Response to Baker City Herald editorial "Yes on 5J Bond" #1

 

Response to Baker City Herald editorial "Yes on 5J Bond" #1

The Herald is all in on the school bond. After having given their blessing to the use of Churchill School as an artist colony, bike hostel, and events center, they have thus far produced two editorials urging a yes vote on the $48 million school bond measure. They went the extra mile with the missive of September 22, 2018, by devoting what must be, hopefully, a very rare full half page to their advice. In the next weeks leading up to the election I will try to respond to some of the points they tried to make.

Here is the first, addressing the first few paragraphs.

The Herald wrote [emphasis added]:

We won’t try to minimize the Baker School District’s $48 million bond measure by dividing property owners’ shares into monthly or weekly or daily amounts.

This isn’t about passing up a few mochas or tossing your pocket change into a cup.

This is about a community’s commitment to one of its more important and valuable assets — its public schools.

And like most commitments it is also a burden. A financial burden, to be specific, and for some property owners a significant burden that probably will continue for 30 years, the period over which the bond would be repaid.

But we believe the Baker School District has reached a point where that shared burden is one worth bearing.

Well no, it is not about a community commitment in any normal sense of the word, because commitment means "an agreement or pledge to do something in the future." Commitments, agreements, and pledges are obligations that are voluntarily taken, not something forced on others by the behavior of those who expect to benefit. 

According to the County Clerk's office, if 50% of the registered voters vote, and the bond passes with 50% of that vote plus one or more votes, the bond measure passes. The only commitment voluntarily entered into is by those who voted for it, not the community as a whole.  Further, the Clerk's Office says there are 9,759 registered voters in the school district and who could vote on the bond, so the bond could pass with only 4880 people in the district voting, and of those, only 2440 need vote in favor.  Its clearly not about the "community's commitment," but rather, it's about whether the proponents will be able to find a relatively small fraction of the people to vote, and an even smaller fraction of these people to vote yes. Under this scenario, a piddling 25%of registered voters would be able to extort payment from those who won’t or can't afford to vote yes. Of course, registered voters are not all of the folks who could vote if they were allowed to vote, but they will be affected regardless, so the yes votes represent an even smaller percentage of those who will be affected. A very low bar indeed, especially compared to the Oregon measure 63 requirements of a 60% supermajority for other tax measures.

In reality, everyone supports education and schools, it is just that some people and some communities don’t have money to build new schools and expand programs. Most of those voting for the bond will be doing so because they can afford to do so. Many of those publicly expressing support are financially comfortable, with generous pensions (think top-tier PERS), high incomes, or large bank accounts, and many are just engaged in a game of virtue signaling, whereby they gain a bit of moral status by publicly signaling they are willing to give their money to support schools. Other people have children that they would like to send to a new school. For these groups, the pain will generally be minimal or at least not a heavy burden.  For the rest it is a coerced obligation, and as the editorial truthfully states, "for some . . . a significant burden that probably will continue for 30 years." For the latter, especially those already living in poverty, that means a painful burden. For those who are voting yes, and that don't get it, an example looks like this: people living in poverty generally can't afford to get their teeth fixed, but the people voting yes want them to help pay for a new school along with many other improvements and additions. I had a neighbor once who died from a heart infection caused by abscessed teeth, all because he couldn't afford to go to the dentist, even though he was running a small garment-making shop in rural Utah. American garment factories were being moved overseas at the time and presented him with serious competition. How many more people won't be able to go to the dentist if this bond measure passes? Looks like violence to me but many people could care less because they enjoy blaming victims. What goes around comes around though, and if you don't care about the poor and whether they die early, well, then don't expect them to care about you either.

I would ask those who vote for the bond obligation, especially those with children needing to be educated, is it fair and just to force people who live in poverty, and who already pay property taxes used for education, to be placed in greater financial peril so as to help pay for new schools for the children of others when there are other solutions? And further, I would ask those voting yes on the bond issue, and who are wealthy, why don't they contribute even more to construction funds for schools, like many did for the remodeling of the Carnegie Library for the arts community. Is the arts community more important than children?

And speaking of burdens, given that the earth is already bearing the heavy burden of too many people, perhaps it is also time for those with more than two children, to pay an additional premium to the schools so that they don't place an unnecessary, often unbearable, financial burden on others. We don't need anymore incentives for people to produce more children than the number needed to replace themselves, and hopefully even less. In these times, those individuals who produce more than a child to replace themselves do disproportionate damage to the already impaired ecosystems that support us and needlessly deplete our remaining resources. You might even call it selfish. An unpopular notion to many in Baker County, but it happens to be true.

If you haven't voted recently, or updated your address or voter registration, the last day to register is October 16th, and the ballots go out on the 17th. If you find your registration is inactive, you can still vote by notifying the County Clerks office by election day.

Edited 9/29/18

More on the Herald's endorsement of the school bond in the future.