Public Square welcomes all points of view. Published submissions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Keizertimes.
One governor at a time
By GENE H. McINTYRE
Sad and disappointing is the ongoing tale of two Oregon governors, one selected by state voters, Governor Tina Kotek, one not, her wife, Aimee Kotek Wilson. Apparently, both are sharing at governing Oregon’s gubernatorial duties, an arrangement not seen here in several years, having once before ended former Governor John Kitzhaber’s tenure in the office whose early departure was assisted by then state office holder, Tina Kotek.
Why Tina Kotek could not share with voters her plan to place her wife in a co-governing position before the election is the subject of guess work at this point while a related question of ethics seems appropriate. Such an arrangement has never been tolerated in Oregon and now casts a dark cloud over the current administration.
Perhaps making the matter worse, the co-governor situation has been reported to have ‘put the screws to’ a least one state organization that has been, it’s alleged by a journalist’s investigation, required to make campaign contributions to Kotek to remain in good standing with the governor’s office. Again, this alleged act bodes poorly for trust in the current administration.
Related case facts point out a milquetoast response from the Oregon Ethics Commission. That result from its work adds to the negative reactions of unhappiness and frustration by Oregonians who were led to believe that Oregon’s many problems would be soon addressed by new leadership by Governor Kotek.
Meanwhile, it may be premature and inconsiderate to the flexibilities in office required by Tina Kotek. Yet, while she announced a month or so ago that her plan to ensconce her wife into what has appeared a co-governor role had been cancelled, all indicators today come across as that Governor Kotek has proceeded with her original plan.
(Gene H. McIntyre shares his opinion regularly in the Keizertimes.)
Keizer needs to be the driver
By LORE CHRISTOPHER
Lyndon Zaitz raises a valid point in highlighting the stagnant economic development in the City of Keizer over the past decade. (Who’s recruiting business to Keizer?, July 5, editorial). It is evident that action is needed to revitalize the local economy and tap into the potential that lies within the vacant properties owned by the city.
Just as we accomplished in the years of 2000-2014, when I was mayor, by building the Keizer Station, the Keizer Rapids Park, the Civic Center and the Transit Station, we can accomplish this again, that’s why I’m running for mayor.
We have the individual pieces of land that are just waiting for development. Those need to be freed up and marketed for sale immediately. We need to engage with a development professional working only for Keizer to start to work now!
Effectively leveraging these properties through strategic marketing and sales could not only bolster the city’s finances by returning them to the tax rolls but also attract new businesses, thus fostering a cycle of growth and prosperity within the community.
Furthermore, the proposition of expanding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate new single family and workforce housing developments demonstrates foresight in planning for the city’s future growth. This growth includes consideration of building a public service building on the north side of Keizer that could accommodate a collaboration of Keizer Fire District, Marion County Fire District, Oregon State Police, and Keizer Police Department. It just makes sense that we invest in a public service hub rather than individual buildings.
It is imperative for Keizer to take charge of its own economic destiny and not solely rely on external organizations for development initiatives, SEDCOR (Strategic Economic Development Corporation) can contribute, but we want to be in the driver’s seat.
In conclusion, the call for a heightened focus on local economic development within Keizer is not only timely but crucial for steering the city towards a path of sustainable growth and prosperity. The potential for positive change is within reach and it is up to us to elect local leaders and stakeholders to seize this opportunity for the benefit of all Keizer residents.
(Lore Christopher is a candidate for Keizer mayor in 2024.)
The transportation package
By KEVIN MANNIX
Maintaining and building an efficient transportation system is one of the main functions of government. However, in Oregon, transportation planning has led to much-deserved skepticism and mistrust from Oregonians in recent years. I am optimistic that an upcoming transportation package in the 2025 session will provide us with a much-needed opportunity to rebuild trust with the public and address long-standing issues.
In response to the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) budget issues, some leaders have been pushing forward on the development of a 2025 transportation package. Unfortunately, when you hear talk of a “transportation package” from some officials, you should hold onto your wallet, but I think there is a better way.
In 2017, as part of the last transportation package, the Legislature passed a 10-cent gas tax increase, the last portion of which went into effect in January of this year. They also significantly raised taxes on heavy trucks, which has led to the trucking industry being overtaxed for the last several years, compared to automobiles.
ODOT is indeed in a bit of a funding pinch. They don’t have enough money to complete projects that are currently in progress and are falling behind in maintaining existing roads. Some of that is due to record inflation over the last few years, but the rest is a result of poor planning by the Legislature.
ODOT says they need $1.8 billion more annually, which is equivalent to a nearly $1 a gallon gas tax increase. That’s a non-starter for me. State government is collecting record revenue, so we shouldn’t have any problems finding money to pay for roads without raising gas taxes.
There are some other ways to fund a transportation package:
Oregon’s Constitution requires that those who use the road pay in proportion to how much wear and tear they incorporate on the roads. In this regard, electric vehicles have been severely underpaying their fair share, which has increased the relative cost for those driving gas-powered cars. We must ensure electric vehicles are paying their fair share.
We must also streamline ODOT and make them more efficient. ODOT is paying $6 million per year on climate and equity staff. ODOT is also being sued over a costly and controversial program that excludes non-union contractors from working on road construction projects which drives up costs.
Instead of raising taxes, the Legislature ought to use General Fund dollars to prioritize the most important transportation needs. Much like your family’s budget, the General Fund needs to be spent on high-priority projects after all the maintenance and repair bills are paid. We will spend nearly $28 billion in General Fund money in this current budget cycle. Next budget cycle, there is nothing stopping us from using some of those funds for transportation.
I look forward to working on solutions that won’t burden Oregonians with more taxes. As we progress toward that goal, I will also advocate for our local infrastructure needs, including reopening discussions around a third bridge north of Salem and looking at opportunities to fund a commuter train option from Wilsonville to Salem. I am hopeful that, with a new mayor, I can assist in moving these priorities along.
It truly is an honor to represent this community in the Oregon Legislature.
(Kevin Mannix (R) represents Oregon House District 21. He can be reached at the Capitol by emailing Rep.KevinMannix@ oregonlegislature.gov or by calling 503-986-1421.)
Rising distrust of institutions
By GEORGE F. WILL
The leakage of trustworthiness from American institutions began with the lies that enveloped Watergate and Vietnam. It accelerated during the 2008 financial crisis, when cynicism (“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”) fueled the government’s indiscriminate and lawless response: The law restricted bailouts to financial institutions? Declare automobile manufacturers to be such. The leakage became a cataract during the pandemic because of the public health establishment’s plucked-from-the-ether edicts (about masks, social distancing, which political gatherings should be exempt from social distancing, etc.) and the sacrifice-the-children opportunism of the most powerful segment of organized labor (teachers unions).
Now the world’s oldest political party and its media accomplices have effected a gigantic subtraction from trust: Leaders of the former lied about President Biden’s condition until, on June 27, continuing to do so became untenable. The latter had allowed the lying because they believe Donald Trump’s many mendacities are an excuse for theirs.
One example: The bleating sheep on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, reminiscent of a chorus of quadrupeds in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, were vehemently wrong in denouncing (“so tilted,” “shocking,” “a classic hit piece,” etc.) the Wall Street Journal’s meticulously reported June 4 catalogue of the abundant evidence of Biden’s decline. That the sheep are still on the air, dispensing undiminished certitudes, is evidence of two things. That—outside of a few bastions of meritocracy and accountability, such as professional sports—there is no penalty for failure in contemporary America. And that many prominent people have the scary strength that comes from being incapable of embarrassment.
A dismaying fact: Six months— one-eighth of a presidential term —remain before Jan. 20, 2025. The collapse of Biden’s reelection campaign, under the weight of accumulating evidence of his vanishing acuity, suggests a question: If he is unfit to continue as a candidate, is he not dangerous as commander in chief in an increasingly ominous world? Cold-eyed men in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang might not believe that good sportsmanship requires international crises to unfold between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Biden’s reported (by some of his people) interval of adequate alertness.
Biden is the only plausible Democratic candidate whom Trump would today be favored to defeat. And Biden is Trump’s opponent only because Democrats assured themselves that Trump is the only opponent that Biden could plausibly hope to defeat. Which is why various Democratic prosecutors took steps that they should have known might facilitate Trump’s nomination by making him a martyr. If the Democratic Party would now present dispirited Americans with even a merely plausible choice, the result might be akin to a gust of pure oxygen on smoldering embers: an eruption of gratitude.
The compassion owed to someone apparently in the cruel grip of an inexorably advancing disease that destroys selfhood should not obscure this fact: Biden’s malady is not robbing the nation of either an impressive political talent or a singularly public-spirited official. Biden was a mediocrity in his 1980s prime, when his first lunge for the presidency quickly collapsed, as his second would in 2008, and as his third almost did after he finished fifth in New Hampshire’s primary in 2020. In the office he eventually attained, he has chosen his defining legacy: the self-absorption of his refusal to leave the public stage gracefully.
Progressives think the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. almost got it right. He said the arc of the universe bends toward justice. They agree that the universe has an arc (whatever that might mean) but declare that it bends toward them. Hence their constant praise of themselves for being on “the right side of history”: They are right, and the universe ratifies this.
Biden whisperers among his progressive keepers convinced him that history—not, Lord knows, the electorate—had anointed him the next Franklin D. Roosevelt.
On Oct. 21, 1944, 17 days before Election Day, President Roosevelt, his pallor as gray as the skies, embarked bareheaded in a cold, hard autumn rain, in an open Packard, on a four-hour tour of four of New York City’s five boroughs. This event was undertaken (as was Biden’s “make my day” debate challenge to Trump) to prove his continuing fitness for office. When FDR’s day ended with a rally at the Brooklyn Dodgers’ Ebbets Field, he had 173 days to live.
There ends the comparison between Biden’s and FDR’s situations. FDR’s vice president was Harry S. Truman.
(Washington Post)
Contact Keizertimes Staff:
[email protected] or 503-390-1051
SUBSCRIBE TO GET KEIZER NEWS — We report on your community with care, depth, fairness, and accuracy. Get local news that matters to you. Subscribe today to get our daily newsletters and more.
