Winner for all

Ballot Measure 83 expands veterans’ home loan program

Ballot Measure 83 is a winner on two counts: It expands the pool of Oregonians who are able to own their own homes and it recognizes the service of veterans who have served in the past quarter of a century. Oh, wait, make that three counts: It also won’t cost taxpayers a dime.

Measure 83 is a constitutional amendment that expands the eligibility requirements for receiving home and farm veterans’ loans. Currently, only veterans who served between Sept. 15, 1940, and Dec. 31, 1976, are eligible for the loans, leaving out the men and women who served in the Gulf War or in "peacekeeping" operations in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The measure would eliminate the date-specific nature of the loan program and make it eligible to all vets who served in active duty for at least 210 days. The 210-day requirement is the same in the existing law.

The veterans’ loans were originally established to give returning WWII vets a head start on getting their own homes. It was part of the effort, along with the G.I. Bill that sent vets to college, that fueled the tremendous growth of the American middle class in the late 1940s and ’50s.

In addition to doing the right thing for vets of the past 25 years and vets to come, the measure helps Oregon communities by providing a more stable base of homeowners. And the beauty of the program is that the cost of the loans is entirely supported by the mortgage payments of the home purchasers.

This is a winning proposal on all counts. We recommend a yes vote on Measure 83.

Clearing the smoke

Congratulations to the voters of Central Point, who backed their City Council’s decision to ban smoking in most public places. Tuesday’s tally of nearly 64 percent supporting the ban shows that voters have had enough of breathing other people’s noxious and deadly fumes.

Council member Dave Gilmour called it a "banner day for Central Point." With Central Point School District voters also passing a long-overdue school bond measure, that’s certainly true.

We also noted another comment from Gilmour, who is a physician: "If it’s passing by that margin, now’s the time for other cities to follow our lead."

We concur. How about it, Medford City Council, Ashland City Council, Phoenix, Talent, Eagle Point and all the other councils in Southern Oregon? Isn’t it time that you, too, stepped up to your responsibilities and protected your citizens?

- Guest Opinion -

By RAYMOND KISTLER

The Sept. 10 editorial, regarding "Wilderness and other protected areas such as national monuments boost economy," cited a study conducted by Oregon Natural Resources Council (O.N.R.C.) and the World Wildlife Fund (W.W.F.). Oh, there is some real unbiased "science" in action! Why don’t we call the C.A.T.O. Institute and ask for real research regarding "Is Free Enterprise Good?"

What did anybody think these two activist organizations were going to conclude in their "research" — that ousting ranching and family wage jobs in timber for seasonal service worker jobs for minimum wage is going to be negative for Southern Oregon?

I am not saying that the national monument should or should not be designated to protect this area. I will accept the research of those who are educated and trained in the science of forest ecology. But it is laughable that this editorial board can get behind promoting the national monument based on an expected tourism boon.

This thesis died 15 years ago after too many wildland recreation management academias coaxed numerous communities to set aside all of this Forest Service and BLM land for wilderness areas, saying the region would prosper with tourism.

The big flop. (Again, not saying the area should not be protected). An Oregon example with drop-dead outrageous mountains, forests, canyons and wildlife is Wallowa County (yes, there is an Oregon beyond the Cascades) which got the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, etc. Their economy is the worst in the state. All the family wage timber and ranching jobs are gone, and guess what? Seasonal tourism jobs don’t pay squat and unemployment is Oregon’s worst. Backcountry users don’t stop to spend much money — we drive in with our packs loaded and leave with them empty. It is the nature of the activity.

The tourists that spend money are visiting the bronze factories located out of Joseph and these tourists do not have anything to do with the wilderness or recreation area. This sounds more like the Shakespeare Festival visitors to me.

I can’t imagine Mr. and Mrs. Bay Area spending a few days at the Festival, dining at Chateaulin and saying, "Gee, dear, why don’t we take the Benz up to the Greensprings and visit the new national monument with such biodiversity?"

Tourists can boost the local economies surrounding national monuments, parks, and protected recreation areas. It happens when the scenery, the vistas, warrant it and only sometimes then.

Sorry folks, but the scenery in this proposed monument area ain’t no Rocky Mountains. It doesn’t compare to Glacier Park, not to the Escalante-Staircase Monument, or any of the eight others in Utah. Nor the Sawtooths in Idaho. Certainly not the Wind River Mountains and Gros Ventre in Wyoming. Or 95 percent of Alaska and all of their protected lands.

Sorry to enrage our provincial chambers of commerce, and others of us who are proud of our local mountains, but on a scale of 1 to 10, comparing all the other protected parks/monuments and their scenery, the area in question ranks about a one-half on the scenery scale.

It is as nice as some Nature Conservancy-protected lands. Sure, it is pastoral. I enjoy the region a lot. My wife and I exchanged wedding vows there 10 years ago and the area and the people are very special to us. But it isn’t close to magnificent or awesome regarding scenery and that, my neighbors, is what does bring in tourism (good or bad) dollars.

Can anybody really say with a straight face that tourists are going to run up Highway 66 to see, with camera in hand, because a cedar is growing really close to a Douglas fir on this basalt soil? Look dear, only one mile thataway, it quickly changes to Ponderosa pine, scrub oak, and even a stand of junipers there on the south slope with granite soils! Oh, how, how, huh, diverse it is! (Actually I do marvel at this, but I don’t believe tourists who drive long distances and drop big cash will ... )

I hate to admit it, but one of the few times I agree with timber spokesmen is when they contend that major development would be needed around new monuments and wilderness areas if they were to benefit the economy. In this case it seems true. I don’t want to see that, but I would have to agree, based on what does and doesn’t draw outdoor tourists.

So if we really want to protect this area and designate it a national monument (not that Southern Oregon has a voice in this) and true forest ecologists agree, let’s at least be honest enough and say we are doing it to "protect the rich biodiversity of the Klamath-Siskiyou Region." Period.

Forget the tourism fib. We are sorry to the ranching families that work up there; it is sad, but your way of life has been replaced by what the urban society values more, and that is the most land-use regulation politically attainable.

Hard to swallow the truth. To tell them that their life will be better when they sell their souls and become service tourism greeters is a big lie. It is the moral equivalent of telling the Native Americans 150 years ago that they would be better off on a reservation selling turquoise jewelry for tourists.

Contact your representatives

Speak out!
Do you have a comment about today's editorial? If so, speak out in our local online forums!

The Mail Tribune welcomes letters on any topic of general public relevance and interest.

Please include a daytime phone number and address for verification. We cannot print letters, even e--mail letters, without verification.

We're interested in the comments of all our on--line readers, but we can only publish letters from residents within our Southern Oregon and Northern California circulation area. Sorry, we cannot publish poetry.

Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days.

Address your letters of 250 word or less (150 words for thank you or election letters) to:

Letters to the editor
Box 1108
Medford, OR 97501

Fax (541) 776--4376.

Or send your letter e--mail to:
letters@mailtribune.com