Editorials from around Oregon

Selected editorials from Oregon newspapers:

___

The Eugene Register-Guard, Oct. 23, on a proposed national forest permit and fee system:

Anyone who enjoys hiking or camping in Oregon’s national forests should take a minute to comment on a proposed permit and fee system that will make it harder to spontaneously decide to spend a sunny Saturday in the woods. It’s far from clear that the folks who will run the program have figured out how to make it the seamless experience it needs to be.

Under the proposal, some of the most popular trailheads in the state will have caps on use and fees for those lucky enough to get a permit. The permit system will apply to trailheads in the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests. Specifically, they’ll hit the Central Cascades wilderness areas, including Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak.

The U.S. Forest Service proposes charging $3 a person for day-use permits on 19 trailheads and $5 per person a night on all 79 trailheads in the specified areas. There also would be processing fees on top of that.

Make no mistake, limiting access to the trails is necessary. They have become victims of their own popularity. As more people hike or camp, they cause more harm to these irreplaceable natural spaces. Most people don’t wilfully abuse the forests, but a few bad actors leave behind human and animal waste and cause other damage. Even those with the purest “leave no trace” intentions are not harmless. Thousands of steps on a trail wear it down, widening the trail and creating opportunities for erosion.

Most of the money that the fee program raises — 80% to 90% of it — will go into forest maintenance and restoration. Think of it as a user fee. Sure, it would be great if the federal government funded national forests and other federal lands well enough to fully preserve them and keep them accessible, but that hasn’t happened in decades. User fees are common.

But the permits and fees need to work as seamlessly as possible. Too many questions remain about how the Forest Service will implement the program.

How far in advance will permits go on sale? How will officials ensure equitable access to them? Will there need to be a lottery for the most popular weekend days? How many passes will be held for people to be able to hike spontaneously?

We suspect more people decide to hike or camp for a couple of nights spontaneously when the weather is nice than plan it months in advance.

It’s important, too, to think about these questions broadly. Hiking and camping are for more than just Oregonians. The Forest Service must develop effective communication strategies to get the word out to visitors from other states. If tourists become disgruntled because they didn’t know they wouldn’t be able to hike to the top of South Sister, the state’s reputation as a great destination could take a hit.

The Forest Service has smart people developing this plan, but they need to hear from users if they’re to find a management strategy that will work. Check out all the details online and share your thoughts before the comment period closes Nov. 25.

___

Corvallis Gazette-Times, Oct. 23, on county breach-of-contract lawsuit against state over timberland management:

Although it’s been nearly four years since it was first filed, Linn County’s breach-of-contract lawsuit against the state of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Forestry gets its first big test this week: Selection is underway for jurors to hear the case, and attorneys on both sides are prepared to give their opening arguments on Thursday. The trial is expected to last three weeks.

We’ve been tracking the ins and outs of the case over the last four years, but it will be fascinating to see how the case fares before an actual jury — even though it’s clear that whatever jurors decide almost certainly will be appealed, first to the Court of Appeals and then to the state Supreme Court.

Certainly, there’s a lot at stake in the case: Linn County and 150 other counties and taxing districts are seeking $1.4 billion in both lost revenues and future losses. And the case’s final resolution could impact how the state manages its timberlands.

So, this would be a good time for a fast review of the essentials: At issue are about 700,000 acres of state forest trust lands. The story begins during the Great Depression, when thousands of acres were harvested by privately owned companies. After the harvest, many of the landowners decided it would be more cost-effective to let the lands go back to the counties for unpaid taxes, rather than replant the lands and wait decades for the next harvest. But at the time, the counties didn’t want the properties and so turned them over to the state, with the understanding that the state would replant them and, upon harvest, share the income with the counties based on a tenet of “greatest permanent value.”

At the time, it generally was understood that the term “greatest permanent value” required timber management that provides the most annual income on a sustainable basis over the long term.

In 1968, however, after a series of public hearings, the Oregon Board of Forestry approved a new management plan for the forests that expanded the definition of “greatest permanent value” so that it included factors such as recreation, riparian areas, wildlife enhancement, water quality and more. That plan went into effect in 2001. One result, the plaintiffs argue, is that they’ve seen their annual share of revenue from timber harvests on the land decrease by $35 million per year. That decline, witnesses will tell jurors, has had a real impact on the budgets of those counties and the dozens of other taxing districts that are among the plaintiffs.

John DiLorenzo, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the class-action suit, will tell jurors that the state had what amounts to a contract with the counties to maximize revenue from the lands — and that the decision to expand the definition of “greatest permanent value” amounts to a breach of that contract. He’ll work hard to keep the focus of the case as simple as possible: He will tell jurors that the case is a straightforward breach of contract.

The state’s attorneys, led by Scott Kaplan, will make the case that the state has the right to amend management of the state’s forests, especially when those changes involve the environment and wildlife. That’s true. But it may not matter if jurors buy into DiLorenzo’s theory of the case: The state can amend those forest plans for the best of reasons — but those amendments also could represent a breach of the contract between the state and the counties.

The entire lawsuit plays out against a backdrop of strained relations between the state and some of its counties, and Linn County has been a leader of that resistance. Playing on its home court, so to speak, the county could find a receptive audience in the jury box. It will be fascinating to follow the case’s twists and turns in the courtroom over the next few weeks, but it’s worth remembering that this ballgame is still in the early innings.

___

The Bend Bulletin, Oct. 22, on discussions about potential new housing tax:

To attack Bend’s housing problems, the city is looking at changing city rules and regulations, using grants and loans and — perhaps — creating a new tax.

It would be a construction excise tax, a tax on building permits.

Let’s be clear. There are only discussions about such a tax at this point. No tax has been approved. No rate is set. It’s not even clear who would have to pay. The tax did come up, though, in a city subcommittee discussion on Monday.

If you want to have an impact on the debate over such a tax, the time is now — not the night it comes before the Bend City Council for a vote.

Bend already has a similar tax for affordable housing. Since 2006, the city has collected 0.33% of the total valuation on all building permits submitted to the city. That has collected more than $6.4 million. The city uses that money primarily to fund loans to help make affordable housing projects happen.

The new fee would be supplemental to that one — potentially on the building permit valuation of commercial and industrial developments. One rate city staff has mentioned is 0.67%. That might raise over $1 million a year, according to previous city projections.

The city is conducting a survey of the development community right now to find out why multifamily housing projects don’t get done. There are all sorts of obstacles that get in the way. For instance, providing enough parking can be an issue for apartments. City and park system development fees can raise the per unit cost of housing by thousands. And a new apartment complex can trigger enough expected traffic to require an improvement at a nearby intersection. That can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a new complex.

Money is one way to help make those problems go away. The new tax could be used to create a pool. Developers could apply for the money and councillors could make awards based on the relative merits of the various projects.

The city should do all it can to identify the codes and regulations it can change or get rid of so more housing can be built before it considers creating a new tax. And it already is making an impressive effort to do so. Should it add a new tax? Tell councillors what you think. The quickest way to reach them is probably to send an email to council@bendoregon.gov.

The Associated Press