The New Era
Our
City Council has been busy.
As
evident from the four separate, lengthy stories we’re running this
week on their activities, councilors have tackled a wide range of
issues in recent weeks, and a lot of those are coming to a head: what
to do about newly legalized marijuana in Sweet Home; whether, and
how, to raise sewer, water and trash collection rates; and new rules
for fences (the kind that surround a yard).
To
a certain extent, this activity has been positive. We elect these
people to look out for our well-being – to hold city staff
accountable, to make sure residents are getting the best service
possible, to make the calls when questions arise regarding what
direction the city should take.
But
we are concerned by what we see as excessive time and effort required
to argue what can only be described as minute details and figures.
This
is going to be a lengthy editorial, but these are important issues
and they need to be fleshed out, so bear with us, please.
Marijuana
The
council is poised to consider ordinances prohibiting the sale and
processing of marijuana and then possibly refer them to the voters in
November. Additionally, members plan to consider prohibiting
“illegal activity” through a zoning ordinance, something that
Councilor Jeff Goodwin says is not targeting marijuana but rather an
establishment that most other cities have and Sweet Home doesn’t.
In
the wake of Measure 91, we have on this page previously opposed
proposals attempting to prohibit marijuana use and commerce in Sweet
Home. We continue to oppose attempts to prohibit marijuana outside of
the boundaries of state law.
If
the council can prohibit the production and sale of marijuana under a
new state law through a vote of the people of Sweet Home, so be it.
Like most groups of people, we hold mixed opinions about whether and
how much marijuana should be legal at all.
The
state law authorizing Sweet Home voters to prohibit the production
and sale of marijuana does not allow them the authority to ban the
use of marijuana, and we continue to oppose any attempts to do so,
simply because Sweet Home does not need to spend money fighting court
challenges. There are so many other things our city needs more than
court battles.
Illegal
Use Ordinance
As
for the zoning ordinance, we oppose it as it stands. We believe it
should specify state and local laws and let federal laws be enforced
and prosecuted by the federal government. Our local authorities do
not and should not enforce federal law.
That
means the proposed zoning law should not address marijuana, which is
still illegal under federal law.
Here’s
why. Consider what would happen if the city were to attempt to
prohibit marijuana use through its zoning code. Regularly smoking pot
violates federal law and therefore would constitute a violation of
the zoning ordinance. That results in a fine.
Ultimately,
the accused would go before the Municipal Court judge, who must
somehow rule that the zoning ordinance was violated because a federal
law was violated. The city attorney might be placed in the weird
position of proving a federal charge in Municipal Court in order to
prove the violation of a local ordinance.
How
federal laws would impact this ordinance boggles the mind.
Consider
digital piracy: Sweet Home pirates illegally download games, movies,
TV shows and music constantly. Under a zoning ordinance, those
activities would constitute committing zoning violations every single
time.
No
local police officer is going to arrest and charge the pirate. The
problem is so widespread that enforcement has largely become the
province of “patent trolls,” lawyers who intimidate violators
into settling for a few thousand dollars instead of facing much
larger judgments in federal court.
We
would find it fascinating to watch Robert Snyder somehow prosecute a
pirate under federal law just to prove a zoning violation.
If
it’s not going to be enforced, we’re left wondering why we should
maintain a law that no one enforces. But if it is used to go after
violators of federal marijuana laws, we’re left to wonder why it’s
selectively enforced.
If
the ordinance specifically did not concern itself with federal law,
we’re left to wonder what is the point. The activities triggering
this proposed ordinance are already illegal and come with their own
consequences, fines and jail sentences.
We
have no need to add a land-use based fine as well.
Water
and Sewer Rates
We
like what Councilor Greg Mahler says about water and sewer rates.
None of us appreciate the increases we have experienced over the past
two decades, made necessary because the city in years past has failed
to charge adequate fees and save to replace the infrastructure as it
wears out.
As
a city, we can’t simply ignore that. We’ll face direct fines for
our collective failure to maintain our utilities. We have to pay for
the water and sewer services we use, and we have to pay to maintain
and replace the infrastructure.
We
don’t like it, but it’s similar to paying our mortgages and
rents, gas and power bills. We don’t enjoy that either.
After
a variety of proposals to cut rates that we won’t go into here,
Councilor Goodwin has abandoned convincing the council that
decreasing water and sewer rates will increase usage, and he has
offered a rate structure that eliminates the complete discount for
the first 400 cubic feet of water usage.
That
rate proposal provides enough cash to operate the utilities at the
bare minimum to meet budget requirements for 2015-16. It wipes out
most of the ending fund balances in those utilities though, and it
relies on carryover from 2014-15, foreshadowing a problem when
budgeting for 2016-17.
If
the council adopts Goodwin’s proposed rate, bills will increase for
everyone using between 300 cubic feet and 800 cubic feet of water
each month. It evens out with the current rate at 900 cubic feet.
Under Goodwin’s plan and the current rate, people using 900 cubic
feet pay $124.25 per month. Those using more than 900 cubic feet per
month would see a decrease in monthly bills.
Those
using 400 cubic feet would see the largest increase, about $20 per
month.
His
proposal would end the practice of subsidizing low-consumption
households. Those residents would pay for the water they consume. And
high-consumption homes will see lower bills or smaller increases.
As
an aside, we would like to point out that all but one of the Public
Works director’s proposed options would similarly affect the rate
structure, increasing rates the most for low-consumption consumers
and increasing the least for high-consumption users. The other
option would have increased everyone’s bills by a flat $10.19.
We
support the effort to end the subsidy.
Rather
than holding rates entirely flat and taking the much larger hit we
would be facing next year, we would rather see some kind of increase
this year. It’s the responsible way to manage the utility anyway.
Though none of us likes to pay more, the city should collect the full
amount of depreciation for water and wastewater infrastructure so
that we can stash away the money necessary to replace it and are not
caught off guard in the future –
creating for the next
generation the same kind of excessive costs we’re paying now.
Goodwin
suggests that by paying depreciation, we’re actually paying for our
children’s water. But setting aside money to replace capital is
responsible financial policy both at home and in business. It’s a
key to long-term survival.
Goodwin’s
latest proposal is adequate for this fiscal year, and it does provide
a portion of the budgeted ending fund balance and carryover, but the
council should carefully consider long-term requirements of the
utilities before settling at those rates.
Trash
Collection Rates
Sweet
Home Sanitation wants to increase its rates by 55 cents per month on
the 35-gallon cart most typically used by local residents. That
increase is a hair over 2.4 percent.
The
council originally tied on a vote to approve the increase. It
revisited the issue and it will take it up again on July 28.
Councilor
Goodwin wants to limit the increase to 1.8 percent. That’s a
difference of 14.77 cents per month from Sweet Home Sanitation’s
request.
Enough
said, right?
But
it’s not. Sweet Home Sanitation has increased its rate a half dozen
times in the past 17 years. That works out to 1.5 percent per year.
As Councilor Bruce Hobbs noted, Sweet Home Sanitation has not gouged
Sweet Home residents. It has not been unfair dealing with them.
The
increasing cost of doing business has not been captured by the
various inflation rates. The price of medical insurance has increased
at ridiculous rates, far beyond the various inflation rates –
something that ought to dissuade us from trusting politicians to
manage any market – and they will increase even more absurdly in
Oregon next year.
The
cost of fuel might go down, as Goodwin suggests. We saw it last
winter, and we’ll all be happy to see it again. But we all know
that’s as predictable as climate change and winning the lottery.
Even if it does, it may not offset increases in minimum wage.
Instead
of making money on recycling, the garbage service is now losing
money.
All
of this trims the bottom line for the garbage company. Goodwin notes
that the company is profitable, but that profit will be smaller.
We’re
not certain just what level of profit the service should have. We
also don’t know what qualifies Goodwin to determine that. That line
of thinking makes us wonder why garbage service can’t simply
compete in the marketplace and not bother answering to the council.
That sets the proper level of profit most effectively, and it gets
politicians out of managing economic markets.
Sans
that, we think that Sweet Home Sanitation has traded fairly with
Sweet Home residents throughout its history, and we think it
continues to do so. Yes, garbage collection is not cheap, but that’s
because there are costs to make it happen. There is a payoff too: a
cleaner city.
The
citizens of Sweet Home, represented in this negotiation by Goodwin
and the council, should stop dickering over 15 cents and enjoy the
rate for another 18 to 24 months rather than seeing the company come
back with a request at the rate of inflation every single year –
something which, based on Goodwin’s reasoning, starts making a lot
of sense.