A8 The BulleTin • Thursday, april 15, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Clean water for Warm
Springs needs to be in
American Jobs package
R
epair crumbling roads and bridges. Provide resiliency
to prevent blackouts like happened in Texas. Ensure
everyone has access to broadband. Don’t let America fall
behind China.
Those are all reasons that have
been advanced by the Biden admin-
istration for its American Jobs Plan,
the big multitrillion dollar infra-
structure package.
We wondered what might be in
it for Oregon and even more paro-
chial — Central Oregon. Our No. 1
priority: Can we finally get the basic
delivery of clean water secured for
the Warm Springs Reservation?
If specific money for that isn’t in
the final package, there is some-
thing seriously wrong. If clean water
for the reservation isn’t considered
important enough, Oregon Sens.
Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley and Rep.
Cliff Bentz should be ashamed to
vote for the bill, no matter what else
is in there.
We should note Merkley’s of-
fice did send us a general break-
out of Oregon’s needs and how the
American Jobs Plan attempts to
meet them, including in drinking
water. It didn’t get so specific as to
mention the recurring boil water
notices at the Warm Springs In-
dian Reservation. Also, Wyden and
Merkley have not been ignoring the
problem. They have been pushing
for funding for years. Where’s the
money?
When people dream, there are
plenty of other big-ticket infrastruc-
ture projects that they dream about
for Central Oregon. For instance,
millions upon millions would be
needed to complete irrigation pip-
ing projects in the Deschutes Basin.
It’s not mentioned in the Oregon
breakout. Some people have wished
for rerouting the main route of the
railroad around Bend. It probably
doesn’t come as a surprise that is not
mentioned, either, in the Oregon
breakout.
There are two areas that we would
like to single out where Central Or-
egon and Oregon as a state could
significantly benefit: child care and
affordable housing. Both are part of
the American Jobs Plan. Some may
wonder why child care or affordable
housing is wrapped up in an “in-
frastructure” bill. We can think of
few things more vital for a family to
thrive than having access to afford-
able housing and affordable and ex-
cellent child care. It’s not roads and
bridges. It’s no less a needed basic
investment for families.
Child care and affordable hous-
ing are issues across the country.
There are good reasons to believe
the problems are more acute here,
at least according to some analyses.
The key will be in the funding for-
mula. Will Congress allocate any
child care and affordable housing
money based on population? Or
will they try to do it based on need?
We’re not sure what will become
of the American Jobs Plan. It would
seem wiser to us to have more tar-
geted bills addressing more spe-
cific needs. That way members of
Congress would have to vote on the
value of discrete initiatives, rather
than a comprehensive package
where more compromises and deal-
ing is done. Either way, this Con-
gress should ensure Warm Springs
has access to secure, clean drinking
water. It’s ridiculous that in 2021
that continues to be an issue.
Pass Jack Zika’s bill on
child care obstacles
O
regon has more child care is-
sues than can be solved in a
bill. But state Rep. Jack Zika’s
bill, House Bill 3109 takes a good
step forward. And it may pass this
session.
Zika, a Republican from Red-
mond, proposed to limit some of the
obstacles that prevent child care fa-
cilities from operating. His bill pro-
hibits local governments from enact-
ing regulations and fees that make it
harder to use a home for child care.
It also requires child care centers to
be permitted even in commercial
and industrial zones. The bill does
not do anything to eliminate regula-
tions intended to keep children safe
and well cared for.
Katy Brooks, the president and
CEO of the Bend Chamber of Com-
merce, submitted testimony in fa-
vor of the bill. One aspect of this bill
Brooks singled out is that it allows
child care facilities potentially to be
located closer to areas where people
work. That’s an important consider-
ation for families.
Alan Unger, the former mayor of
Redmond and a former Deschutes
County commissioner, recounted
how land use rules made child care
in a home difficult to site. This bill
would clear that up.
The Legislature should pass Zi-
ka’s bill.
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.
GUEST COLUMN
Reasons to oppose the Right to Rest Act
BY SCOTT T. ERWIN
I
am writing this in response to The
Bulletin editorial, “Bill could end
many sweeps of homeless camps”,
dated April 10, regarding House Bill
2367.
I absolutely oppose the
proposed legislation named
“The Right To Rest Act.”
Here is some of the opening
text of the proposed bill:
SECTION 3. (1) The Leg-
islative Assembly finds that:
(a) Many persons in Ore-
Erwin
gon have experienced home-
lessness as a result of economic hard-
ship, a shortage of safe and affordable
housing, the inability to obtain gainful
employment and a disintegrating so-
cial safety net system; and
(b) Decriminalization of rest al-
lows local governments to redirect
resources from local law enforcement
activities to activities that address the
root causes of homelessness and pov-
erty.
Yes, some of the reasons for home-
lessness are stated above, but it blames
the system for the homeless problems
and completely ignores the drug ad-
diction, alcoholism, criminal activity,
mental illness, lack of desire, personal
choice, lack of ability to conform to
social norms, etc., AKA “everyone is a
victim” mentality.
While COVID has been an eco-
nomic hardship for many, this is not
the reason most of the homeless are in
their situation. The economy is pretty
good. Companies are hiring. Restau-
rants and grocery stores, for example,
can’t find enough employees. Disin-
tegrating social safety net programs?
The federal, state and local govern-
ments have never spent so much on
homeless services. Why would some-
one move to an unaffordable
area? Common sense says to
live where rents are less ex-
pensive. Moving to Bend and
complaining about the price
of housing is like moving
next to the airport and then
complaining about the noise.
Here is the part of the leg-
islation that really bothers
me. Under Section 5, the homeless
have the right (e) to occupy a motor
vehicle or a recreational vehicle pro-
vided that the vehicle is legally parked
on public property (our streets) or
on private property with the permis-
sion of the private property owner.
Translation: Anyone can park/camp/
sleep in front of your home and sleep
there overnight. Our neighborhoods
will be filled with junky cars and mo-
tor homes occupied by the homeless.
Homeowners should not have to con-
tend with these ghettos on wheels in
front of their homes, homes that they
have sacrificed for, and pay property
taxes for. It’s beyond absurd.
Going back to the first paragraph,
“Decriminalization of rest allows lo-
cal governments to redirect resources
from local law enforcement activi-
ties to activities that address the root
causes of homelessness and poverty”
— i.e., defund the police. So the local
cities are now suppose to take funds
from the police and solve the root
problems of homelessness! I say to
let the police continue to do the job
for which they were hired. The spon-
sors of this bill should be ashamed of
themselves and then voted out of of-
fice. This would be another giant set-
back for the state of Oregon.
What we really do need are des-
ignated areas to camp/park/sleep so
we can abide by the Boise Ruling that
says you can’t make the homeless
“move along” unless you have a place
for them to go, a place with super-
vised basic services. I would support
a large fenced area with basic services
provided, like bathrooms, showers,
counseling, etc. I’d be happy to pay for
this as a part of my taxes so we can
take our public property back. We
know the homeless need some level of
support and supervision, for whatever
the cause, and this would solve a great
deal of these problems. The churches
and nonprofits can supplement these
services as well.
We do need to provide basic ser-
vices for people that don’t have the
ability to care for themselves or don’t
have the desire to make positive
changes in their lives. What we don’t
need are special privileges for the
homeless giving them the ability to
live in front of our homes and busi-
nesses, albeit temporary. While the
government has a duty to protect all
citizens, it should not done at the ex-
pense of our neighborhoods, public
lands and businesses, and at the same
time superseding the parking laws /
ordinances of our cities.
e e
Scott T. Erwin lives in Redmond.
Letters policy
Guest columns
We welcome your letters. Letters should be limited to one issue,
contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s signa-
ture, phone number and address for verification. We edit letters
for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry,
personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and
those appropriate for other sections of The Bulletin. 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 num-
ber and address for verification. We edit submissions for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those submitted else-
where. Locally submitted columns alternate with national colum-
nists and commentaries. Writers are limited to one letter or guest
column every 30 days. Email:
letters@bendbulletin.com
President Biden offers false hope to sell his Afghanistan surrender
BY ELI LAKE
Bloomberg
President Joe Biden has chosen to
finish what his predecessor started in
Afghanistan and surrender to the Tal-
iban. Unlike former President Donald
Trump, however, Biden may not even
have the so-called peace process in
Afghanistan to point to as an excuse
for abandoning an elected Afghan
government made possible by Ameri-
can blood and treasure.
A day before word of Biden’s deci-
sion to withdraw by Sept. 11 leaked
to the press, the Taliban announced
it will not participate in peace talks in
Turkey. That means the U.S. will be
leaving Afghanistan’s government to
fend for itself in the midst of a civil
war.
This is an ideal opportunity for
a hobbled al-Qaida to rebuild. The
Biden administration doesn’t see it
that way. Speaking to reporters on
Tuesday, a senior administration offi-
cial said the U.S. will still fight al-Qa-
ida even after its forces have left Af-
ghanistan. “We believe that we retain
substantial military and intelligence
capabilities to disrupt the broader
capacity of al-Qaida to successfully
reconstitute the sustained homeland
threat to the United States,” the offi-
cial said.
In practice, that means the Biden
administration expects to base an ar-
senal of drones, sensors and counter-
terrorism personnel in Pakistan, from
where it can launch strikes on al-Qa-
ida in Afghanistan.
This plan depends on a Pakistani
government that has spent most of
the Afghanistan war harboring and
funding the Taliban. This is the same
government that imprisoned the
brave doctor who assisted the CIA in
locating Osama bin Laden in 2011.
Another problem with this strategy
is that the U.S. will lose the human as-
sets necessary to track al-Qaida and
other jihadists in Afghanistan. What
chances are there that Afghans who
oppose al-Qaida will risk their own
lives to aid a superpower that has left
the country to fend for itself against
the Taliban? Fred Kagan, a senior
123RF
Bamyan Valley, Afghanistan.
fellow at the American Enterprise
Institute, who has conducted numer-
ous in-depth military studies of the
U.S. mission in Afghanistan since the
2000s, told me: “The U.S. cannot con-
duct meaningful counterterrorism
operations from hundreds of miles
away over the sovereign territory of
Pakistan against al-Qaida groups.”
The happy talk about being able to
counter al-Qaida once the U.S. leaves
is not the only reality-challenged
promise Biden will make to sell his
Afghanistan surrender. There is also
the fate of Afghan women. A recent
virtual conference on women in Af-
ghanistan featured some of the ac-
tivists included in the Kabul govern-
ment’s negotiation team. They warned
that a withdrawal now would risk two
decades of gains for Afghan women.
It’s easy to see why. If the Taliban
takes over the rest of the country, it
will turn back the clock to the time
before the U.S. invasion. Women will
not be allowed to participate in most
aspects of public life. Girls will not
be allowed to attend schools. Viola-
tors of these dictates will risk prison
or worse. The Biden administration
knows this. The senior official who
briefed reporters said that in the last
20 years, the number of children in
school has gone from fewer than
900,000 in 2001, almost all of them
boys, to 9.2 million today, 3.7 million
of them girls.
Unfortunately the Biden admin-
istration’s plan to protect those gains
relies on sanctions and censure. For
example, the U.S. will withhold diplo-
matic recognition of the Taliban gov-
ernment if it chooses to rule Afghan-
istan the way it runs its shadow state.
It will continue to apply sanctions on
Taliban officials that abuse human
rights. That might work against an ad-
versary that cared about international
recognition or economic growth. But
the Taliban is a violent cult that cares
only about imposing Islamic rule at
any cost.
For more than a decade, the U.S.
has faced a terrible choice in Afghan-
istan: Continue to fight the Taliban
to a stalemate, or leave and watch the
collapse of the elected government
in Kabul. Trump tried to end the Af-
ghanistan war but never did. The only
question for Biden is whether he un-
derstands that his decision amounts
to surrender.
e e
Eli Lake is a Bloomberg columnist.