Letters to the Editor:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:56 AM PDT
Stand up and protect the economic value of
Malheur County
Editor,
IPC not wanting to consider alternate routes around us should be enough for our Malheur County people to all get up in arms and write to Oregon Department of Energy about “WHY NOT.” This will affect the greatest economic value of the valley, agriculture and agribusiness. It will affect all businesses in Ontario, Vale, Nyssa, Payette, Fruitland and Weiser.
Consequently, this will reduce precious economy of our area.
Please write to:
Adam Bless
OR Department of Energy
625 Marion St. N.E.
Salem, OR 97301
Ken Teramura
Ontario
Key to peace is stopping Palestinian violence
Editor,
The fragile ceasefire in Gaza has been broken by both sides. The Israeli actions are understandable, even if one does not support them.
They are designed to stop ongoing rocket fire upon its civilians.
The continued Palestinian rocket fire cannot be so easily sympathized with. There is no element of defense in the Palestinian rocket fire.
The aims of the Palestinian rockets are to kill and maim and to entice Israel to react.
If anyone is interested in creating peace, the key is, as it always has been, stopping Palestinian violence.
Michelle Moshelian
Israel
The library is being
hijacked
Editor,
Much has been written about the City Council and the library district, dealing with the gift or lease of the library. The debate largely boils down to whether the Ontario City Council: 1) Has the authority to charge the library district rent for the library district’s use of the library; and 2) Whether the Ontario City Council should charge the library district rent for the library district’s use of the library.
Let’s examine those issues. The contract executed by Morgan Beck as mayor of Ontario, on behalf of the City of Ontario, Dec. 6, 1966, stated in part “These Federal funds, if granted, will be used to construct a facility that will continue to be devoted to public library purposes until such time as replaced by a new facility.”
This clearly indicates the city concedes the library must be used for public library purposes until it is replaced.
The library district has no money to build a new facility, so that means the building can only be used for a library for the foreseeable future.
It is also inconsistent with the above assurance for the City of Ontario to now charge rent for a facility they agreed would be used for that purpose until it is replaced with a new facility.
The current City Council members, therefore, are bound by the earlier agreement and do not have the authority to charge rent for a facility they have agreed will be used solely for a library.
The second issue, whether they should charge rent, if they were permitted to do so, is a longer analysis, looking at equity and fairness. This fundamental fairness and equity question asks, “What is the right thing to do?”
Let’s go back to the beginning when a library commission was appointed Feb. 5, 1912.
The City Council appropriated $750 and other residents paid $410, all of which was used to purchase land for the library. The Carnegie Corporation then paid to build the library.
So far, the cost of the land and the building show a very small portion of the land and building being paid by the City of Ontario.
The City of Ontario and Malheur County entered into a contract Nov. 6, 1919, whereby Malheur County agreed to pay two-thirds of the cost of providing library service to Ontario and the City of Ontario agreed to pay one-third of the cost.
This general agreement has been followed for 86 years, ending in 2006, when the two entities could no longer afford to pay the expenses.
As an example, in December 2006, the library had 16,628 registered patrons.
Of those, 9,642 were Ontario residents, and 6,900 were county residents. The City of Ontario paid one third of the costs, but almost 60 percent of the patrons were city residents.
Again, the City of Ontario paid a small fraction of the costs of the library for 86 years, and city patrons used the library much more than that.
The City cannot make an argument to own the library from those amounts of usage versus payment.
Eighty-six years of getting a net financial benefit from the cost-sharing cannot mean the city owns the library building.
Let’s look at the tax cost of the library to the taxpayers. Again, using 2006 numbers, the tax cost of the library to the residents of Ontario was 37 cents per $1,000 valuation (tdv).
The tax cost to the rest of school district 8C was 16 cents per $1,000 tdv. The tax cost for Nyssa’s library (2004-2005) was $1.51 per $1,000, and Vale’s library (2004-2005) was 75 cents per $1,000.
Ontario was getting a great library at a bargain of a tax cost. Ontario taxpayers have not suffered.
The City of Ontario worked with the library board volunteers, trying to form a new library district, for three years. Budgets were drawn up and revised each time.
Never, not once, did the City of Ontario discuss leasing the library to the soon-to-be-formed library district. In fact, the proposal to lease the library to the library district would bankrupt the library district within three years.
Let’s look at what is common practice in the industry, in this case, the common practice in cities that have library districts formed.
Since 1981, when library district laws were passed, there have been 24 library districts formed.
In each case where responsibility for providing library services was transferred from a city or county to a library district, the city or county has always been willing to give their library building and collection to the new district without compensation (other than $1).
Each and every one of the above elements of our analysis show equity and fairness demand the City of Ontario give the building and book collection to the library district.
Why should the city sell the library to the library district for $1,000,000 over 17 years or lease it to the library district for $5,000 per month?
The only reason is that the City of Ontario is a greedy, money-hungry bureaucracy that cannot let any good deed go untaxed.
They see the taxpayers of the library district as another revenue source to feed their general fund instead of a savior of the city taxpayers who will now not need to pay another $200,000 out of the city general fund for library services.
The taxpayers of the library district are people just like the taxpayers of the City of Ontario, and the City of Ontario is attempting to extort an additional “tax” out of the library district taxpayers. Do not let them do it.
Tell the City of Ontario they no longer have to spend $200,000 out of their general fund.
The city does not need to be paid to give up those annual expenses.
Tell them to give the library to the library district because equity demands it, because it is the right thing to do and because they agreed to do so Dec. 6, 1966.
Donald Oakes
Library Board trustee
Ironside
Understanding the
library situation
Editor,
As chairman of the newly formed Ontario Library District, I am compelled to respond to the adverse publicity we, as a board, feel we have received and to ensure the subscriber in the 8C School District, which is also the boundaries of the library district, are able to fully understand the situation that has arisen over the Malheur County Library building in Ontario.
The district board anticipated, and were led to believe by City of Ontario officials, that the building would either be given without compensation, or leased at a token fee, if the library district was formed.
The first the district board new of the $5,000 per month lease fee and all costs associated with the library (maintenance, insurance, repairs, etc.) was, in fact, in an Argus Observer article on the front page of the paper.
We were subsequently delivered the 11-page lease agreement.
The library district is required to be in place, and the City of Ontario’s funding ends June 30, however, our new district funding will not commence until after November. Therefore, this lease agreement would have set us up to fail, and we would have been in default by Sept. 1.
We, the district board, campaigned for the forming of the district on the basis of increased services, increased library hours, stable funding, continued and additional programs and increased access for computers and Internet.
Do the math — these things cannot happen if we are faced with a rent issue. Our library staff have all been working with very low, part-time wages, very long hours (well beyond the hours the library is actually open) and with little or no benefits.
Oregon State Librarian Jim Sheppke in a letter states, “It would be unprecedented for the city to obtain a source of new revenue by leasing the library building. Since Oregon’s library district laws were first passed in 1981, we have seen twenty-four library districts formed throughout the state. In every case where the responsibility for providing public library services was transferred from a city or a county to a library district, the city or county has always been willing to give their library building and collection to the new district, without compensation.
One of the assurances reads as follows: “(k) These Federal funds, if granted, will be used to construct a facility that will continue to be devoted to public library purposes until such a time as replaced by a new facility.”
This document was signed by the mayor at the time, Morgan Beck.
Mr. Sheppke goes on to state, “The State Library subsequently made a grant of $180,000 to help construct the library. The grant application indicates that this was 45 percent of the cost of the $400,000 project.” The patrons then voted on a $220,000 bond for the balance of the project.
With these assurances, Mr. Sheppke feels “that it would be inconsistent for the city to lease the building to the District at market rates, as if it were commercial property. If the city were to lease the building for a nominal sum to the district (say $1 per year) it would not be inconsistent.”
As most of you in the 8C School District are aware, the funding for the Malheur County Library was shared by the county (two-thirds) and the city (one-third) until 2005.
When the city, several years ago, made a priority of services list, from most important to least important, the Malheur County Library was at the bottom of the list. And in fact, it was then determined the library should close.
A city must have a public library. It is our knowledge base, our future growth and the depository of our history and culture.
We, the district board, are anxious to get on with the “business” of the library, to live up to our promises to the citizens who formed the library district, and to serve the district in the best way.
Donnaclaire Blankinship
Chairman
Ontario Library District
Shelving of pit bull ban is disappointing
Editor,
The shelving of a proposed “ban” on pit bulls in Oregon, which was proposed in the wake of several pit bull attacks, should disappoint everyone who cares about these dogs.
Pit bulls are the breed of choice for dog-fighters and thugs who beat, starve, chain and otherwise abuse them to make them “mean.”
A ban on breeding or acquiring new pit bulls while allowing well-cared for, spayed or neutered pits to remain with their families would not only help prevent pit bull attacks, it would keep countless dogs from ending up like the ones PETA’s caseworkers care for every day.
These dogs are trapped for years at the ends of heavy chains with nothing but bare patches of dirt and plastic barrels for shelter (if they are lucky), trembling in fear, full of heartworms, ribs protruding and scarred all over from fights. It would also help prevent more dogs from being born only to be abandoned and/or euthanized in shelters.
Anyone with pit bulls’ best interests at heart can agree that laws regulating their ownership would help protect the dogs they care about from tremendous suffering. To learn more, visit www.HelpingAnimals.com.
Daphna Nachminovitch
vice president, PETA
Norfolk, Va.
NAIS is a sham
Editor,
NAIS is a sham designed by agribusiness to stop the growing, small farm, “buy local,” sustainable movement now exhibited by the success of farmers markets across the country.
It will do nothing to improve the megafarms problems, while putting small farmers out of business.
Patsy Kelley
McCall
