Letters for Jan. 17
An interesting occurrence at my house, which is just a couple of blocks away from the Happy Valley Nature Park.
Just after Christmas, I went out my front door and a deer carcass was about 15 feet away tucked between a fence and hedge under a maple tree. I called Happy Valley City Hall and was told to call Clackamas County. I called Clackamas County and was referred to Clackamas County Sheriff's Office, who referred me to Oregon State Police, who referred me to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
I was told by one of these people to triple bag the deer and put it in the garbage. She must use really large bags if they would hold most of an adult deer. Another one of these people told me to dig a hole and bury the carcass. Two or three of them said since the deer was on my property, it was my responsibility to take care of it. Bottom line: "It's not my job."
My point is that, to the best of my knowledge and several others that hunt, this was a cat kill (hidden carcass, organized eating pattern, intact omentum, small bites of fur around the site, etc). I did take pictures of this kill and the surroundings. I would think if a cougar is known to be hunting in a neighborhood, the folks living in the neighborhood would appreciate having the information. I sure look around when I go out now, and I'm especially cautious at night.
Citizen oversight for Milwaukie police needed
I think since this is 2018 it is high time that the Milwaukie Police Department make forms available online to report grievances/ complaints that the citizens of Milwaukie have. We owe this to Norma Gabriel, who was killed in a crosswalk last year with just a $260 fine to the FedEx van driver who hit her in a Milwaukie Transit Center crosswalk.
I really think I deserve to be treated with more respect and kindness from the Milwaukie Police Department. (Even though I know they don't think I deserve it).
CCSO provides this service (clackamas.us/sheriff/documents/complaint.pdf), and I think Milwaukie Police Chief Steve Bartol should too.
Your Clackamas County commissioners are conspiring to hijack library tax dollars, that you voted to designate specifically and solely for library services, to build buildings ("Library staff members concerned over new master order," Jan. 3).
Don't believe me, ask them!
1) Ask them if they plan to amend laws without consulting you to make this piracy legal.
2) Ask them if they are betraying your trust because they want your money to settle a law suit with the city of Gladstone.
3) Ask them if they intend to ignore the intent and language of your 2008 ballot measure
4) Ask them if they plan to redirect your money that you set aside for computer time, books, magazines, CDs; programs for adults, teens and toddlers.
5) Ask them if there will be continued stable funding for all existing services you voted for and now enjoy.
6) Ask them why they choose not to ask you for your input.
Tell them that to undermine the will of the people and play fast and loose with their vote is disastrous policy and blatantly idiotic politics.
Hopefully the commissioners will use the sense they were born with and not mess with your tax dollars, your vote and your desire for stable funding of library services.
Ask them the above questions and then tell them to keep their hands off stable funding for library services.
A case for a carbon fee
Regarding Paris Achen's "'Cap and invest' bill takes shape" (Dec. 20): As an environmentally conscious Oregonian, I'm in favor of exploring any measure that addresses climate change, but research indicates that a carbon fee would be more efficient and effective than a cap-and-invest policy.
Furthermore, given concerns about the negative impact of federal tax reform on working- and middle-class Oregon families, the most prudent step that the state could take would be to implement a revenue-neutral carbon-fee-and-dividend program.
Under such a model, carbon dioxide emissions would incur a per-ton fee that gradually increased over time — incentivizing the use and development of clean energy technology, while allowing businesses time to adjust.
Both cap-and-invest and carbon-fee systems are expected to result in the passing on of increased energy costs to consumers. But a carbon-fee-and-dividend plan would rebate net collected fees equally to households in order to offset higher costs of essentials such as home heating and transportation.
Such a system would be financially progressive, because the equally divided rebates would be a greater percentage of working-class families' income than upper-class families' — and because wealthier households have larger carbon footprints on average.
Because a fee-and-dividend system is revenue-neutral, it could be championed by conservatives and progressives alike. While it seems logical to invest carbon revenue directly into clean technologies, the inefficiency and potentially regressive nature of cap-and-invest systems make them far less desirable than a carbon fee.
Legislators need only look as far as British Columbia for an excellent model: According to a five-year review, the province's revenue-neutral carbon tax has resulted in a drop in per capita fossil-fuel consumption of nearly 20 percent, even as its economic growth has kept pace with the rest of the country. Our state could benefit greatly from a similar win-win proposition with bipartisan appeal.