Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Bulletin. (Bend, OR) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (April 29, 2021)
A8 The BulleTin • Thursday, april 29, 2021 EDITORIALS & OPINIONS AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Heidi Wright Gerry O’Brien Richard Coe Publisher Editor Editorial Page Editor What to expect if Bend minuses the minimums B uffalo, New York, dramatically rewrote its development DNA in 2017. The city transformed its zoning code after more than 242 public meetings. Included in that change, the city repealed minimum parking requirements. Bend is not Buffalo, but there are some things Bend may learn from Buffalo as Bend councilors consider eliminating or reducing parking minimums in Bend. Bend has requirements now that dictate the number of off-street parking spaces for homes, apart- ments and businesses. The city has already reduced parking require- ments in Bend’s Central District, which is the area near the Bend Parkway and downtown. For in- stance, it exempted any parking requirements for the first 10,000 square feet of a building’s footprint. We looked at Buffalo not because it’s an ideal parallel for Bend. There has been, though, a more formal- ized analysis of the impact of elim- inating parking minimums there. One confounding factor to remem- ber is Buffalo did not just eliminate parking minimums. It made many other zoning changes. One exam- ple: It added some bicycle parking minimums. The study we looked at — “Minus Minimums” — was by two profes- sors of planning at the University of Buffalo. They do seem to look op- timistically at the idea of reducing parking minimums. The study ana- lyzed 36 more major developments in the first two years after the park- ing minimums were eliminated. You can read it yourself at tinyurl.com/ Buffalominimum. Before the new Buffalo policy be- came law, the response to the idea had some of the same flavors that people have expressed in Bend. Some worried about not being able to find parking. Some developers believed that the requirements were getting in the way of developments. Well, the sky did not fall — to paraphrase a city of Buffalo offi- cial. Parking lots did not disappear from buildings. There were notable changes. Almost half of the developments included fewer parking spaces than were previously allowed. Mixed-use developments — such as housing and businesses in the same build- ing — had 53% fewer parking spaces than would have been required un- der the old rules. Some buildings continued to exceed the previous minimum parking requirements, such as those built only for housing. The study did not apparently inter- view developers to find out why they did what they did. It just looked at what they did. Bend City Councilor Melanie Ke- bler has been the driving force to change parking minimums. And as she told The Bulletin’s community editorial board this week, she hopes reducing parking minimums might help free up more space for building and that might help keep Bend more affordable or less unaffordable. It would also likely make a community denser and that in turn, could make public transportation make more sense. And that may mean people have less need for a car. The study of Buffalo didn’t con- firm all those changes. It didn’t at- tempt to. It would also be wrong to assume the same sorts of thing the study found would happen in Bend. It would be a good guess to as- sume some developers will build much less parking, some will build about the same, finding parking will be more challenging and Bend will become more densely populated. For some, perhaps, the sky will fall. For others, Bend will have taken a smart step for its future. Money adds up in school board race W e don’t have much to say about the campaign fi- nances in the races for the Bend-La Pine Schools. But because some of the candidates have not been speaking with The Bulletin in any detail we thought we should take a look. Most interesting maybe is what has been reported so far in the cam- paign finance disclosures in the race between incumbent Carrie McPherson Douglass and her chal- lenger Maria Lopez-Dauenhauer. Both these candidates have spoken to a Bulletin reporter. McPherson Douglass began the year with about $4,000 left from her last run for office. That was from multiple donations of a number of people. There hasn’t been that much activity this year, except there was a $500 contribution from the Demo- cratic Party of Oregon. The school board is officially a nonpartisan of- fice, though political parties can try to influence the election. Lopez-Dauenhauer had to- tal contributions of more than $26,000 from a single member of her immediate family. (Full disclo- sure: A hefty chunk went for ads in The Bulletin.) Running a city- wide campaign does take money. And it is challenging taking on an incumbent. You can check out any campaign finances you are interested in by go- ing to the Secretary of State’s website and clicking on what is called Ore- star. Here’s a shortcut: tinyurl.com/ Orestarcash. 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. Letters policy We welcome your letters. Letters should be limited to one issue, contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s signature, phone num- ber 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 appro- priate for other sections of The Bulle- tin. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted columns alternate with national columnists and commentaries. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. How to submit Please address your submission to either My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Col- umn and mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email submissions are pre- ferred. Guest columns Email: letters@bendbulletin.com 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 Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Col- umn P.O. Box 6020 Bend, OR 97708 Fax: 541-385-5804 Census is bad news for progressive policy BY HENRY OLSEN Special to The Washington Post T he release of the 2020 Census on Monday did more than show how political power in the next decade will flow a bit toward Repub- lican-controlled states. It also showed why full-bore progressive economic policy is unlikely to become the new orthodoxy anytime soon. This year’s census data continues a decades-long trend of a migration of people — and thus political power — away from the Northeast and Midwest and toward the South and some West- ern states. This year’s changes in reap- portionment — seven states will lose one House seat each; five will gain one, and Texas will gain two — are actually smaller than in previous years. Indeed, this seven-seat shift was the smallest following any census since the current formula for allocating House seats was adopted in 1941. That’s small comfort to Democrats in the short term. The changes result in a three-seat shift away from states carried by Joe Biden. In an extremely tight race, those three seats — which translate to three electoral college votes — could be the difference between a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. This transfer will also slightly improve the GOP’s chances of retaking House control in 2022. Elec- tion analyst Kyle Kondik of Sabato’s Crystal Ball estimates that Republicans will gain a net two House seats sim- ply because of reapportionment. Since they start only five seats down, that small advantage could be decisive. The longer-term trends should worry Democrats more. Since 1960, states in the Midwest or Northeast have lost 66 House seats. Forty-seven of those seats came from states Biden carried while 19 came from Trump states. States, mainly in the South or West, that received the lion’s share of these people tend to have much lower taxes and less business regulation than do the states they left. Thirty-seven of those 66 seats went to states without an income tax, while another 12 went to states whose combined state and lo- cal tax burdens ranked among the 10 lowest. Even outlier states that have gained seats, such as California, Colorado and Oregon, stand out as cautionary tales. Oregon has no state sales tax, and Col- orado is ranked 34th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in its tax burden. Biden carried Colorado by 13.5 points in 2020, but those same people also voted to cut the state’s flat income tax in a ballot measure. Cali- fornia, meanwhile, lost a congressional seat this census for the first time since it joined the Union in 1850. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are leaving the state each year, mainly from the high-cost regions of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area, to move to other states. Even those who stay don’t always vote for progressive policies, as evidenced by the defeat last year of a ballot initiative that would have raised property taxes on business. People have been voting with their feet for 60 years, and the verdict is clear: People prefer economic policies that generate growth and jobs without increasing taxes. Yet the Biden admin- istration is proposing a raft of poli- cies that will massively increase gov- ernment spending while increasing taxes on businesses of all stripes and families who make $400,000 or more. And that doesn’t account for the eco- nomic effects of Biden’s climate poli- cies, which are sure to harm millions of Americans whose livelihoods rely on the production or extensive use of fossil fuels. None of this means that Americans favor libertarian, small government economics. States that are destinations for migration spend a lot to support an extensive array of public services. But they don’t embrace the Northeast and California models of hiking spending in good years and raising taxes during downturns. Instead, they employ a prudent, centrist approach of invest- ing in sound government programs and cutting taxes on the margin. Biden seemed to campaign as a person who would pursue prudent centrism, but instead he is governing like a governor of a deep blue state from which many of these voters fled. Demography is not destiny, but facts don’t lie either. The same Amer- icans whose migration is making his- torically Republican states toss-ups also favor economic policies that are significantly to the right of progressive orthodoxy. This fact creates a real di- lemma for Biden and the Democrats. Trying to capture these more cen- trist voters could create an intraparty civil war, as progressives already un- happy with the slow state of change might erupt. But ignoring those voters risks the real possibility of a rapid Re- publican comeback — provided that the GOP avoids the Donald Trump- era image of an intolerant, nativist party. Perhaps that is why Democrats are doubling down on their divisive tactics to portray the Republican Party as racist and sexist. That might be good for Democrats, but it’s not good for America. Every 10 years the census shows us Americans’ revealed preferences as they vote with their feet. Maybe this time, those in power will listen. e e Henry Olsen is a Washington Post columnist and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Cheerleader speech case puts liberals in bind BY NOAH FELDMAN Bloomberg “C heerleader” and “Supreme Court” are not concepts you often see juxtaposed. But they are now, as Supreme Court considers the case of Brandi Levy, who was punished by her school for a profane Snapchat post. The facts of Levy’s case, Mahanoy School District v. B.L., are simple. In the spring of 2017, Levy, then 14, tried out for the varsity cheer squad at Mahanoy Area High School, but only managed to make the JV team. She expressed her reaction on Snap- chat in a post that read “F- — school f- — softball f- — cheer f- — every- thing.” (Our version is expurgated; hers was not.) The post went up on a Saturday, reached some 250 of her friends and, like all other posts to the social media platform, disappeared after 24 hours. Nevertheless, a class- mate showed a screenshot to her mother, who happened to be one of the cheer coaches. The coaches disciplined Levy by suspending her from the team for a year. She had broken two team rules, they said. One prohibited “foul lan- guage” — although only at “games, fundraisers, and other events.” The other said that “there will be no tol- eration of any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches placed on the internet.” For good measure, the school dis- trict said she’d also violated school rules stating that members of teams must “conduct themselves in such a way that the image of the Mahanoy School District would not be tar- nished in any manner.” What is most significant legally about Levy’s case is that she was pun- ished for conduct that took place outside of school. In the landmark 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines In- dependent School District, the Su- preme Court held that kids have First Amendment rights in public schools, provided their speech doesn’t disrupt classwork or invade the rights of oth- ers. But the Supreme Court has never said whether speech outside of school can be regulated by administrators. Obviously, the stakes are huge — especially in the era of social media, when conversations in school are in- extricably intertwined with what hap- pens online outside of school hours. If kids can’t be disciplined for what they say outside of the school, admin- istrators may feel that they have no meaningful control over students and can’t stop bullying or harassment. Yet if schools can discipline stu- dents for what they say online, then the public schools, which are arms of the state, could easily become the speech police for everyone who at- tends U.S. public schools, which is the overwhelming majority of kids and teens. The school rules that applied to Levy go pretty far in limiting free expression. Read closely, they might prohibit any meaningful criticism of teams or coaches. And the school is ultimately the judge of which student speech “tarnishes” the school’s image, which would certainly seem to chill many forms of legitimate criticism. In the absence of direct Supreme Court guidance, the lower federal courts have mostly tried to carve out a compromise position: that schools may discipline off-campus speech when it has a “close nexus to the school environment.” Measured by that test, the Mahanoy rules would likely be allowed. But the majority of the panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that heard the case ruled that the school cannot disci- pline speech that was off-campus un- less it was reasonably interpreted as bearing the imprimatur of the school. That led the school district to seek re- view by the Supreme Court. Where you come down on this case says a lot about your free-speech instincts. The ACLU, which represents Levy, is arguing for near-absolute protec- tion for off-campus speech, because it deeply distrusts the government as the regulator of our communications. Lots of conservative organizations find themselves aligned with the ACLU on this one. Regardless of the outcome, Levy’s case will set a benchmark for how schools may regulate students’ social media use. From a parent’s perspec- tive, it’s hard to think of many sub- jects more immediately relevant. e e Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg columnist and host of the podcast “Deep Background.” He is a professor of law at Harvard University.