers, students and
some seniors do not need to spend
endless hours doing yard mainte-
nance and shoveling snow in the win-
ter. It may be when young folks marry
and start to raise families they would
prefer a detached home. Many, in-
cluding students, young professionals,
empty nesters and seniors, might pre-
fer more dense living close to restau-
rants and entertainment. Different
strokes for different folks!
The mantra of charm and char-
acter have been used since WWII to
segregate cities by race and income
level, and prevent home ownership
for people of color. It is time to call
that out for what it is and put it into
the trash heap of history. There will
always be a period of transition when
there is change responding to growth.
Planning takes place over a long arc of
time: 20-30 years is typical. Many of
the zoning changes and the transpor-
tation bond projects will take many
years to materialize. We need to look
forward not backward when planning
our future and that is what the City
Council and city staff have embraced.
More power to them!
e e
Katherine Austin and David Welton live in Bend.
Austin is a member of The Bulletin’s community
editorial board.
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
Where is the CDC’s guidance to vaccinated Americans?
BY LEANA WEN
Special to The Washington Post
F
irst, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention guid-
ance on what fully vaccinated
people can safely do was expected
on Thursday. Then the release got
pushed back. On Friday, CDC Direc-
tor Rochelle Walensky said it would
not happen that day, either, but that
guidance would come “soon.”
These unacceptable delays illustrate
a larger problem in communication
about the coronavirus vaccines: Pub-
lic health officials have chosen cau-
tion over celebration. If this doesn’t
change, Americans could be dis-
suaded from being vaccinated, and
our country might never achieve the
goal of herd immunity.
So far, more than 8% of Americans
are fully vaccinated. As vaccinations
have ramped up, with an average of 2
million shots per day going into arms,
clinicians have been bombarded with
questions from people eager to plan
trips, see their loved ones and gener-
ally return to their pre-pandemic lives.
In the absence of CDC guidance,
we in the medical community have
been giving patients our best advice.
It’s fine to see other fully vaccinated
people, for example. Grandparents
can travel to see the rest of their fam-
ily. In public places, vaccinated peo-
ple should still wear masks, but they
can take off their masks around loved
ones, in small-group settings.
Patients understand that we don’t
have all the answers. We don’t know
for sure that vaccinated people won’t
spread the coronavirus, but the likeli-
hood is probably greatly reduced. We
can’t predict exactly how much risk is
reduced by getting inoculated, but we
can say with certainty that the chance
of vaccinated people getting severely
ill is very low.
This is more than enough informa-
tion for the CDC to issue preliminary
guidelines. On Friday, Walensky said
the CDC is weighing “complex issues”
and wants to “take the time to get this
right.” I understand the impulse to be
cautious, but there is a cost to waiting.
Some governors are ending mask man-
dates and allowing all businesses to
return to 100% capacity, regardless of
workers’ or patrons’ vaccination status.
Individuals are changing their behav-
iors accordingly. Every day that passes
without guidance, the CDC becomes
less relevant to decision-making.
This overly timid approach also
means that public health officials con-
tinue to undersell the incredible bene-
fits of the coronavirus vaccines. If the
vaccines are so good, why can’t it be
clearly articulated what people can do
after getting them? Right now, there is
more demand than vaccine supply, but
this will change soon. By July, and pos-
sibly earlier, the barrier to reaching herd
immunity will be vaccine hesitancy.
What public health officials need
to do, now, is unequivocally endorse
vaccination as the path to normalcy.
The CDC has an opportunity to give
all the examples of things fully vacci-
nated individuals can do that the un-
vaccinated cannot. For example, offi-
cials could say that vaccinated people
are not only able but also encouraged
to travel; on the other hand, unvacci-
nated people should still limit travel
to essential trips and must be tested
before and quarantine after. Vacci-
nated nursing-home residents could
have vaccinated visitors; unvaccinated
people cannot. The CDC could say
that it’s low-risk for vaccinated peo-
ple to return to restaurants, churches
and museums; it could go further and
urge business owners and policymak-
ers to enact different rules for them.
Americans must face the fact that
mass vaccination is not only our best
but also our only viable path out of this
pandemic. This reality can come true;
after all, we have three safe, highly effec-
tive vaccines that are essentially 100%
protective against hospitalization and
death. Public health leaders need to
generate far more excitement around
these vaccines, and that begins with
clear communication about the free-
doms people can have once they are
vaccinated. Waiting for every issue to
be sorted out before publicizing some
guidance just won’t do.
Come on, CDC. Please give Amer-
icans the exhilarating news and the
hope that we’ve been longing for. The
perfect cannot be the enemy of the
good. There is a real cost to continued
inaction.
e e
Leana S. Wen, a Washington Post contributing
columnist, is an emergency physician and visiting
professor at George Washington University
Milken Institute School of Public Health.