EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Find ways to
improve Bend’s
downtown
B
end’s downtown hits a sweet spot. Restaurants. Shops.
Energy.
It has weathered the pandemic
about as well as can be expected.
There were losses, and some busi-
nesses suffered mightily. Five busi-
nesses are gone. Seven new ones
are up and running, at least by the
count of the Downtown Bend Busi-
ness Association.
When a downtown has what
Bend’s downtown has, it should not
be taken for granted. It’s like a fire.
It needs to be poked and prodded.
It needs to be fed, or it fades.
Want to keep it special? We need
to look at it and not be satisfied
with how good it is. It could be
better.
Would shutting off Brooks Street
near Franklin Avenue to most
traffic be an improvement? We
think so. Cars don’t need to use
it. You are really not supposed to
drive through there now. A de-
livery schedule could be set. Ac-
commodations could be made for
emergency vehicles. It should be
reinforced as a dedicated walkable
space.
Then there’s Minnesota Avenue
between Bond and Wall. Some
want to turn that into a pedestrian
mall. The Downtown Bend Busi-
ness Association has been meeting
with businesses and property own-
ers about it and made a presenta-
tion to the Bend City Council. It’s
a tantalizing vision. It’s a long way
off. And from the polite reception
it got from councilors, we aren’t re-
ally sure if they will make it much
of a priority. Shouldn’t Bend at least
invest in finding more out?
Then there’s the more mundane.
Why aren’t there any public bath-
rooms downtown?
Yes, there are. Sort of. You could
wander over to City Hall, the
county building, Visit Bend or the
bathrooms in Drake Park. Maybe
soon the bathrooms in the parking
garage will be reopened. They have
been open before only to be closed
again. We’d bet most people rely on
businesses or make a point of going
before they go downtown.
Public restrooms are basically
missing in an area that Bend wants
the public to be. Let’s fix that.
The money to build them might
happen through a new program
through Visit Bend — a sustain-
ability fund. Tourist dollars will
be put to work to create long-term
facilities that will be tourism-re-
lated. It would fill an important
need. Ben Hemson, the city of
Bend’s business advocate, said he
is going to work on an application.
Building them is good. They would
need to be kept not just clean, but
gleaming.
Bend’s downtown is doing fine.
And the city has many pressing
needs. We can’t imagine the public
is going to hound councilors to fur-
ther improve downtown. It takes
leadership and vision to not be sat-
isfied with good and keep pushing
for great. Who on the council is go-
ing to step up?
Historical editorial:
Show off diverse crop
e
Editor’s note: The following historical editorial
originally appeared in what was then called
The Bend Bulletin on July 27, 1906.
T
here are few things of more
value to a new country in
an educational way than a
permanent exhibit of the grains,
grasses, fruits and vegetables that
can be grown in that land. The De-
schutes Country today occupies
the position of a country just being
opened to settlement. There has
been considerable speculation as
to what crops could be grown here
and it has frequently been a surprise
to those visiting this country to ex-
amine its resources, to find such an
excellent showing in grains, grasses
and vegetables. This year the land
is proving it can grow fruit as well.
As the trees, vines and bushes ma-
ture, a large amount of fruit can be
grown. Thus we have the means
from which to make a permanent
and valuable exhibit of what the
Bend country can produce.
Such an exhibit should be col-
lected and placed in some room
of easy access to strangers passing
through town, and in charge of
some competent person. Samples
of crops raised should be solicited
from the farmers in the vicinity,
they should be properly tagged,
with the date of sowing and the
yield per acres noted, together with
any other information of interest.
…
Bend has a commercial club,
whose business it is to see the devel-
opment of this community. Should
not this club take up this matter?
The harvest time is here, the sam-
ples can be easily procured. Let us
have a permanent exhibit.
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
Avoid bias in the media
Why do some writers, including
some writing for publications like The
Economist, worry the press has a left-
wing bias?
Consider this: A front-page head-
line in the Bulletin’s June 11 edition
read “Poll: White extremist views
strong in Oregon.” This headline was
based on a poll, cited on Page A6, in
which 40% of respondents answered
they at least somewhat agreed with the
statement “America must protect and
preserve its White European heritage.”
Suppose the polling statement had
been “America must protect and pre-
serve its Black African heritage,” to
which 40% agreed. Would the head-
line: “Poll: Black extremist views
strong in Oregon,” be journalistically
justifiable? Of course not; an unbiased,
accurate headline for either would be,
“Poll: Oregon values ethnic heritage.”
All polling is unreliable at best and
often mischievous. No doubt some-
one might argue that the article may
have omitted other more tendentious
statements in the poll. Notwithstand-
ing, based on what the paper actually
printed, whoever wrote that headline
either conceded their subliminal bias,
or needs a refresher course in editorial
objectivity.
— Terrence R. Van Oss, Sunriver
Open up Bend City Council meetings
It is far past time for the Bend City
Council to open the council chamber
doors to allow for public observation
and comment. While it was important
to hold council meetings during the
COVID-19 pandemic via Zoom, the
time has come to allow in-person true
public comment. Continuing to hold
Zoom meetings is not consistent with
Oregon laws for public meetings once
the health emergency has been met
with widespread vaccinations.
Very few citizens follow the Zoom
meetings. The Zoom meetings are
very difficult to follow. Any attempt to
follow comments and provide public
comment is extremely difficult.
Please return our public process to
the public. Hold public meetings and
hearings in person.
— Patricia Stell, Bend
Pandemic is not over
The fact that the U.S. just recorded
its 600,000 COVID-19 deaths on Tues-
day is splash of cold water on the faces
of anyone who thinks we are done with
this pandemic. While we should cel-
ebrate the progress, we have made in
such a short amount of time, we should
not forget that the virus is still killing
Americans at a rate roughly five times
higher than the average daily number
of people killed in car crashes. The vi-
rus also is mutating, and new strains
can be more contagious and lead to
more serious health complications. So,
not to be a wet blanket on the hot vax
summer, but we must continue to take
this virus seriously. The safe and ef-
fective vaccines are marvel of modern
biopharmaceutical research. We need
more people to take them, and we need
our federal government to avoid any
temptations to pass policies, like price
setting, that would impede continued
research and medical innovation. Even
if you had COVID-19, the vaccine can
still increase your protection against
variants and the severity of reinfection.
I have days of tremendous oppor-
tunism and pride in how far we have
come. But I still face that my son can-
not yet get vaccinated and that the
virus is spreading among the unvacci-
nated faster than ever. We should feel
good about how far we have come but
should not let this level of continued
death and suffering stand as the finish
line. Let’s keep working together to re-
ally put this pandemic behind us.
— Kim Gammond, Bend
Switch Oregon to more clean energy
As we move into the summer
months, the drought we are experi-
encing here in the West is impossible
to ignore. As a sixth generation Ore-
gonian who grew up on farmland, I
know the terrain of Central Oregon
well, and I can see the drought effects
in full swing. I can see the way-too-
early parched grasses and the abun-
dance of dry dust that I don’t remem-
ber from my childhood.
We are in for what could be an-
other catastrophic wildfire season —
threatening our land, communities
and health. The reckoning of climate
change is here — it should be ac-
knowledged with bipartisan enthusi-
asm to create solutions and fast.
I encourage Oregonians to partici-
pate in the Oregon Clean Energy Op-
portunity, which includes the passing
of three important bills designed to
lessen the climate crisis and better the
lives of our residents. Luckily, House
Bill 2475, The Energy Affordability
Act, has just been passed with biparti-
san support! Only two more to go!
HB 2842, Healthy Homes: Support
home upgrades to help improve the
health of families across Oregon.
HB 2021 100%, Clean Energy for
All: Create good, well-paying, local
jobs in the renewable energy sector
that incentivize local clean energy
projects that are good for communi-
ties and reduce pollution by achieving
100% renewable energy by 2040.
Make a difference by contacting
your legislator and telling them to
vote “yes” on HB 2842 and HB 2021.
Oregon is worth it.
For more information please visit
www.oregoncleanenergy.org.
— Tara Redfield, 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
phone number and address for verifica-
tion. We edit letters for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry,
personal attacks, form letters, letters sub-
mitted 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 and 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. Lo-
cally submitted columns alternate with
national columnists and commentaries.
Writers are limited 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
Even conservative justices found ‘Obamacare’ challenge feeble
BY ILYA SOMIN
Special to The Washington Post
O
n Thursday, the Supreme
Court rejected, in California
v. Texas, a challenge to the Af-
fordable Care Act brought by a coa-
lition of Republican-controlled state
governments. The 7-2 decision is
a notable setback for “Obamacare”
opponents, and another indication
that several of the Supreme Court’s
conservative justices are willing to
rule against conservative Republican
causes.
It also highlights some key weak-
nesses of this particular lawsuit —
weaknesses that led many people who
supported previous legal challenges
to “Obamacare” to oppose this one. I
fall into that category myself, having
supported the original 2012 lawsuits
against the constitutionality of several
parts of the ACA, but largely rejecting
the arguments in this one.
The case was complicated, but
hinged on the infamous mandate re-
quiring most Americans to buy gov-
ernment-approved health insurance.
Originally, the ACA included a fi-
nancial penalty if people failed to buy
such insurance, In its 2012 ruling in
NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court
narrowly rejected a challenge to the
constitutionality of the mandate. In
that case, the government had argued
that it could impose the mandate —
and the related penalty — under the
powers given it by the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution, which
grants Congress the power to regu-
late “commerce … among the several
states.” But Chief Justice John Roberts
Jr.’s controlling opinion in NFIB re-
jected this argument; instead, he ar-
gued, the mandate could be inter-
preted as a tax, thereby saving it from
being ruled unconstitutional.
Then, in December 2017, the then-
GOP-controlled Congress passed a
tax-reform law that eliminated the
financial penalty. The states challeng-
ing the ACA in California v. Texas
argued that a mandate that no longer
raises any money cannot be consid-
ered a tax, and is therefore unconsti-
tutional. Much more controversially,
the states also contended the rest of
“Obamacare” must fall along with the
mandate, because the mandate is such
an important part of the statute that it
cannot be “severed.”
This is where even many people
like myself — those who thought the
mandate should have been ruled un-
constitutional in 2012 — believed the
new argument ran off the rails. I agree
that what’s left of the mandate is un-
constitutional. But it makes no sense
to argue that a now-toothless require-
ment is so essential to the structure of
the ACA that the rest of the act must
fall with it. It especially makes no
sense when you consider Congress’
intent, as the court usually does in
severability cases. If Congress believed
that the mandate was an essential part
of the ACA — to the point that elimi-
nating it would make the law unwork-
able — they would not have zeroed
out the penalty while leaving the rest
of the law untouched.
Somewhat surprisingly, Thurs-
day’s ruling did not directly address
the merits of the case. Instead, it dis-
missed the states’ lawsuit because the
plaintiffs don’t have “standing” —
namely, they didn’t suffer a concrete
injury caused by the action they claim
is illegal.
The states argued that the man-
date imposes expenses on them by
incentivizing some citizens to enroll
in state-run health care programs. But
those burdens weren’t caused by the
individual mandate, Justice Stephen
Breyer argued for the majority. As
Breyer points out, “the States have not
demonstrated that an unenforceable
mandate will cause their residents to
enroll in valuable benefits programs
that they would otherwise forgo.”
There’s a strong argument that
Congress lacks the power to penalize
people for failing to buy health in-
surance, and that even a penalty-less
mandate is unconstitutional. But the
plaintiffs in this case greatly over-
reached in arguing this tiny tail wags
the giant dog of “Obamacare”.
Four conservatives voted with the
three liberals, including newly ap-
pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
It’s yet more evidence — along with
rulings such as the 2020 election case
and Trump-era litigation over sanctu-
ary cities — that conservative judges
are not simply Republican politicians
in robes.
e
Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason
University.