The BulleTin • SaTurday, May 29, 2021 B5
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Oregon needs
to fund worker
training
O
regon doesn’t need less money to train workers to get
better jobs. It needs more.
Jobs don’t solve all the state’s prob-
lems. But not being able to find a
good job or not being able to find a
worker who has the skills to do a job
creates problems of their own.
So why does Oregon give worker
training short shrift?
Look at what happened to the
money. General fund investment in
worker training from the state has
dropped. For the 2015-17 biennium,
it was $9 million. It’s fallen since
then by 10% or more. Coming out
of a pandemic, do you think Oregon
needs less money to help workers
find jobs? It’s set to be less.
Money is a tangible indicator.
There are more subtle ones. You
can’t read too much into how Or-
egon’s Joint Committee on Educa-
tion has witnesses sign up to testify.
But consider this, earlier this month
Heather Ficht, the executive director
of East Cascades Works, and Roger
Lee, the CEO of Economic Devel-
opment of Central Oregon, went
to testify about the importance of
funding for worker training. There
were specific categories to sign up to
speak for public universities, com-
munity colleges and financial assis-
tance. Nothing for worker training.
It was “other.”
Ficht’s nonprofit coordinates
state and federal funding to help get
training for workers and work with
employers to try to match workers
to their needs. It’s located in Bend
and serves 10 counties east of the
Cascades.
There are plenty of people in the
region who have a high school di-
ploma and can pass a drug test. They
need a bit more training to get a
good job. Employers can sometimes
afford to provide that training on the
job. Ficht’s nonprofit can leverage
state and federal dollars to provide
some training or help subsidize on-
the-job training.
That’s a win for workers. It’s a win
for employers. It’s a win for Oregon.
The outlook for worker training
in Oregon is not all discouraging.
House Bill 2820 would create a pi-
lot program for 1,000 low-income
job seekers who live in areas of pov-
erty. There would be career coach-
ing, occupational training and job
placement services. That could turn
around people’s lives. It’s a pilot pro-
gram. If it doesn’t have good results,
the state could bring it to a halt. Isn’t
that the kind of program Oregon
should be considering now that the
state budget is bulging with billions
more? But the bill is just sitting in
committee.
Another encouraging prospect
for worker training is money from
the American Rescue Plan Act. The
state, counties and cities are all de-
ciding how to allocate their money.
For instance, Bend city councilors
have discussed using some of the
city’s money to go toward worker
training. In initial discussions, coun-
cilors seemed much more likely to
focus on housing rather than work-
force training. We understand that.
Empowering workers to get train-
ing and get better jobs does mean,
though, that they will be more likely
to afford housing.
Historical editorial:
Keep the water pure
e e
Editor’s note: The following historical editorial
originally appeared in what was then called
The Bend Bulletin on June 29, 1906.
D
r. U. C. Coe’s timely arti-
cle elsewhere in this issue,
in which he ably urges the
importance of a pure water supply,
should receive careful consideration
of all settlers in the Deschutes valley.
While this fertile valley is remark-
ably free from disease and is blessed
with a healthful, invigorating climate
and an excellent water supply, yet
there are a few simple rules that all
should observe that the danger of
disease may be reduced to the lowest
possible minimum. As the doctor
states, there are few sources so pro-
lific with disease as drinking water
that is in any way contaminated.
While water drawn directly from
the river contains but a small per-
cent of impure matter, yet at certain
times of the year, especially during
hot weather, there is a slight dan-
ger from river water. This danger is
much greater when ditch water is
used and settlers who are dependent
on drinking water on this source
should read carefully the doctor’s
statements and profit thereby.
His suggestion regarding the need
of some permanent organization to
keep uncontaminated the water of
the river, touches a matter of great
importance to the health of those
living in the region. Some action
should at once be taken that will lead
to permanent results.
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.
Remote work will not kill big cities
BY PETE SAUNDERS
Bloomberg
W
ith COVID-19 cases trend-
ing downward across the
U.S., it’s getting easier to say
the worst of the pandemic is behind us.
Meanwhile, predictions that the pan-
demic will change our way of living
forever are getting louder.
Not surprisingly, many prognosti-
cators see big cities such as New York
and San Francisco declining, as urban-
ites tired of being cooped up in their
tiny apartments decamp for the space
and greenery of the suburbs or small
towns. Others insist metropolises are
poised to bounce back after a tempo-
rary exodus of workers.
I find the optimists more convinc-
ing. There will be — there are al-
ready — short-term impacts to urban
growth. But the pandemic is unlikely
to lead to a new and permanent ad-
vantage favoring suburbia, or the sin-
gle-family home, or small or midsized
cities.
History bears this out. The 1918
“Spanish Flu” infected more than
500 million people, about a third of
the world’s population at the time.
Somewhere between 17 million and
50 million people died from the vi-
rus globally. In the U.S. alone, roughly
30 million of the nation’s 105 million
people were infected, and somewhere
between 500,000 and 800,000 of them
died.
Yet, despite such widespread dev-
astation, the pandemic had little long-
term impact on how people lived in
the U.S. It did not trigger a widespread
shift in lifestyle or land use. Cities con-
tinued to boom because that’s where
jobs were created.
While many of those who had the
means did move to railroad or street-
car suburbs on the urban periphery,
cities continued to grow rapidly for an-
other 30 years, through the Depression
and Second World War. Suburbs began
their explosive growth only after fed-
eral policies such as the U.S. Housing
Acts of 1934 and 1949, the G.I. Bill and
the Interstate Highway Act subsidized
suburban development at the expense
of urban redevelopment. Later, the
three “A’s” — air conditioning, afford-
ability and anti-union sentiment —
drove growth in the Sun Belt.
During this pandemic, too, many
relatively wealthy citydwellers sought
safe haven outside of cities. In May
2020, the New York Times published
a graphic showing where New Yorkers
who fled the city during its initial out-
break eventually landed. Most headed
to second homes in the Hamptons or
southern Florida.
If they haven’t already, though, most
of them are likely to return when their
offices reopen. The same goes for less
affluent residents who left New York
for their hometowns, often to live with
parents.
As for longer-term trends, sin-
gle-family homes were growing in
popularity even before the pandemic.
It’s unclear whether rising house prices
have more to do with families look-
ing for space or with changing demo-
graphics, as millennials approach mid-
dle age and their child-raising years.
The big question mark is remote
work. In theory, if people can work
from anywhere, they can choose to live
anywhere, leaving congested and over-
priced cities behind.
I’d argue, however, that even those
who have left big cities for smaller and
cheaper ones will soon return or be re-
placed. If there’s anything we’ve learned
over the last 30 years of urban re-
bound, it’s that cities have one huge ad-
vantage over suburbs and small towns:
the experiences they can offer.
Pandemic or not, humans are social
creatures. There was a time when cit-
ies tried to compete with suburbs by
imitating them. They used federal ur-
ban renewal funding in the 1960s and
1970s to dismantle urban neighbor-
hoods and build malls and pedestrian
shopping areas.
The strategy rarely worked. The ho-
mogeneity and stultifying conformity
of postwar suburbia weren’t any more
appealing within city limits than they
were outside them.
Modern cities really began to pros-
per when they doubled down on what
made them different from suburbs.
They developed and maximized the
wealth of commercial, social and cul-
tural amenities they offered. Entertain-
ment, arts and cultural institutions,
bars and restaurants, beautifully main-
tained parks — cities simply have more
of these than smaller or less dense
places, all located within a stimulating,
mixed-use environment.
If anything, this desire for experi-
ences is only set to grow after more
than a year of self-enforced isolation.
Even a new era of working from home
could benefit cities. While some down-
town office towers may empty out,
they could be remade into more livable
spaces — mixed-use structures with
apartments as well as shops, restau-
rants and offices.
That kind of adaptation could bring
more people into even closer proxim-
ity to the amenities and experiences
they want, while adding to the housing
stock in ways that make big U.S. cities
much more affordable. Rather than
victims of the pandemic, cities might
just be among its biggest beneficiaries.
e e
Pete Saunders is the community and economic
development director for the village of Richton
Park, Illinois, and an urban planning consultant.
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
How would things change if COVID-19 killed more children?
BY KATE COHEN
The Washington Post
W
hat if COVID-19 had killed
more children?
That’s what I was think-
ing when my husband and I accom-
panied our 15-year-old to get her first
dose of the vaccine.
The last of our three children was
finally getting vaccinated, but the
moment felt more ceremonial than
emotional. She would be freed from
restrictions and anxiety, not from a
great mortal threat.
My daughter had been strict about
the rules, but more to avoid spread-
ing COVID-19 than to avoid get-
ting sick from it. Given the data,
she was right. U.S. children have
accounted for only 1% to 3% of
reported COVID-19 hospitaliza-
tions and 0% to 0.2% of COVID-19
deaths. COVID-19 has so far killed
355 Americans 18 and younger,
compared with more than 450,000
people 65 and older. Even if my
daughter had gotten COVID-19, the
chance that it would have killed her
was somewhere between none and
infinitesimal.
What would it have felt like if in-
stead we had spent a year fearing for
her life?
Intellectually, I reject the idea that
children are more precious than
adults. Politically, I object to the use
of children as rhetorical tools. But
emotionally? If I had thought my kids
were at substantial and lethal risk
from COVID-19, I would have spent
the past year terrified. Not bored,
confused and vaguely anxious — ter-
rified.
Even the fear I felt for my own par-
ents’ safety wasn’t the gut-twisting ter-
ror I would have felt at the prospect of
my children’s death. Sorry, folks!
But it’s true, and they know it, be-
cause they were children in the polio
era.
My parents were 7 in 1952, when
the polio epidemic reached its peak,
infecting nearly 58,000 Americans, in-
cluding one of my father’s sisters. She
was 4 years old. She was bedridden for
a year, then went on to a wheelchair,
then crutches, then a lifetime of mod-
erate disability.
Pre-vaccine polio wasn’t usually
fatal; it killed fewer than 2,000 Amer-
icans a year. But polio targeted chil-
dren, so much so that it’s known as
“infantile paralysis.”
In Montgomery, Alabama, where
my father grew up, the news reported
the polio case counts and deaths. It
listed canceled camps and Sunday
schools; it noted diminished atten-
dance at sporting events. It also fea-
tured copious ads for polio insurance
and one that even pitched a new tele-
vision set as a weapon against disease:
“FIGHT POLIO. Keep Your Children
at home and entertained.”
The mix of dark facts and light fea-
tures, plus the unseemly flourishing of
pandemic capitalism — it was just like
now in many ways.
But one story feels very different. In
late June 1953, Montgomery County
undertook a mass inoculation cam-
paign — not with the Salk vaccine,
which was still two years from general
use, but with gamma globulin, a sub-
stance made from blood plasma that
was thought to confer some tempo-
rary protection against polio.
In four days, 800 volunteers inoc-
ulated 32,948 children. Dr. Daniel
G. Gill, the state health officer of Al-
abama, later wrote, “We believe that
the coverage approached 100 percent.”
With almost no notice, every sin-
gle child under 10 was taken to the
correct place on the correct day for a
treatment that, as the Montgomery
Advertiser explained in a front-page
Q&A, didn’t always work but “may
provide some protection against pa-
ralysis.”
Question 5: “Is GG a cure for po-
lio?” Answer: “No.” And still, 100%
participation.
So far that year, just 81 Montgom-
ery County residents had contracted
polio, and three children had died.
And still, 100% participation.
Today — with more than 575,000
Americans dead — there are vaccine
resisters and anti-maskers and politi-
cians who egg them on. That’s already
incredible. But if COVID-19 victims
were mostly children? It would be in-
conceivable.
That vaccine hesitancy will kill peo-
ple. Not masking up has killed people.
I don’t wish I had spent a year in fear
for my children’s lives, but I do see
that our relative lack of concern for
older people helps fuel this epidemic.
In other words, if more children
had gotten sick, fewer Americans
would have died.
e e
Kate Cohen, a Washington Post contributing
columnist, is a writer from Albany, New York.