On urban renewal being questioned at the Oregon City Business Alliance forum, the city of Milwaukie enacted its urban-renewal program without public vote this last summer. Milwaukie City Council also used the cop-out that voters are not intelligent as it is to decide urban renewal.
It is much more probable voters understand urban renewal will take from the city's general-fund budget significant amounts that are needed to keep the police adequately funded as the rising cost of public-employee-retirement benefits drain local city budgets. Table 17a of the urban-renewal ordinance shows this very plainly for the next 30 years, and the MIlwaukie City Council instead only talks of it increasing tax revenues.
Milwaukie's urban renewal is driven by Metro government talking about needing to help the Orange Line ridership. Yet we are told the Orange Line itself would bring the sought-after economic development. Guess not. To add insult to injury for those wanting Milwaukie to maintain an adequate level of independence from Metro, the Milwaukie City Council appoints as interim councilor a lawyer who works for none other than Metro.
Urban renewal is at its best a mixed bag, and even Mayor Mark Gamba of Milwaukie suggested as much in his debate with me about Milwaukie's urban renewal; he said urban renewal has had its successes and failures. That you don't need urban renewal to have prosperity is most illustrated by the city of Tualatin.
Even the citizens of Milwaukie said most strongly they want to vote on urban renewal, approving it or rejecting it, when in November 2011 they voted over 60 percent in favor of a measure requiring a county vote on urban-renewal programs for unincorporated areas of Clackamas County.
So, citizens are not the ones driving the urban-renewal program schemes, but rather special interests and those of the government class, including those in power in city and regional government.
Bob "Elvis" Clark
Not my president, not my mayor
So, Rev. Chuck Currie thinks the president of the U.S.A. (or should I say the ex-president of the U.S.A?) is a moral man?
Responding to his op-ed on President Obama in "Saying goodbye to a moral man" on Jan. 25, his morals are not God's morals. At least that's what I read in my Bible, Mr. Currie. Nor are Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba's morals in the Bible ("Clackamas County residents among 100,000 in Women's March on Portland," Jan. 25).
These people are what the Bible call apostates. The Bible says in the last days leading up to Christ's return there would be many of these types of people. Apostle Paul in his Epistles says the same thing.
I go by what the Bible says about certain people and issues of the day, Mr. Currie, not your warped and twisted and skewed views. You still have not read your Bible, have you, Mr. Currie?
By the way, Mr. Gamba, you are not my mayor. Period!
In reading Jim Hendricksen's letter to the editor in the Feb. 8 issue, I found some errors. First of all, there is a good reason for having an Electoral College.
Our founding fathers came up with the Electoral College so that everyone would have a voice. They did not want Boston and Philadelphia making all the decisions.
Let's look at what would happen in Oregon, if there was an electoral college at the state level. We have 36 counties, six blue and 30 red. The six blue counties make up two-thirds of Oregon's population. Those six counties are all up in the Portland metro area and the Willamette Valley. This means that the entire length of the Oregon Coast has no say. The I-5 corridor between the Lane/Douglas county boarder to the Oregon/California border has no say. Central and Eastern Oregonians have no say. Democrats have been in control for over 30 years in Oregon. What does Oregon have to show for it? One of the worst economies in the USA. One of the worst education systems in the USA. And a ton of corruption. There is no balance of power in Oregon.
When Mr. Hendricksen mentioned in his article about winning the popular vote, but losing the Electoral College vote, he stated that this did not happen in the 20th century. Well, Mr. Hendricksen, it did. In the 1960 election, which at that time was the closest in history, Richard Nixon (Republican) won the popular vote. John F. Kennedy (Democrat) won the Electoral College, therefore becoming the 35th President of the United States. Although Wikipedia says that Kennedy won the popular vote, here's an article that addresses the controversy over the 1960 popular vote: capitalresearch.org/article/jfks-popular-vote-victory-the-myth.
So you see, if the president was elected by the popular vote, Richard Nixon would have become the 35th President, not John F. Kennedy.
The Electoral College was put into place to give everyone a voice, not just the most densely populated areas. So Mr. Hendricksen, now you have the facts.
The Electoral College at the state level is unconstitutional. This needs to change, so that every citizen of every state has a voice. Also, Mr. Hendricksen, remember, President Trump won several blue states. And look how our Democratic congressmen and women are acting now. A bunch of cry-babies. They lost several governor seats across the country, as well as several state legislator seats. They can only blame themselves. And trying to defame our president won't win them any more seats. In fact, if they keep this up, they will lose even more.