Author: North Coast BBQ

Showing Who We Are

During this election season, I’ve met with all three of the candidates for council, and not one of them is a serial killer or abuses small animals or steals from their grandma…that I know of. I bet they all recycle, pay their taxes, love their friends and families and return library books on time.

What’s most important to me in choosing who to vote for isn’t the candidate’s niceness to their friends or their history of volunteerism for any of the very worthy organizations that exist in our town.

It’s way more important to me that in a town that has seen so much division, name calling and hate speech between neighbors, that the candidates we elect are respectful of others and thoughtful in their responses. Especially to those folks with whom they don’t agree and don’t even like. A lot of that vitriolic discourse has happened on community social media spaces like BBQ–which everyone can read and North County News Facebook, which only people with Facebook accounts can read.

The on-line yelling back and forth between people is troubling. A lot of the fighting is about perceived past wrongs. None of it will ever be resolved in a public forum, but I don’t think resolution is what people are always after. Like Tu Pac and Notorious B.I.G. used to say, “Haters gonna hate.”

My mom called it airing your dirties in public–not a good look for anybody. Blaming and shaming doesn’t heal what hurts you, and doing it in a public forum just spreads the hurt to other people. We all choose a side. We start to think in camps–we like some people and decide not to like others because they’re friends with somebody we decided not to like. Does this remind anyone else of 7th grade?

As the election season draws to a close, I want to remember that this will be over soon. Whoever wins will need to be able to bring people together. This will be difficult for anyone with a history of serious long-standing beefs with members of the community and connections to some of the loudest haters.

People can change, and they do, but this kind of change isn’t quick. It takes awhile of living the change before others can see it. Like they say, you might be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with you. I think that’s true for our little town.

How people treat the people they love and care about is one thing, but to me, it’s how we treat people we don’t like that matters most. That, to me, is the measure of a good leader and a good person–how they treat the most disagreeable among us.

I want a council that can listen to and works with people of different perspectives, opinions and backgrounds. I want a council that can build consensus and moves things forward for the good of all of us. We can’t do that if we’re playing on any team other than Team Manzanita.

I want elected leaders who respect all the people in town regardless of whether they agree with them, or like them or not. I want people who play fair and aren’t driven to write and post the first thing they think of when they disagree with someone on the community websites. In fact, if I had my way, I’d like us all to get offline and get in person.

There’s the gossip and the conspiracies and way too much time spent on websites that provide a space to say the stuff to a screen that you wouldn’t dream of saying to a face.

People show us who they are. We all do every day and every moment of our lives. To me, the way we treat those we don’t like or agree with matters way more than how many hours we volunteer or how we treat our friends. You can’t volunteer away name-calling, misrepresenting issues you don’t agree with or shutting down comments with sarcasm and shame. You also can’t pretend like that past is gone without doing the work to make amends.

I’ve faced a dilemma in writing about this. I believe all three candidates are nice people. I believe all three are invested in the community. And I believe that to move forward, we need a council that comes without baggage from the past. And that’s another reason I’m voting for Brad Mayerle.

Kim Rosenberg
loretta.kim.rosenberg@gmail.com

The Wheeler Vision recommends continual review, evaluation and updates to current city policies and ordinances, to manage and control growth.

The 24-foot height limit is in the City of Wheeler Zoning Ordinance. The Vision recommends that any variance of the 24-foot height be approved only after a strict procedure is followed, insuring that community priorities receive precedence. There is not, nor has there ever been, a limit of ten units. The interpretations of ordinance 2012-06 state that large-scale developments over ten units be subject to clear and objective design standards.

In early 2013, the planning commission reviewed this requirement and determined that Wheeler Zoning Ordinance section 11.050 Design Review meets the clear-and-objective requirement, by stating, “1) All commercial and industrial development in any zone, any multifamily dwelling in any zone, is subject to design review by the planning commission.” Therefore, no additional language in the zoning ordinance was required, with which the majority of city council agreed.

If advocates for the Vision do not feel that the zoning ordinances support the Vision, they should recommend updates, as outlined in the Vision.

What updates would be required?
Would updates apply to all zones?

Wilde, a Democrat, represents House District 11-Central Lane and Linn counties in the Oregon Legislature.

Last summer, I left the House Democratic Caucus, the body of Democratic lawmakers that sets our legislative priorities and strategy. I could not continue to participate in a caucus that had stopped acting democratically. We had failed to set a positive example of transparency and engagement and stopped supporting laws that returned power to the people we represent. Instead, we let our partisan desire to maintain power override our duty to the people. We owe Oregonians transparency, accountability and support for their role in their own governance.

Since I joined the caucus in 2019 as a freshman legislator, it has become less and less democratic. My fellow Democratic lawmakers and I met privately each day during the legislative session. We debated proposals like the Student Success Act and public pension reform, and we did not even inform the public about the topics of our discussions and preemptive decisions. Our caucus expectation was that we would lock down support for every House election for speaker and speaker pro tem, the House rules, and every procedural vote, whether it was in the people’s interest or not.

Over time, we even stopped debating the issues, as caucuses became a forum for leadership to give orders to ensure the Democratic agenda prevailed over the Republicans’ agenda, regardless of whether it was in the public interest. For instance, the former speaker did not consult with the caucus before making, or breaking, her deal with Republicans on redistricting. Perhaps worst of all, leadership positions were filled based on success in fundraising, not merit or expertise. The House Democratic leaders even stopped telling the caucus members about their discussions. In effect, the content and direction of legislation for all of Oregon was decided by a group of 10 or fewer people picked by their ability to raise money, in secret.
We also stopped supporting democratic ideas. After 78% of voters approved campaign finance reform, we failed to pass a bill to implement it. We acquiesced in the blatant gerrymandering of legislative districts by the Oregon Senate. We did nothing to engage non-affiliated voters in primary elections. Campaign finance reform, nonpartisan redistricting and broader voter engagement in the primaries enjoy broad support in the electorate, but we refused to support them.

We stopped exercising meaningful oversight of the executive branch as well. A House proposal to add impeachment of executive officers to the Oregon Constitution passed in 2015 by a vote of 47-12. This year, it failed even to come to the floor, despite the current House speaker’s vote for it in 2015. The caucus wouldn’t even allow debate on whether to refer it to voters, despite overwhelming public support for the concept. I could not remain in a caucus that had stopped acting democratically.

We owe it to Oregonians to do better. I know our new speaker, Rep. Dan Rayfield of Corvallis, supports a more democratic approach, as he has supported bills for campaign finance reform and ranked-choice voting in the past. Unfortunately, he has yet to give his values expression through democratic processes.