“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. This points clearly to a political career.” Thus said George Bernard Shaw, but he said it at a time when women could not yet run for office. Since then, women everywhere have obtained the vote; in Oregon we’ve been electing them to statewide offices for over a century. 
Has this raised the competence of our political class? Just last week I stumbled over anecdotal evidence that provided little hope. That was the testimony in Salem by our newly-elected state representative Caddy McKeown, whose resumé of “public service” includes the Coos Bay port commission, where she served as a cheery cheerleader for former port manager Jeff Bishop’s multiple flops, including his mythical container terminal, his stillborn coal export terminal, his highly unpopular LNG terminal, and his much-ballyhooed, resurrected railroad. None of those debacles caused Caddy’s support for the Port to waver. When the railroad purchase was finally in the bag, she even raised herself to the stature of a Coos Bay Churchill, with the auto-exaltation: “This happened with a lot of blood, sweat and tears.”
We don’t pay, we only spend
The hearing at which Rep Caddy testified on May 15 was about a proposal, HB (House Bill) 3276, to create a tax exemption for the Port’s railroad. It seems that last year a few property tax bills found their way into the Port’s mailbox, and the Port is not used to paying taxes, only receiving them. Since its railroad acquisition runs from Coquille to Eugene, and traffic on the line is being run by a private company, the property tax bills came from Coos, Douglas and Lane counties, demanding sums which came to about $183,000 for the year, all told. What, a drop in the bucket, you say, after all the tens of millions in state and federal funds that have come to the Port already, to buy and fix that rusty relic? Isn’t it high time for the Port to “give something back to the community”? [audio:SenateHearingRailLink.mp3]Uh, no; and that’s why Rep Caddy promoted her bill with the Legislature, in a 25-minute hearing before the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee. You can listen by pressing the play arrow.
One odd aspect of that hearing was the participants’ vagueness about the actual amount of the property taxes to be forfeited by the three counties, if the legislature passed the bill. At its introduction the bill was described as having a “minimal fiscal impact” of a mere half million over its ten-year-lifespan (it has a sunset clause). Half a million is not minimal except for those who work in government, which may help explain why state spending has tripled during the last twenty years. But then, toward the end of the hearing, someone else said that the half million would be the average amount of taxes forfeited per biennium. Given that the first year’s tax bills came to $183,000, that makes more sense, and with the automatic annual increases that could well add up to five million during the ten years. Hopefully five million would seem less “minimal” and hopefully, with all the predictions of doom for county finances, five million would get some consideration. After all CORP, the railroad’s former owner, WAS paying taxes.
But instead, the three counties’ future revenue losses were buried under a slurry of high-minded drivel. The purpose of the bill was not to escape paying taxes but
“to encourage infrastructure investment . . . by ports in Oregon that help to retain and improve competitive multi-modal transportation connections for Oregon communities and businesses. The investments will lay the groundwork for future economic development related to industrial and natural resource commodity movement.”
Ah yes. Why is it that when government talks about “investment”, I get this weird feeling that we’re really talking about wasting large sums of money? And while the bill spoke of encouraging infrastructure investment “by ports in Oregon”, the fine print left no doubt that it applied only to Coos Bay. All these legislators wanted to do was pour more public money into that bottomless pit, the Port of Coos Bay. And the biggest laugh may be the bill’s prediction that these “investments will lay the groundwork for future economic development”. 
This echoes the Port’s claim, back when it was on its unstoppable campaign to buy the railroad, that rail was essential to attract more industry to Coos Bay. When CORP was still running the line, it did not attract any. Why would the future be different from the past? Clearly, the purpose of resurrecting the railroad was to provide corporate welfare to a very small number of existing local industries, thereby achieving the Port’s real goal. That goal was to avoid its own extinction by sucking up to the local power structure. Rep Caddy’s praise for the local mills’ patience in waiting for her train seemed to be part of that: . . . We are very, very fortunate that we have industry on our line that was willing to hang on by their fingernails through these very difficult times,” she gushed. I’ve spent a lot of years in Coos Bay, but I’ve never heard of a money-losing lumber outfit that hung on by its fingernails for five and a half years.
As is customary with arcane money measures in Salem, all the testimony came from a few insiders, all of whom spoke in favor. The insiders were Senator Arnie Roblan, Rep Caddy, and Martin Callery of the Port. “Since the acquisition we invested almost $30 million in the rehabilitation of the rail line,” Callery told the Finance Committee. He was being modest, or perhaps he didn’t want to press his luck. Before the Port got that $30 million in repair funds from the state and the feds, it had already spent $6.5 million for a brand-new railroad spur on the North Spit, to haul lumber from a mill that employs eight people, plus $8 million for a temporary “band-aid” repair job for the very old and very rusty Coos Bay railroad bridge. All that money, from state and federal sources, had been spent before CORP abandoned the line in 2007. At that point the Port, now highly but quietly embarrassed, felt it HAD to acquire the entire line, which was done by spending $2 million for high-priced lawyers from D.C. to argue that CORP should give it to the Port for free. That did not fly, and the Port had to pay $16.6 million for it, again from state and federal sources. Adding all that money to Callery’s $30 million makes over $63 million of public funds, spent by politicians who furiously rebuffed CORP when that company, back in 2008, offered to get the line moving again for $23 million raised by a “public-private partnership,” in which the port, the state and the shippers each would contribute $4.5 million, as would CORP. And at the recent hearing, Callery admitted that $30 million (actually $63 million) will not be the end of it. A lot more money will be needed, one reason being that the Port has used a large federal grant, intended for a second repair job on the bridge, to pay for CORP’s railroad instead. This may explain why, when the Port’s first little choo-choo engine drove across that bridge a few months ago, it was shadowed by a boat in the water below, just in case there was a major breakthrough. No wonder Callery talked in terms of “. . . if at some point the line becomes a viable piece of rail infrastructure . . .” If that doesn’t betray the utter lack of consideration spent on this railroad acquisition, I don’t know what does. Well, actually I do, because there is more.
Turning Coos Bay into San Francisco
Rep Caddy’s speeches are odd combinations of schoolmarm-lecturing, valley-girl-talk and gullibility. Proving the latter, she proclaimed the old, tired cliché about Coos Bay being “the only deepwater port between Seattle and San Francisco.” We needed to “re-energize this wonderful asset,” and the railroad was “a critical piece of us re-establishing the Port of Coos Bay in a way that is viable and bring that industry back that we lost.”
She doesn’t seem to know it, but nearly every water-filled hole on this coast has compared itself to San Francisco. Consider: starting 250 miles to the south, the Port of Eureka has long called itself “the best natural harbor between Coos Bay and San Francisco.” Closer to home, Port Orford was once promoted as “the best and most capacious roadstead or summer harbor between San Francisco and Puget Sound.” 
Closer yet, Floras Lake (Yes, Floras Lake!!!) was being promoted around 1900 as “The best harbor on the Pacific between San Francisco and Seattle. . .” (That was with the assumption that a canal could be dug to connect the lake to the ocean, which proved impractical.) North of us, the Port of Newport used to be promoted as “the San Francisco of the Northwest.” Further north yet, John Jacob Astor, the founder of Astoria, predicted that his town would become “more important that San Francisco in the movement of cargoes to and from the Pacific Coast.” Continuing on to Grays Harbor in the state of Washington, you will find the same history of promotional blather. But by now most of these northwest ports have realized that their San Francisco aspirations are pretty silly. One reason may be that as a port, San Francisco itself no longer amounts to much. The development of container shipping has moved most ship traffic to Oakland. The other reason is that unlike Coos Bay, other northwest ports have accepted that their past prosperity was entirely due to the lumber industry’s need to ship out its products, and the lumber industry would never again be what it was. So they accepted reality and moved on. Those were wise decisions, since the one port that didn’t move on, Coos Bay, is a sorry sight to see. Coos Bay’s incurable obsession with its “deepwater port”, and with bringing back heavy industry, has made it the only economic disaster area in all of thriving western Oregon.
Talk, talk, talk
Some fine but distant day, a scholar may work up the nerve to publish his finding that although electing women has not boosted effectiveness in high places, it has done wonders for talkativeness. When Arnie Roblan tried to get in a few words, this is what happened:
(Arnie Roblan:) “When the rail was embargoed we first had to find the money to buy it – and they had to be willing to sell it so that took another whole process – but the reality was it took three times in the history of rail or – four –
(Caddy McKeown:) Would you like me to comment for just a moment?
(Arnie Roblan:) Sure –
(Caddy McKeown:) I didn’t want to go into too much detail and take up your valuable time but it was a very interesting process by which we acquired this piece of property – when the railroad was embargoed it put our shippers at a tremendous disadvantage – with no notice, we had one day’s notice, the rail was shut down – we have a number of shippers on the line – primarily timber products but we also had organic grain for our dairy farmers, American Bridge, which is a company that moved out to Oregon, their headquarters is in Pittsburgh so they could take advantage of manufacturing opportunities on the West Coast, they were moving their feedstock in and their components out on rail to build bridges all around the West Coast – they’re actually building the components for the Milwaukie rail bridge now, all of those things . . . ”
Instead of taking just a moment of Roblan’s time, without hardly taking a breath she monopolized the conversation for close to five minutes, hopping from American Bridge to the Surface Transportation Board to Roseburg Timber to replacing 96,000 railroad ties, but all of it had the same characteristic that has given old-fashioned light bulbs a bad name: producing more heat than light. And then she did it again.
Saving corporations from their own mistakes
For us taxpayers, the most appalling aspect of hearings like this is not the superfluous talk, but the fact that nobody, but nobody, ever talks about cost-effectiveness, or about the wisdom of NOT spending all this money in yet another attempt to walk backwards into the future.
Take one small example from Rep Caddy’s soliloquy: the organic grain the railroad used to haul for local dairy farmers. That never amounted to enough carloads to make a noticeable contribution to the railroad’s need to generate revenue. At one time this railroad carried 40,000 carloads a year. It was down to about 5,000 when CORP threw in the towel.
And then she mentioned American Bridge, a company about whose sanity I have wondered ever since it decided to come to Reedsport ten years ago. When construction of its plant started on a former waterfront mill site with a barge slip and a railroad spur, the project manager gushed that they had chosen that site for its “. . . ability to transport both supplies and finished products to and from Reedsport by road, rail or sea.” Obviously American Bridge had not done its homework, or it would have known that Congress had been threatening to reduce dredging for small West Coast harbors for years, so the handwriting was on the wall for many of those including the Umpqua channel to Reedsport.
But apparently American Bridge had given no thought to the local railroad’s long-term viability, either. In the year it built its plant, 2003, that railroad’s carloads amounted to 7,600, and a little bit of investigatory zeal could have shown that its largest customer, the Weyerhaeuser containerboard mill on Coos Bay’s North Spit that had generated 3,000 carloads, was in a declining industry which had seen plant closing after plant closing for over a decade. After being in a temporary closure, Weyerhaeuser also shut down permanently, that same year. And American Bridge’s expected use of the railroad would not even come close to replacing that mill’s transportation needs; the company expected to use between 50 and 150 carloads a year. Why didn’t it build in a place with more reliable connections? A healthy economy should not protect people from their mistakes; they’ll just make more, and the country’s productivity inexorably declines. Besides, it is clear that even though the bridge fabricator has been “saved” at incredible public cost, nobody is making any bets on the railroad’s existence, say, ten years from now. The Port itself has said that it will only continue to operate if traffic can be boosted substantially. Like every other local “development” scheme I have studied, this one raised the question if throwing all that money out of an overflying helicopter would not have produced better results.
Well – maybe we get the politicians we deserve.
I don’t believe in judging one by their looks, even with that double chin, those beady eyes, and that long nose.
Very big-hearted of you, Reminder. And it sounds like you would make a great editor for a picture book on the incredible diversity of the human face.
Bestiality?
Seriously? Really?
Wow you have one heck of an imagination if you can infer bestiality from the comment. Looks like you edited x’s two. Sure you don’t want to try for a third?
Themguys,
Personally I see shades of gray; it appears Wimbleton does too. I wanted to see his rationale behind engaging in government waste, all the while being such a great critic.
I’ll call a spade a spade when I see one. I’m not going to give someone a free pass because I like the fact they call Bullsheet on local yokals. Lets not go too far with constructive.
I admire the fact he readily admits his sins & does not try to hide behind his silver tongue.
I edited this comment by (1) removing crude and senseless sexual innuendo bordering on bestiality, and (2) incomprehensible expressions like &. Wim
Crudeness and coarseness, like sarcasm and satire and even expletives can be used to make a point but since young people also read this blog, I would appreciate it if you would keep the crudeness to a minimum, the avatar is really bad enough, already.
Pig Nuts? Got anything else? At least the man has DONE something extremely constructive, something no one else has ever taken the time to do, which is to expose the fraud that is the Port of Coos Bay. It seems to me you and your pink balls have done what???? ACTING like you know something, and actually DOING something about it are two different things.
I have no problem with Wim taking a few bucks of my tax money to improve the exterior and view. After tourists experience quaint Bandon or Winchester Bay, then approach old and dirty Coos Bay, there is little question why folks don’t stop. Speaking of UR, how soon we forget all local properties bought with tax money by the CB councilors doubling as UR experts that was then given away to private entities. My favorite is the $500,000 purchase of the Central Dock (an effort led by McKeown’s hubbie Jeff whose daddy once owned the Central Dock) that was given to the private enterprise doing business as a museum.
For the record, I like your cute little Wiener Schnitzel of a Bistro. I’m not a big fan of sauerkraut but you do have a pretty darn good burger. The bun is excellent. What is a Schnitzel Sandwich? I’ve heard of a Schnitz Sandwich before.
As for your face… I have this sticky wireless keyboard that has gremlins & sometimes I’m in a hurry. It was facade.
UR funds. I’m indifferent to the amount spent. I guess I’m more interested to know what it is like to live in a glass house? Isn’t there a certain degree of hypocrisy in your rants? The only reason you regret taking tax payer money is because you had to deal with “a band of artistic nitwits”. I guess all I can say is what did you expect? You see the twisted rusted pile of Schnitz they call art being sold by Vaughan on the side of the 101.
It’s kind of like the nun who had to gargle the holy water before the next nun dipped her a$$ in it!
OK Pig Nuts – first things first.
A Schnitzel Schnandwich is a variation on a very old, very classic German dish. An Austrian dish to be precise, because “Wiener Schnitzel” translated means “Viennese cutlet.” It does seem to confuse a lot of people, like the guy who called me over to complain about his Schnitzel because he thought he would be getting a hot dog. Instead it’s a pork (or veal or chicken) tenderloin, pounded flat, seasoned, breaded and pan-fried. We use a smaller piece to make a sandwich, and it’s quite popular.
“Living in a glass house”? That’s your view, and it has some merit, but it’s limited. First, let me point out that the façade program I took advantage of was the very FIRST one concocted by Coos Bay’s Urban Renewers that did NOT offer to pay the entire bill. In contrast, in the 1990s, the City of Coos Bay (which doubles as the Urban Renewal Agency) had paid 100% of the cost of new awnings for 22 downtown merchants. They paid $150 a lineal foot, so for a merchant like Frank, whose South Coast Office Supply building measures 100 x 100 feet, that came to $30,000 of ENTIRELY free awnings from the taxpayers. I did not get any.
But by 2007 the City/UR agency seems to have come to its senses, to realize that it could get far more bang for its buck by NOT by paying the entire bill. Instead, the City/UR agency would pay a small part of it to spur the merchants into doing something. From the taxpayers’ point of view, that is a much sounder method. The property owner still pays most of the cost, so he will be more careful about how he spends it. He will also take better care of what he gets. One condition of the 1990s free-awning program had been that the property owners “had to take care of their awnings,” according to the City. That was a laugh, as anybody who drove by some of those rotting awnings can testify. But when the owner has paid most of the bill for an improvement, it’s different; he won’t let it rot away. That’s just human nature. So, if you want to rail about merchants sucking at the tit of government, why don’t you talk about the downtown merchants who really sucked it dry. I won’t name names, but they’re not hard to find.
Now, coming back to the “glass house”, I need to quote the famous longshoreman-philosopher Eric Hoffer, who observed: “Many of the insights of the saints stem from their experience as sinners.” Perhaps Hoffer had drawn his conclusion from St. Augustine’s prayer when that holy man was still a skirt-chasing youth: “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet. Amen.” But there can be no doubt that once Augustine converted to Christianity, he was eminently qualified to preach against sin. He knew it inside-out, backward and forward. He knew that it is luridly enticing. And, so do I – at least as far as government subsidies are concerned.
Wim
Did you take urban renewal funds to improve your facade?
Did you spend in excess of $7,500 of Urban Renewal funds?
Did the Urban Renewal board create the $7,500 cap after you completed your faced?
All right, let’s take these questions in order:
— “Did you take urban renewal funds to improve your facade?”
ANSWER: I received a grant of $25,000 in 2007. I spent more than $80,000. And afterwards I wished I had never taken the UR money. That’s because the city allowed a band of artistic nitwits called the Design Committee to put conditions on the grant which would end up costing me as much as the 25K they gave me. But I didn’t know that at the time.
— “Did you spend in excess of $7,500 of Urban Renewal funds?”
ANSWER: Obviously. The rules promised a grant of half the cost of the project or $25,000, whichever was lower. Frank Hanson at South Coast Office Supply across the street got the same deal, $25,000, and he spent more than I did. There were others too, but I don’t know the details of their projects. It’s all in the public record, so you should be able to find out more from the city.
— “Did the Urban Renewal board create the $7,500 cap after you completed your faced?”
ANSWER: My faced? My face? Let’s assume you’re asking about my facade project. I didn’t know the cap had been changed, and I don’t know what it is now, so I’m not even sure your information is correct. And if it is correct, I’m not aware that my project had anything to do with it. Once I added up all my bills and the harassment by the committee, I made it a point to stay away from anything labeled Urban Renewal. I can tell you, too, that I know of several business owners who had big plans for their buildings but decided to forget them on account of the demands of Urban Renewal’s artistic meddlers. One was going to spend a million dollars, but changed his mind when told he had to do it in a Victorian style.
If you’d like to know more about Urban Renewal and its problems, I suggest you visit the office of The Sentinel and check their back issues. In February/March of last year I published a 4-part series on Urban Renewal. The fourth article has further details about my facade improvement saga.
Wim
BTW how much public money did you spend on the facade for your cute little Wiener Schnitzel of a Bistro?
A little blue birdy told me you blew the cities load all over 30K & because of that they placed the $7,500 limit to forgo draining the Fuehrers Urban Renewal slush fund on any one privately held business.
Care to go on record about it Wim?
Just the rumor on the street, not sayin any of it is true. As adamant as you are about spending the taxpayers dime I suspect it is all rumor.
Inquiring minds want to know Wimbly.
Pig Nuts – I would answer your questions if I could understand them. To remedy that situation, I recommend you take an extensive schedule of remedial English classes including grammar, composition and comprehension. If you are too lazy or stupid to do that, you should at least consider some instruction on how to avoid being too convolutedly clever for your own good.
Wim tell us how you really feel. If I was not mistaken, one would be lead to believe, you could sum up this whole piece by stating Caddy IS a “Deep Water Port”… Am I correct in that assumption? Surely she being an elected woman isn’t capable of being any other value.
Too bad we can’t get some, even a smidgeon of this into The World. Those ass hats wouldn’t know real news if it bit them on their arsses. Thank you Wim, once again for some truthiness.
Obviously the New Clark is the same as the Old Clark, and nothing of any value except high school sports, crosses and pretty photos will be placed upon the plates of their readers. I’d be ashamed to be affiliated with this group of hawksters which toil at The World, I saw more news from my high school journalism class fifty years ago.