The City of Sisters has a dilemma on its hands.
Its analysis of its street maintenance requirements shows a need for about $140,000 per year in maintenance. The street fund is funded to about $90,000, with additional funds subsidized by transfers from the general fund.
That’s not sustainable over the long haul.
Everybody knows that deferred maintenance creates greater costs in the long run and when it comes to street repairs, the costs accelerate tremendously as road conditions worsen.
So, the city is proposing a 3 cents per gallon gas tax. They figure it would cost the average driver who buys all their gas in Sisters about $21 per year. It’s acting now, because come September there will be a four year moratorium on local fuel taxes.
The idea isn’t real popular among the fuel dealers in Sisters and among some other local folks. They argue that such a tax unfairly burdens five local businesses, making them less competitive with stations in Bend and Redmond (Redmond, too, is reportedly considering a gas tax).
They believe that an extra 3 cents per gallon will lead people to fill up in Bend when they’re running errands in the big town.
The city council says it looked at other funding mechanisms — specifically a utility bill surcharge — but they say it’s too burdensome on city residents and property owners. They say a gas tax is more broadly distributed and captures money from people — outlying residents and tourists — who use city streets but don’t pay city taxes.
This isn’t the best time to add to anyone’s tax burden. But then again, it’s not good stewardship to defer maintenance and incur greater costs down the road.
So, what should the city do? Pass the tax? Wait four years and put it to a vote? Presumably the city would continue to subsidize the street fund out of the general fund for those four years. Should they go ahead with a utility bill surcharge — about $114 per year for each account? Do nothing?
If the answer is “take it from somewhere else in city government,” where should it come from?
We all want our streets to be decent to drive on. How do we pay for them?
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Monday morning quarterbacking from the Oval Office
President Obama was way out of line in Wednesday night’s press conference when he said that Cambridge police “acted stupidly” in arresting Obama’s friend Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for disorderly conduct.
The facts of the case as we know them seem to support the belief that the officer acted according to appropriate protocol. A cop has to be abundantly cautious when responding to a report of a break-in — and Gates forced the front door of his home. Cop didn’t know it was his house.
If the officer was responding to my home he’d have done the same thing. In fact, I’ve been checked out when closing up The Nugget after delivering papers on a dark winter night. I appreciate that the cops are paying attention.
It certainly does not appear to be a “black in America thing.” Whether The officer had to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct or not is questionable, but the man was railing at him loud and long and was warned twice. Again, seems like a behavior thing, not a race thing.
What is really out of line here is the President of the United States weighing in on the issue in a nationally televised press conference. The president should not be second-guessing a local cop in a local matter on national TV, especially in an unfortunately and unnecessarily racially charged incident. Especially when he prefaces his comments by saying he doesn’t have all the facts.
Irresponsible behavior.
If anyone is owed an apology here, it’s Sgt. Jim Crowley, who did his job and now has to deal with second guessing from City Hall and Monday morning quarterbacking from the Oval Office.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The facts of the case as we know them seem to support the belief that the officer acted according to appropriate protocol. A cop has to be abundantly cautious when responding to a report of a break-in — and Gates forced the front door of his home. Cop didn’t know it was his house.
If the officer was responding to my home he’d have done the same thing. In fact, I’ve been checked out when closing up The Nugget after delivering papers on a dark winter night. I appreciate that the cops are paying attention.
It certainly does not appear to be a “black in America thing.” Whether The officer had to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct or not is questionable, but the man was railing at him loud and long and was warned twice. Again, seems like a behavior thing, not a race thing.
What is really out of line here is the President of the United States weighing in on the issue in a nationally televised press conference. The president should not be second-guessing a local cop in a local matter on national TV, especially in an unfortunately and unnecessarily racially charged incident. Especially when he prefaces his comments by saying he doesn’t have all the facts.
Irresponsible behavior.
If anyone is owed an apology here, it’s Sgt. Jim Crowley, who did his job and now has to deal with second guessing from City Hall and Monday morning quarterbacking from the Oval Office.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Spinning health care
Health care is in the hands of politicians and pundits. That means you can’t trust anything you hear. The spin machine, left and right, is in high gear.
I don’t know how best to ensure the best health care for the largest number of people at an acceptable cost. I don’t know that anyone does.
But there are a few things I do know — and I’m sick of hearing these points spun by ideologues who would rather win an argument than get anything done.
• American health care is not very good overall. Yes, we have the best health care in the world — if you can access it; if you can afford it. But overall we spend more than other developed countries for poorer outcomes.
That has to change. How?
• Americans have to change our lifestyles. We’re too fat, our diets are poor and we don’t get enough exercise. We get drunk and high too much and end up in emergency rooms.
Those of us who don’t do all those things — who live active lifestyles and eat well and avoid the pitfalls of drugs and alcohol are subsidizing the rest.
• Medical intervention often comes late and in the most expensive stages of illness. Surgery rather than preventive medicine.
• We spend gobs of money extending people’s lives at the very end of them. When my mother was dying of cancer, she stopped chemotherapy that could have extended her life another six months or a year. Keeping a dying person alive is not the same thing as saving a life. We need to learn the difference.
The crisis in American health care is real — and it’s close to home, if not right on our doorstep or in the living room.
Every year, small businesses like those in Sisters struggle to insure their employees — if they can at all. Every year, they are faced with paying more for less.
It’s not hard to find people right here in Sisters who delay seeing a doctor because they don’t have coverage or their coverage is inadequate. Everyone knows someone who need medical help who has to fight to get it — if they get it at all. People in those straits often get sicker and their care costs more than if they had just been able to see the doctor when they first got sick — or had intervention before a problem turned into a nightmare.
One bugaboo that comes up in any discussion of a public health care option is “rationing” of health care.
We ration health care now. Anyone who has ever dealt with an HMO has experienced rationed health care. Anyone who has delayed seeing a doctor because they can’t afford it has rationed their own health care.
“Some bureaucrat” is managing your health care when your insurance company drops you or doesn’t cover what you thought was covered.
Any health care reform is going to be imperfect. The Obama administration’s current plan has significant flaws and it needs to be rethought. What is needed is a genuine, bipartisan, good faith effort to create a system that controls costs better, covers more people and encourages cultural shifts that empower people to take control of their own health through their lifestyle, and less through the pharmacy and the hospital.
That’s not likely to happen. There’s too much ideological baggage being dragged around in this discussion, too many people with a stake in political success or failure rather than in creation of good public policy.
My bet is that health care reform fails — again — and the status quo continues. And the continued status quo means things get worse.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
I don’t know how best to ensure the best health care for the largest number of people at an acceptable cost. I don’t know that anyone does.
But there are a few things I do know — and I’m sick of hearing these points spun by ideologues who would rather win an argument than get anything done.
• American health care is not very good overall. Yes, we have the best health care in the world — if you can access it; if you can afford it. But overall we spend more than other developed countries for poorer outcomes.
That has to change. How?
• Americans have to change our lifestyles. We’re too fat, our diets are poor and we don’t get enough exercise. We get drunk and high too much and end up in emergency rooms.
Those of us who don’t do all those things — who live active lifestyles and eat well and avoid the pitfalls of drugs and alcohol are subsidizing the rest.
• Medical intervention often comes late and in the most expensive stages of illness. Surgery rather than preventive medicine.
• We spend gobs of money extending people’s lives at the very end of them. When my mother was dying of cancer, she stopped chemotherapy that could have extended her life another six months or a year. Keeping a dying person alive is not the same thing as saving a life. We need to learn the difference.
The crisis in American health care is real — and it’s close to home, if not right on our doorstep or in the living room.
Every year, small businesses like those in Sisters struggle to insure their employees — if they can at all. Every year, they are faced with paying more for less.
It’s not hard to find people right here in Sisters who delay seeing a doctor because they don’t have coverage or their coverage is inadequate. Everyone knows someone who need medical help who has to fight to get it — if they get it at all. People in those straits often get sicker and their care costs more than if they had just been able to see the doctor when they first got sick — or had intervention before a problem turned into a nightmare.
One bugaboo that comes up in any discussion of a public health care option is “rationing” of health care.
We ration health care now. Anyone who has ever dealt with an HMO has experienced rationed health care. Anyone who has delayed seeing a doctor because they can’t afford it has rationed their own health care.
“Some bureaucrat” is managing your health care when your insurance company drops you or doesn’t cover what you thought was covered.
Any health care reform is going to be imperfect. The Obama administration’s current plan has significant flaws and it needs to be rethought. What is needed is a genuine, bipartisan, good faith effort to create a system that controls costs better, covers more people and encourages cultural shifts that empower people to take control of their own health through their lifestyle, and less through the pharmacy and the hospital.
That’s not likely to happen. There’s too much ideological baggage being dragged around in this discussion, too many people with a stake in political success or failure rather than in creation of good public policy.
My bet is that health care reform fails — again — and the status quo continues. And the continued status quo means things get worse.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Home schooling is child abuse? — a Civil War blogger slanders a whole educational movement
Exploring some Civil War blogs, I came upon a pretty bald statement about homeschooling. It gave me pause, because it runs strongly counter to my observations of homeschooled children in Sisters and elsewhere.
Kevin Levin, on his Civil War Memory blog, said:
The real tragedy is to see the children who are the product of homeschooling. Yes, there is evidence to suggest that some homeschooled kids out perform their public school peers, but I’ve taught a number of these kids over the past eight years and it isn’t pretty.
Most of the kids I’ve taught with this background find it very difficult to adjust to a school community. Many haven’t spent enough time learning how to interact with their peers, but the biggest disappointment is to watch them in the classroom.
The kids I’ve taught are very obedient and well-behaved, but try to get them to question what they read or what the teacher says and you will end up pulling your hair out. They were never taught to formulate their own ideas or to see school as an opportunity to develop their own views about things.
It’s very sad. I’ve seen up close what happens to kids who are taught to see US History as “God’s plan”. In a previous comment someone said that it reminds them of child abuse and I couldn’t agree more.
Wow.
He later qualified some of his statements in the face of comments to the contrary, but... wow.
My own impression of homeschooled kids has been overwhelmingly positive. They seem mature and comfortable interacting with adults. Well-behaved, indeed, but not automatons.
The homeschooled kids I know, including a couple of family members, have not had problems adjusting to a school environment — in fact, they seem to continue to excel. They seem to be independent thinkers who know how to find information on their own — and are willing to question it.
In my experience, most homeschoolers — not all — are coming from a Christian perspective and there is some inherent ideological bias. But it is ridiculous to think that there is no ideological bias in public education — or in any group of people talking about ideas and issues. The most ideologically rigid people I've ever encountered were at the "free-thinking" University of California, Santa Cruz.
I don't believe homeschooled kids are any less capable of challenging their own perceptions than public school kids.
Personally, I’ve always believed that most education occurs in the home anyway, whether it’s “homeschool” or not. I didn’t get my passion for history — or much of my education in it — from school. I got it from reading and talking about it with my parents. I learned more about the Civil War from sharing books and discussions (sometimes arguments) with my dad than I did from any classroom, up to and including a university degree in history.
I believe in public education and want to see the best we can get in Sisters. But for those for whom it makes sense to opt out in favor of homeschooling, it seems to work.
I’d be interested in hearing other people’s experience with homeschooling — as participants or critics.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Kevin Levin, on his Civil War Memory blog, said:
The real tragedy is to see the children who are the product of homeschooling. Yes, there is evidence to suggest that some homeschooled kids out perform their public school peers, but I’ve taught a number of these kids over the past eight years and it isn’t pretty.
Most of the kids I’ve taught with this background find it very difficult to adjust to a school community. Many haven’t spent enough time learning how to interact with their peers, but the biggest disappointment is to watch them in the classroom.
The kids I’ve taught are very obedient and well-behaved, but try to get them to question what they read or what the teacher says and you will end up pulling your hair out. They were never taught to formulate their own ideas or to see school as an opportunity to develop their own views about things.
It’s very sad. I’ve seen up close what happens to kids who are taught to see US History as “God’s plan”. In a previous comment someone said that it reminds them of child abuse and I couldn’t agree more.
Wow.
He later qualified some of his statements in the face of comments to the contrary, but... wow.
My own impression of homeschooled kids has been overwhelmingly positive. They seem mature and comfortable interacting with adults. Well-behaved, indeed, but not automatons.
The homeschooled kids I know, including a couple of family members, have not had problems adjusting to a school environment — in fact, they seem to continue to excel. They seem to be independent thinkers who know how to find information on their own — and are willing to question it.
In my experience, most homeschoolers — not all — are coming from a Christian perspective and there is some inherent ideological bias. But it is ridiculous to think that there is no ideological bias in public education — or in any group of people talking about ideas and issues. The most ideologically rigid people I've ever encountered were at the "free-thinking" University of California, Santa Cruz.
I don't believe homeschooled kids are any less capable of challenging their own perceptions than public school kids.
Personally, I’ve always believed that most education occurs in the home anyway, whether it’s “homeschool” or not. I didn’t get my passion for history — or much of my education in it — from school. I got it from reading and talking about it with my parents. I learned more about the Civil War from sharing books and discussions (sometimes arguments) with my dad than I did from any classroom, up to and including a university degree in history.
I believe in public education and want to see the best we can get in Sisters. But for those for whom it makes sense to opt out in favor of homeschooling, it seems to work.
I’d be interested in hearing other people’s experience with homeschooling — as participants or critics.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Golden Age
I love the ’30s.
It was, in so many ways a terrible time. The rise of fascism and National Socialism, Stalin’s purges, the Great Depression. W.H. Auden called it a “low, dishonest decade” and there’s no arguing with that. So what’s to love?
Man, they had had style.
Men dressed — including the omnipresent fedora. None of this going out to dinner in a tank top and flip flops. Women went for whatever glamour they could afford and their style has never been matched.
Has there ever been a meaner piece of machinery than a Thompson submachine-gun? And the pistol hit the extent of its necessary development with the Colt 1911 .45 automatic — it’s all decadence from there.
A big American car in basic black — what else could you possibly desire?
People traveled on trains and there are no more romantic words than “the night train to...”
American music was going through one of its periods of massive creativity, with the jazz age effortlessly moving into the age of swing, and the movies were entering a golden era. Hemingway was at the peak of his powers, with no signs of his decline into a drunken parody of himself.
Michael Mann’s vision of the 1930s comes alive on the screen in “Public Enemies.” Maybe it’s weird to feel nostalgic for times long gone before your own, but it’s not an uncommon malady among history geeks.
All I know is that I sat in front of the Sisters Movie House screen last night and wished I could crawl right through it and straight into 1933, hard times and all.
See a review of "Public Enemies" at http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=65&SubSectionID=105&ArticleID=16034&TM=65500.79.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
It was, in so many ways a terrible time. The rise of fascism and National Socialism, Stalin’s purges, the Great Depression. W.H. Auden called it a “low, dishonest decade” and there’s no arguing with that. So what’s to love?
Man, they had had style.
Men dressed — including the omnipresent fedora. None of this going out to dinner in a tank top and flip flops. Women went for whatever glamour they could afford and their style has never been matched.
Has there ever been a meaner piece of machinery than a Thompson submachine-gun? And the pistol hit the extent of its necessary development with the Colt 1911 .45 automatic — it’s all decadence from there.
A big American car in basic black — what else could you possibly desire?
People traveled on trains and there are no more romantic words than “the night train to...”
American music was going through one of its periods of massive creativity, with the jazz age effortlessly moving into the age of swing, and the movies were entering a golden era. Hemingway was at the peak of his powers, with no signs of his decline into a drunken parody of himself.
Michael Mann’s vision of the 1930s comes alive on the screen in “Public Enemies.” Maybe it’s weird to feel nostalgic for times long gone before your own, but it’s not an uncommon malady among history geeks.
All I know is that I sat in front of the Sisters Movie House screen last night and wished I could crawl right through it and straight into 1933, hard times and all.
See a review of "Public Enemies" at http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=65&SubSectionID=105&ArticleID=16034&TM=65500.79.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
