|
|
|
July 31, 2008 Opinions |
|
|
— Editorial —
We’re Not The Polka Dot Experts, But...
Painting dots on the sidewalk doesn’t personally bother us any more than kids drawing hopscotch outlines, but... the law’s the law. The problem is, how do we know what the law is if we can’t understand it?
The City Ordinance regarding this issue, 2893, Section 6: states that it “shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.”
Looks pretty cut and dried, except it ties a parking ordinance into a marking sidewalk ordinance. So which is it — it states that it is a “Private Marking Law.” What? Does that pertain to marking on private property or a private entity marking... anywhere? Or does it pertain to someone who marks something in private?
Obviously those who write these ordinances like to make a sentence go on and on forever. The Constitution of the United States is rather long too, but our forefathers did throw in a few periods here and there. A sentance separating the marking issue from the parking issue would be nice. However, it the marking issues does apply to the parking issue, then how about using “and” instead of “or.”
Webster’s definition of “or” is “used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>,” as in marking or parking.
We highly doubt dots on the sidewalk would prohibit parking on the street, but then we are not the polka dot experts. But it seems to us the City might want to look into changing the wording of this ordinance if their intent is to prohibit marking on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, “and prohibit” posting on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.”
The “or” in “designed or intended” works because it means you either designed or intended to prohibit.... the “or” in “or to post on a parking strip” doesn’t work because it means you can’t mark or paint anything on a sidewalk, etc. or post anything on a parking strip that restricts parking. If it doesn’t prohibit parking, then apparently it’s O.K.
This whole dot issue really does make us smile...
—Letters—
Baker City Alone In Prayer
To The Record-Courier:
On July 22 Rev. Roger Skovil illustrated his testimony on the prayer issue before city council by pointing out that at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin, the most revered figure of his age, proposed that each session begin with prayer. Franklin reminded conventioneers that during the war for independence from Brittan, they had often prayed for guidance. He moved that every morning they begin by “imploring the assistance of Heaven.”
Like Franklin, Councilor Terry Schumacher said, “We need (God’s) help to make the right decisions.” A like comment was made by contractor Bill Harvey.
As Paul Harvey says, here’s the rest of the story, omitted by Rev. Skovil. Franklin’s motion died for lack of a second. Our nation’s Founding Fathers chose not to mix religion with their arduous task of crafting a constitution that became the envy of the world. Not once during their nearly four months of work did they begin their daily deliberations with prayer.
Nor did Baker City Council begin its meetings with prayer during the first 116 years after incorporation in 1874. The practice of beginning meetings with an invocation began at the suggestion of Mayor Bill Guilliam around 1980. When I became city councilor in 1999, I objected to the prayers. And we all know that story. Then, about four years ago, after Americans United for Separation of Church and State threatened to sue if sectarian prayers continued, a city employee, at the request of Mayor Charles Hofmann, said generic, nonsectarian prayers.
Since the present city council took office one and a half years ago, as Andrew Dickison correctly pointed out, the invocations are often not really invocations (prayer) at all. Instead the meetings open with all manner of so-called “inspirational” messages, such as poem reading, moments of silence, musical entertainment, prayers, and occasionally sectarian prayers invoking the name of Jesus. (Presently only Councilor Schumacher insists on saying sectarian prayers.)
I now address the issue of sectarian prayers. On July 22 the issue before city council was supposed to be just a housekeeping change in the invocation policy: remove the word “nonpartisan” and replace it with “nonsectarian,” which Councilor Beverly Calder and Councilor Andrew Bryan had championed at the preceding city council meeting. Instead, Councilor Calder moved to have neither term included in the policy, thus leaving the door wide open as before for all kinds of sectarian prayers. The motion passed unanimously.
During the discussion before the vote, Don Williams opined that not allowing sectarian prayers was “intolerant.” Councilor Schumacher claimed it was in fact illegal to prohibit sectarian prayers at government meetings, but he failed to cite any legal source.
Williams and Schumacher must not be aware that in the whole state of California it is illegal to say sectarian prayers at city council meetings. Here’s the background. In 1999 Irv Rubin, a Jew, and Roberto Alejandro Gandara, a Catholic, sued the City of Burbank for saying sectarian prayers that ended in “in Jesus’ name.” Rubin and Gandara prevailed at both trial and during an appeal by the City of Burbank before the California Court of Appeals. Both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. Here’s what the court ordered in Rubin v.
City of Burbank (http://www.lexisnexis. com/clients/CACourts/). City councils may not say sectarian prayers at their meetings and must instruct members of the public invited to give invocations that prayers must be nonsectarian.
P.S.: Invocations are not part of the agenda at city council meetings in 97.5% of the 234 municipalities in Oregon, and are not included in meetings of six of the seven city councils in Baker County. In Oregon and in Baker County, Baker City Council is pretty much out there all alone in mixing religion and government.
Gary Dielman
Baker City
Class Reunion A Success
To The Record-Courier:
What a great reunion! We are referring to the 60th reunion of the Baker High School class of 1948.
We would like to thank Alice Bacon, Dru Carpenter, Carleen Griffith and Alice Ward for their hard work and time spent organizing the event. They did an amazing job.
We also want to thank Jo and Dan Warnock, who opened their beautiful home for the barbecue.
It was truly outstanding.
Beverly Moody Berry
Colleen McCord Toombs
Dots Are Dots...
To The Record-Courier:
Dots are dots, lines are lines. When are we going to draw a line on the dot issue? I had to laugh at the headline "DOTS", don't we have anything better to do? We have a beautiful setting for our beautiful town and our beautiful Main Street. Who has made that happen? Our people of course, like Bev and me and you.
I saw the "Dots," not at Miners’ Jubilee, but before. Was it the bike race? What makes Bev happier than the Bike Race? She celebrated with tempura and why shouldn't she? Does Bev do good things for our community? Yes. We smiled when we saw them, did you? If not, maybe you need to. Just like the young man asking for hugs on that same sidewalk a while back, it makes you smile at something so simple as a "Dot" or a hug. Bev has a great business and she is a great asset to our downtown, oh yeah, is that her sidewalk?
After reading the piece of "ordinance" in the article, (Baker City Herald) I have to ask myself what she did wrong. Did she stop traffic? Did she stop people from parking there? Did she make people stop and smile? Heaven forbid. Oh wait, I probably can't say that either. I can't believe that there was a mention of chairs and tables on her sidewalk, she's not the only one you know. Can you walk by her place without obstruction? Yes. Can you sit and enjoy Main Street from her chairs? Yes. You can do the same at a number of other places along Main and it's wonderful, the more the merry!
Have any of you seen sidewalk art in big cities, really good sidewalk art? Maybe you've seen an email of some extreme sidewalk art? It isn't graffiti, it isn't bad, it's art. It doesn't matter if you have or if you haven't I suppose, although, you should. Let's think about what we're arguing about and look to the real issues...I'll stop there.
Christina Witham
Baker City
ODFW Not Telling The Whole Story On Wolves
To The Record-Courier:
In The July 24, 2008, issue of The Record Courier, on page 5 there was an article on wolves. I feel the ODFW was remiss in their story regarding wolves. They failed to tell the whole story, they advised of the wolves protection, but not of the citizens right to protect themselves, or their livestock and domestic animals, when they are under threat or attack by wolves.
Transparency and accountability is an issue, which is key to the whole truth regarding all the statutes and regulations. This is an important issue. This is a public health and safety issue.
Roy H Barnes
Bingen, Wash.
|
|
|
