The current Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) is a plan to fail. That’s not just rhetoric. The city's document shows it's own statistical projection of failure. That projection, however, is buried in the document. The document is packaged to look promising. The photos show a healthy planet and harmonious-seeming world.

Why is the City of Eugene committed to a public relations sham in regard to climate catastrophe? Six years after passing the Climate Recovery Ordinance and spending $450,000 for staff and consultants to put together a plan, we have a sham document, a "plan" that will not bring us within even 50% of our 2030 climate goals. When the CAP 2.0 was released in November, 350 Eugene declared it a plan to fail. Nonetheless, Mayor Vinis insists we are making progress. This is falsity we do not have time for.

Immediately upon taking office, I would use the platform of mayor to sound the alarms.

As mayor, I would be 100% committed to Eugene actually modeling what it means for a city to meet planet-mandated ghg-reduction requirements, and to do so according to the tenets of the Green New Deal. I would organize with other cities around pacts to do the same. We need to scaffold broadscale change from the local level on up.

When I say I would organize with other cities, what do I mean? What makes organizing between city governments around system-challenging climate change policies possible? Organizing with the people.

Taking it further, what does this mean? It means local governments must look to enable people to organize. What are the public platforms and resources by which people can organize? Governmental allowance of free speech in a town square was adequate back when cities were towns. It's not anywhere near adequate today for an entity as large as Eugene. So, let's allocate public resources for organizing. It's kind of like having publicly funded elections, except it's publicly funded people's empowerment.

My immediate suggestion is that members of local climate organizations--Sunrise, XR, 350, NAACP, Beyond Toxics, OCT, Civil Liberties Defense Center, etc.--be authorized to rewrite the CAP. Representatives to serve on the committee should be chosen by the organizations themselves. City Staff should serve only as a resource for the self-directed citizen committee. The committee should be tasked with coming up with at least three CAP options. Members of the committee should be paid. This committee should be formed and a timeline set in very short order.

We need to do the relatively-easy and immediately possible actions right away. When Corvallis went to fare-free public transit, ridership increased by 37%. Eugene can do this immediately. Also a no-brainer: no new gas infrastructure.

We need major investment in publicly-and communally-owned, democratically-run, local food production.

We need to pilot high impact climate actions. If voluntary actions prove inadequate, in short order, we need to pilot mandatory possibilities. . I recognize that to use the word “mandatory” is almost unspeakable. I trust the public in total understands or can be aided in understanding worse realities to come.

We demand a transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of color and poor communities, for years of environmental injustice, establishes legal rights for ecosystems to thrive and regenerate in perpetuity, and repairs the effects of ongoing ecocide to prevent extinction of humans and all species, in order to maintain a livable, just planet for all. --Extinction Rebellion US

We must hold a bottom line around human rights and baseline survival provisions. This means prioritizing bottom-line wellness now. The assertion that we don't have the funds or space for people's bottom line needs reflects chosen priorities, not some inherent shortfall. People's lives are deteriorating and expiring now. A middle-aged woman asleep in a church parking lot had her skull crushed by a garbage truck. What more grotesque form of death might it take for us to see ourselves?

We should not be criminalizing poverty. Criminalization is deleterious, sometimes fatal, to the well-being of people suffering already. On the damn budget side: it is more costly to the public resource to kick-the-can and criminalize than it is provide basic resources by which people suffer far less. [Resource: "Persecution of Unhoused: Fines and Jail Time for People Who have Nowhere Else to Go in Eugene, Oregon" a report by the Oregon Law Center].

We need to engage diverse and immediately actionable pilots to help people now. Emphasis on improving lives now. We can immediately and significantly expand tent, safe spot, supported camping, Conestoga hut, tiny house, food, land, bathroom, shower, building access, and social service provisions now.

Longer-term solutions must address the scale of the problem. Rather than touting the "TAC report" as a sign of meaningful progress, I would speak to the grave inadequacies of it. To suggest that a 75 bed shelter, 350 units of supported housing, and some lower-budget items such as divergence money will come anywhere close to the mark obscures a dire reality. In nearly the same time it took consultants to provide recommendations for the current count of people without shelter, homelessness in Eugene increased upwards of 30%. We can't allow ourselves to be placated by inadequate promises into the future.

Municipally-owned public-housing built to scale. As mayor, I would direct staff to identify the most progressive funding mechanisms by which to significantly invest in municipally-owned public housing, including mixed-income social housing. We must unpack the mythologies around public housing. Public housing in the U.S. is largely problematic for two reasons: 1) the bulk of public housing was built during segregation; 2) the crusade of Reaganomics. Over 60% of Vienna's population lives in publicly owned housing and the people like it--for some reason, to us, that's unfathomable.

"Affordable Housing" must be clearly defined and permanent. We must understand that public-private partnership contracts around subsidized "affordable housing" are highly vulnerable to private sector profiteering. We can see this at the local level in how the ordinance which set the terms for an "affordable housing trust fund" is written. While there are long-established standards defining "Affordable Housing" as accessible to people in low- and extremely-low income brackets, making under 60% and under 30% of the Area Median Income respectively, our local ordinance allocates subsidy for projects affordable to people making up to 100% of the AMI. I don't mean to suggest that households of 3-4 people making 100% of the AMI aren't struggling. My concern is that developers might readily understand that 500 sq ft luxury studios accessible to individuals making $45K/year meet the city's "Affordable" qualification. The ordinance also fails to require units to remain "affordable" for any minimum length of time. I have to ask, why would the city pass an ordinance with so little in the way of meaningful protections for the purported cause?

End MUPTE & End the Downtown and Riverfront URDs: [If I haven't managed to delineate my spiel on these two by the time someone interested wants to read it, send me an email or text and I'll get right to it: zondiez@hotmail.com; 650-743-8588. Tax breaks and subsidies for the richest.]

Decriminalize and promote minimalist-impact living to scale: We need to revisit lot size regulations and regulations by which building shelter is cost-prohibitive, antisocial, and ecologically destructive. Rather than criminalizing all non-standard structures, we ought to recalibrate our sense of what is affordable, communally-sound, and physically safe in the context of planetary destruction. Decolonize community, decolonize "housing."

As mayor, I would treat the need for police demilitarization and reform with urgency. Demilitarization and reform will save lives.

A tragic example:

On November 30th, 2019, EPD killed Eliborio Rodriguez, an unarmed person of color. Eli had been collecting cans from curbside recycling. In the months preceding the incident of his death, Eli had filed notice of intention to sue for overuse of force for another incident in which an officer had held him at gunpoint.

In the first incident, Eli was detained for making an abrupt lane change on his bicycle. For the encounter in which he was killed, EPD Officer Samuel Tykol told Eli he was being stopped for having walked in the street. Eli pointed out to the officer that only part of the street had sidewalk, and asked why the officer was stopping him. The officer said, "I can stop you whenever I deem necessary." The officer asked Eli for ID.

Video footage shows Eli ask why Officer Tykol needed his ID. The EPD officer tells Eli, "You are not free to go." Eli does not attempt to leave. EPD officer Tykol grips Eli's arm and forces Eki to the ground. Eli struggles against being forced to the ground, tells the officer not to touch him, and asks to speak with the officer's sargeant. EPD Officer Tykol continues to force Eli to the ground. Eli asks if he is under arrest and why he is under arrest. EPD Officer Tykol tells Eli he is under arrest for interfering with a police officer. Ten times, Eli asks for the officer to call his sargeant. ELI says, "Sir, Sir, call your sargeant, please." Eli also calls out loudly, several times, for help.

Bodycam footage shows EPD Officer Tykol pepper spray Eli. Eli is on his knees, struggling not be handcuffed, intermittently calling for help.

The DA report alleges no further footage.

In her report, the DA said, "We expect our local law enforcement officers to keep our neighborhoods safe. Officer Tykol was engaged in good police work making contact with [the man killed] under the circumstances of the late hour, dressed in dark clothing, walking in the street of a neighborhood."

At the DA's press conference, Eugene Police Chief said, "We can look back, hindsight is always 20/20, ...but I absolutely want officers stopping and having conversations with individuals that look like they're not in the place they're supposed to be, whether it's on foot, on a bicycle, in a car in these neighborhoods."

Shortly after the DA's findings closed investigation into use of deadly force, the man's life partner sent me unlinked media coverage revealing that the officer in the first incident had falsified his report and withheld video footage. The video footage was later found and the officer fired for false reporting, withheld footage, and overuse of force. We might conclude that the man's lawsuit--had he lived to pursue it-- would have prevailed.

I cannot conclude that the officer who killed the man on November 30th lied in his report, as did the officer who held the man at gunpoint in the first incident. Nor can I conclude that the unavailability of video footage by which we might see the officer killing the man is intentional, as it was in the case of the first incident. These things are not known.

I can conclude, however, that a Eugene police officer engaged in bigoted profiling and escalated to violence and that those actions have been sanctioned. I can also conclude that we see systemic support for profiling in both the DA's comment and the comment of the Eugene Police Chief. I can conclude that the narrative the DA promoted is incongruent with video footage, sees profiling as justified, and relies on biased inclusions and exclusions to sway public opinion. I can conclude that a DA who is not committed to a whole and qualitative truth, and electeds who promote biased reports and oversight, are complicit in state violence.

I can also conclude that the man himself might have reasonably felt increasing fear for his life due to prior and present actions of the police. I believe police protocol must recognize the history of its own violence, particularly against people of color.

From a UN expert panel on police killings in the United States: “The legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge.... Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis."

JUST A SAMPLING:

*Refer Elected Auditor measure to ballot WITHOUT a vote-splitting copycat measure.

*Refer STAR Voting to the ballot.

*Repeal the Payroll Tax.

*Publicly-Funded Elections, maximum expenditures equal to the common public resource for each candidate.

*Stop circumventing the Boise Decision.

*Representative seat(s) reserved for displaced indigenous community representatives. [Placeholder idea here--how such representation should be structured, what it might look like, whether it is desirable, requires representative voices.]

*Make Sanctuary City ordinance legally-binding

*Protections and provisions for undocumented people.

*End curfews and Saturday vendor fees and regulations on Free Speech Plaza. Bring back the drum circle.

*End special interest influence over the Climate Action Plan.

*Public Forums held in all parts of city. Restore the stolen minutes. Make them child and parent friendly.

As mayor, I would look to promote new economic modeling. We might bifurcate "new economic modeling" into two parts: 1) what we need to stop doing; 2) what we need to start doing.

SECTION 1: What we need to stop doing [Scroll down to SECTION 2--it's the place of positivity]

We need to end public investment in aspects of so-called economic development where the clear short and long-term consequence is a further concentration of wealth for some and depletion of public resource for all.

It can be difficult to track all the ways our public resources are put toward concentrating wealth for some at the expense of the community.

As just one example of how current city policy promotes wealth concentration through tax loopholes and disproportionate investment, we can look at city subsidies for the Riverfront Development. We might find it the epitome of inequitable distribution that the city plans to invest as much as $40M in unnecessary infrastructure upgrades in and around the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, including a $20M park and plaza (on what is already greenspace!), when there are people and neighborhoods in dire need of public resource.

According to a report by Beyond Toxics, residents of west Eugene are exposed to 2000x the level of air pollutants than those of all other Eugene areas combined. In Bethel, 1 out of 5 residents suffer asthma or other respiratory issues. A 2018 report by Lane County Public Health showed that residents of Trainsong have a life expectancy of nearly ten years shorter than residents in other neighborhoods. How is it that we have managed a tax loophole by which heavily fund an area for new investment, for an above market-rate population yet to come, and not tend to the pressing, even dire, needs of people suffering tremendous inequities now.

The argument for why things are done the way they are is rarely explicit. At best we get public relations level justifications. Of 500 new units in the Riverfront, 75 will be affordable. "Affordable housing" is always an easy sell. The public is too overworked to vet the facts and logic fully, or we're too disempowered to make much of a fuss. Nevermind that the city fails to define "affordable housing" in meaningful terms, such that even studios renting for $1200/month qualify (meaning developers of those get a tax break). Nevermind that if only 20% of the units are "affordable," (in this case 75 out of 500 units in proximity to the park and plaza), we might understand that 80% of the public investment most directly benefits people in higher income brackets, those making greater than 100% of the Area Median Income. Of course, the greatest beneficiaries are not even the people who will get to rent or own the expensive apartments, but the developers who get major public investment added to the value of their capital. (In the case of the Riverfront URD, investors can skirt 100% of capital gains at the federal level, thanks to a Trump enabled loophole).

The broader justification for disproportionate investment such as we see for the Riverfront is that such investment now will increase the municipal tax base in the future, thus bringing greater resource to all. This is the theory of trickle down economics and we see it modeled all across the country, with all levels of policy making. So called "Trickle-Down Economics" ("Flow Up" would be more accurate) has been in full force for 40 years. We understand it as a sham. We need to invest in communal resilience and safety nets now.

Another argument is that without the public investment, developers wouldn't build. Let's examine that assumption: the Riverfront Urban Renewal District comprises the currently undeveloped green space running along the south bank of the Willamette between UO and Downtown. It is plainly prime real estate, with natural assets and adjacency to both the university and downtown. Developers recognize this. Additionally, the Riverfront Urban Renewal District is overlaid by a Trump Opportunity Zone. A Trump Opportunity Zone, enabled by Donald Trump, allows developers to skirt 100% of capital gains taxes with investment in the zone. This of course makes the zone all the more profitable for developers. Do we really believe development at the Riverfront needs to be further incentivized? At the expense of other areas in the city?

I don't buy the argument that it does, but even if so, I don't see the benefit. When it comes to the supply of basic needs and infrastructure--in this case, housing--we must not allow ourselves to be cornered by the singularly-driven profit-motives of free-market capitalism. We can invest in communal resiliency. For community resiliency policies in regards to housing, I have some ideas in the Homelessness and Housing section.

*End Downtown and Riverfront URDs

*End MUPTE

*Repeal the PAYROLL TAX

• Devise and implement a local Green New Deal; include major investment in municipally-owned public and social housing, regional food self-sufficiency, regional recycling and waste management, fareless public transportation, no-barrier health care, public banking;

• Direct and policy assistance to businesses must advance equity and welfare of the whole. Assistance must be tied to such things as climate need requirements, cap on wage gaps, meaningful cooperative ownership, anti-discrimination policies, essential goods and services assessment and prioritization.

• The city must address health inequities. A report by Beyond Toxics identifies that residents of west Eugene suffer 2000x the degree of air pollution as all other areas of Eugene combined; one-fifth of residents of Bethel report suffering asthma or other respiratory illnesses. A report by Lane County Public Health shows residents of Trainsong have an average life expectancy 18 years shorter than that of residents in Fairmount.

• Incentivize Zero Wage Gap Business Models: check out Carry It Forward

• Seek guidance from indigenous paradigms and Green New Deal think tanks.

• Pilot programs that support fundamentals of Regenerative Economics

I want to acknowledge that including "Decolonization" on a political platform in the US electoral process is problematic. There is the paradox of using a colonizing structure to promote decolonization. Furthermore, ideological inclusion on a platform, while meant to promote positive change, also risks cloaking further exploitation.

Decolonization is a possibility in many realms. If you know all about it, please forgive this cursory 101. Decolonization is fought for by resistance movements, first and foremost by people suffering territorial occupation. Decolonization as an ideological framework has been adopted in academia. On a global scale, imperialist retreat from occupied territories is decolonization (rarely complete). To remove a namesake or statue heroizing a colonizer is a form of decolonization. There are movements to decolonize museums and universities. In respect to literature, people look to decolonize the literary cannon. The movement to ban fares on the NYC subway system is framed by some of the organizers as decolonization. There are movements to decolonize knowledge. We can look at the medical industry. What forms of medicine are promoted, which delegitimized? Which methods of childbearing promoted, which delegitimized? Some people talk about decolonizing one's mind, decolonizing our lifeways. Nearly all oppressive and bigoted ideologies can be talked about under the framework of colonization. Therefore, also of decolonization.

I am a grown person, "highly educated," with two children. I ask myself, how is it I know very little about how to directly provide food, shelter, clothing? I birthed both my children underwater. I did not know waterbirthing was a possibility until the last trimester of my first pregnancy. The experiences I list here are both connected to, and removed from, massive displacement, genocide, and cultural annihilation caused by actual colonization.

Epistemicide is another potent concept. Another Solidarity Platform candidate, Candice King, introduced me to the word. I had been running into the issue without language for it. Epistemology involve the study of knowledge, what is validated, what dismissed. Epistemicide is when ways of knowing or actual knowledge itself is systematically delegitimized or destroyed. Colonizing powers have worked to eradicate indigenous knowledge. Whole languages have been forcibly lost. We see efforts to re-indigenize in all forms.

By speaking of all realms of decolonization, I do not mean to diffuse attention away from the actual displacement and eradication of indigenous people and lifeways. Rather, I hope to consolidate comprehension.

In regards to municipal governance, our Mayor began her State-of-the-City Speech offering acknowledgement to the Kalapuyan that Eugene occupies their land. Each year, an opening speaker at the City of Eugene's "Riverfest" event acknowledges that the City of Eugene occupies Kalapuyan land. My interest is in action beyond rhetoric. What is possible?

Here is an example of something I would do differently. The city is currently planning to gift away the retired Steamplant building and its Riverfront property to the same developers who tried to privatize Kesey square. Not only are they going to gift this extraordinary asset and real estate to a private entity, they are poised to throw in $4M in public dollars to assist the developers in their private project.

The deal does not look good: it seems the building and land will be privately owned; preliminary agreements only vaguely mention some level of public access. This might mean that the public would have access to the building's atrium, where there might be local artwork, or an occasional public event. Public access doesn't necessarily prohibit charging entry fees.

The terms of access have not been defined and yet the city has proceeded with negotiations for transfer of the property to the degree that, should it renege, the city could face a lawsuit. In fact, the city, by my rough assessment, seemed to engage in potentially legally-binding correspondences even before fully assessing the viability of the developers' proposal. When the developers asserted need for $4M in public subsidy, the city seemed not to balk.

The city's pending plan to privatize the Steamplant and its riverfront property strikes me as terrible in its own right, but also terrible for this reason: did anyone think of what else might be done with a public property simply being gifted away? Is this not a prime opportunity to consider the displaced people to whom we give ceremonious acknowledgement? Did the city approach the Tribal Council? Are they not aware that the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde actively seek to reacquisition land? The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde are currently engaged in a $36M renovation of an Oregon City riverfront mill. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde establish cultural centers by which, as a recent example, the British Museum loans back artifacts stolen 150 years ago. Are we completely uninterested?

Rather than transferring back stolen property to indigenous communities invested in reversing cultural eradication, Eugene plans to gift away a major public asset to be privately owned by four already super-rich white guys? Their plans for the building are private-lease office space, art work in the atrium. Is that an inspired and inclusive vision?

The Ruse of Vinis' Leadership

[written as Guest Viewpoint for The Register-Guard; denied publication]

I am concerned that the people of Eugene are being led to believe we have progressive leadership in our mayor, where we don’t.

On progressive priorities such as climate change and homelessness, the failures of Mayor Vinis’ leadership are plain.

Our incumbent claims to fight for climate change with a Climate Action Plan that cost $480,000 and took three years to produce. Yet, the CAP itself identifies that it does not bring us within even 50% of requisite 2030 goals.

That crucial information is buried under nice looking photos and a public relations campaign by which Vinis keeps telling us continued process is progress.

On homelessness, Vinis waves another purported roadmap, the Shelter Feasibility and Homelessness Services Assessment. This report lays out a 5 year plan for addressing homelessness in Lane County. Its most substantial recommendations are a 75-bed shelter and 350 units of permanent supportive housing.

As a way to gauge how vastly inadequate this roadmap is, consider that the latest count, taken in January 2019, showed nearly 2000 residents of Eugene unhoused, an increase of 24% in one year.

Vinis ran a campaign on addressing homelessness four years ago. The number of people suffering without shelter has increased each year of her incumbency.

Less easily perceived are the ways in which Vinis’ development policies entrench income and wealth inequality.

Vinis talks about investing in housing affordability “at all income levels,” which she equates with “equity goals.”

There is inherent contradiction between promoting “equity” and subsidizing affordability “at all income levels.” One requires de-stratification; the other entrenches stratification.

Vinis’ rhetoric creates the context in which council regularly approves incentives and tax breaks for high-end developments.

As one example, Vinis encouraged a $4M+ tax break to Obie Enterprises, run by Eugene’s former mayor, Brian Obie. His development, The Gordon Lofts, proposes 2 bedroom apartments to rent for $2,700/month.

In 2016, the state passed legislation authorizing local jurisdictions to tax new construction to generate funds for affordable housing. Eugene stalled on the adoption of the tax for three years.

As Vinis tells it, several councilors were prepared to enact the state-enabled tax at 1%, but developers and the Chamber of Commerce wanted to be included in the process. In the name of “inclusive process,” Vinis brought these private sector interests to the table.

The result: Eugene is the only city of among eight jurisdictions to have capped the tax at .5%. This cap reduces the city’s potential funds for affordable housing by half.

Vinis calls this outcome “a compromise.” The issue, of course, is that on the one side you have industry lobbyists looking to ensure maximum profit; on the other, community need.

Vinis touts having fostered “creation of a Willamette riverfront neighborhood." The Riverfront Development is another public resource give-away. The city is poised to sell 8 acres of downtown riverfront property to Williams & Dame, a corporation associated with $2.5B in real estate development, for $7.95/sf. Williams & Dame plans high-end apartments and yet another hotel.

Beyond the markedly low sale price, the city will subsidize the development through disproportionate investment. Along with millions to reconstruct streets and build a railroad quiet zone, the city promises nearly $20M for a “world-class” park and plaza adjacent to what will be William & Dame’s property.

While Vinis boasts stewardship over a luxurious neighborhood that doesn’t yet exist, she neglects neighborhoods in need.

Average life expectancy in Trainsong is 18 years shorter than in Fairmount. Lane County Public Health correlates this disparity with systemic neighborhood inequities, citing nearness to a park.

We must understand that we won’t act meaningfully around climate change and social justice in a context where monied interests determine priorities. This is true on the national level and it is true for our city.

Vinis has been a poor leader, selling us out with a public relations charade. But, I also have sympathy. We’ve had 40 years, at least, of every city following the same model: catering to capital investment.

I understand that insisting on something different is difficult. And yet, the crises at hand make it so we must. I look forward to a new paradigm. Instead of enabling wealth concentration, we could transform our economy under the guidance of a local Green New Deal.

Zondie Zinke is a candidate for Mayor of Eugene, running on the Solidarity Platform. Her individual campaign page can be found through a link on the home page at www.solidarityplatformeugene.org.

A REVIEW OF MAYOR VINIS RECORD

by Zondie Zinke

Solidarity Platform Candidate for Mayor

[with inserts of my positions]

The incumbent claims she is a progressive. I believe a progressive takes necessary action on climate change; ensures a robust safety net; reverses wealth and income inequality at the systems level; and works toward an empowered democracy. I add my belief that human and planetary wellness in total is well-served by agendas of decolonization.

Climate Urgency

· Our incumbent claims to lead the fight on climate change. She touts the city’s Climate Action Plan, which took the entirety of her incumbency up until this past November to produce and cost taxpayers $450,0000. Were the CAP not largely a ruse, that might have been time and money well spent. As it is, immediately upon publication of the city's Climate Action Plan, 350 Eugene declared the CAP a plan to fail.

It doesn’t require an organization of superbly dedicated climate activists to recognize the plan as a plan to fail. The CAP itself identifies that it does not bring us within even 50% of requisite 2030 goals. Unfortunately that crucial information is buried under nice looking photos and a PR campaign, led by Vinis, in which she keeps trying to have us believe that process is progress.

[We need a leader who refuses to engage in phony messaging around the climate crisis. We need a leader who will not accept artificial parameters of impossibility. I am prepared to demand that we revisit the entirety of the city's budget and policies under the guidance of a local Green New Deal.]

Homelessness

· Vinis claims she’s been leading city council in funding a homeless shelter. Fact is, funds for a homeless shelter have been earmarked for years.

In October of 2018, city council approved a temporary survival shelter. Many of us felt consoled that the city would be helping at least a few vulnerable people through the freeze of a record-breaking winter. However, Vinis oversaw the reversal of that decision.

It is now 18 months since that shelter was approved and reneged and the city still hasn’t even identified a location on which to cite the shelter. It is difficult for me to call this leadership.

[As mayor, I will prioritize improving the experiences of people suffering now. On day one, I would push for immediate adoption of all recommendations cited in the Oregon Law Center’s report on criminalization of people who are unhoused. I would call for immediate establishment of a diversity of shelter options and a wide variety of support provisions.]

“Affordable Housing”

· Vinis claims she is a leader in funding "Affordable Housing." Fact is, she has been a leader in funding luxury housing.

She oversaw the granting of a complete ten year tax break to one of Eugene's richest developer families, former mayor Brian Obie and his grandson Casey Barrett. Their project proposes under 500 sqft studios with average rents of $1,177/month.

The Construction Excise Tax is a state-enabled funding source for "affordable housing." It took 3 years for Eugene to pass this tax, far longer than eight other jurisdictions.

Vinis says she is proud to have taken the time to bring developers to the table. The end result of her prolonged process is that Eugene developers were successful in whittling the tax rate by greater than 50%. Eugene is the only jurisdiction in Oregon to have caped the residential Construction Excise Tax at less than its fully enabled 1%.

Furthermore, whereas the intention of the state legislation was to tax developers who profit off of luxury housing, Eugene's ordinance sets up a shell game by which all of the monies currently being paid into the affordable housing fund by developers is reimbursed from the general pool through fee waivers. Thus, in a complete reversal of what the state legislation intended, Eugene taxpayers and not luxury developers foot the bill.

Finally, Eugene’s version of the CET overrides all precedent on another level by defining affordable housing as housing accessible to people making 100% of the Area Median Income. The standard is <60%. With this adjustment, even developers building one-bedrooms or studios to rent for $1,250/month are eligible to pocket the public subsidy.

[As mayor, I would push to end MUPTE, end the Downtown and Riverfront URDs, and restore the CET from .33% to the full 1%. I would define "Affordable Housing" in tiers of <10%, <20%, <30%, and <60%, of the Area Median Income and ensure access for the first decile. I would end the privatization trend of so-called "public-private-partnerships.” I would advance the most progressive funding mechanisms by which to significantly invest in municipally-owned social housing.]

Subsidizing Luxury Development

· Vinis claims leadership over the Riverfront Development. Fact is, she has enabled developers to take advantage of wealth-concentration tax schemes on the local level, such as through the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, and of Opportunity Zones, enabled by Donald Trump, by which investors are able to avoid taxes at the federal level as well.

At Riverfront, Vinis has overseen the routing of $20M to build a luxury park and plaza in a neighborhood that doesn't even yet exist.

Meanwhile, she has failed to address essential needs in neighborhoods such as Bethel and Trainsong, where disproportionate numbers of people on the margins of poverty and people of color suffer 2000X the air pollution of other neighborhoods, where 1 in 5 people suffer respiratory conditions, and where average life expectancy is nearly 10 years shorter than other areas of Eugene.

[As mayor, I would move to recede public support from the Riverfront and advance environmental and social justice in underserved neighborhoods, like Bethel and Trainsong.]

Payroll Tax

· Vinis oversaw the enactment of a payroll tax without referring it to voters. This tax again represents the aims and strategies of so-called “stakeholders” and fails to represent community priorities.

When the process that resulted in the Payroll Tax began, the city surveyed Eugene residents on priority concerns. The survey asked an open-ended question, yet a prominent single category of concern emerged: 40% of respondents identified homelessness as their top concern; the next largest category, at just 7%, identified traffic congestion; a mere 4% of respondents identified public safety.

Yet, the city has allocated 90% of the projected $23M/year to “public safety" and only 7% to homelessness services.

Prior to enacting the tax, the city used public funds to hire Strategy Research Institute for public relations advice. In his presentation to council, the lead strategist, Dr. Gary Manross, advised council as to the precariousness of voter approval and insisted that such an unprecedented form of taxation as the Payroll Tax must be put to voters. Vinis oversaw a process by which council disregarded this publicly-paid-for advice.

Given that the Payroll Tax represents a bald inversion of community priorities, it is no wonder that the city refused to put the ordinance to voters. Also, no wonder that Vinis fails to include this major action in her Voter's Pamphlet bullet list.

[As mayor, I would advance repeal of the Payroll Tax.]

Elected Auditor

· Vinis claims she has improved government transparency. Fact is, Vinis actively orchestrated the demise of the 2018 citizen-initiated ballot measure for an Independent Elected Auditor. Given such undermining, Eugene remains a city with no independent entity looking for expensive mistakes or even fraud, let alone whether we are spending community dollars consistent with community priorities.

[As mayor, I would be sure residents of Eugene are able to elect an independent auditor.]

Voters Should Matter

Why are politicians in Eugene and Lane County so opposed to democracy?

GUEST VIEWPOINT POSTED ON 01/02/2020

By Paul Nicholson

After a few weeks of grooming, flattery and free fattening food, it is not uncommon for our unpaid mayor and City Council to conclude that there is little reason to concern themselves with their constituents. After all, our unpaid elected officials often have no opponent.

Voter initiative and recalls are powerful tools that are available to unhappy citizens. Not surprisingly, many elected officials prefer complete immunity from the pesky voters. That’s why the public needs to keep our local elected officials accountable by demanding that they cease sabotaging voter initiatives and recalls

Consider these examples of elected officials disregarding the citizens.

Mayor Lucy Vinis sabotages the independent city auditor measure

Mayor Vinis probably committed the most egregious act of election interference. Of course, voters were bewildered by the sudden appearance of two different auditor measures. The mayor, acting on behalf of the city bureaucrats, split the vote so that neither measure would pass. There was strong support for financial transparency and accountability. Had the mayor really supported financial accountability, she and the City Council could have enacted the watered-down version. But, in the end, nothing was done to insure that your tax dollars are properly spent.

Jim Torrey loses the election, but remains on the 4J School Board

The Eugene 4J School Board displayed its contempt of voters when they appointed Jim Torrey to the school board after he lost the election. Elections are district wide. Torrey is among the most widely known local politicians in Eugene, and yet voters picked a first time candidate with no prior experience. Despite this clear message from the voter, Torrey was reappointed to the board. I want to be clear on this matter: Torrey is not the villain in this story. It is the school board’s duty to honor the emphatic decision of the voters. Elections should matter.

Lane County bureaucrats kill a measure that would ban aerial spraying of herbicide

A third example is a 2018 county voter initiative that would have banned aerial herbicide spraying. The petitioners were notified that they had gathered enough verified signatures to place the proposed ban on aerial spraying of pesticides on the May ballot. But less than two hours later, the petitioners were told that the measure was invalid because Lane County Counsel Stephen Dingle had determined the measure couldn’t be placed on the ballot because of the separate vote requirement.

This was an absurd decision in my view. The petitioner asked voters for a decision on one issue — should aerial spraying of pesticides be banned in Lane County. The county attorney did not raise any objection to the petitioners’ text until the petitioners had already gathered sufficient voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot — more than 25,000 signatures. This looks like lawyers and judges protecting agribusiness interests, disregarding both the vote of the people and the health of our citizens.

Vinis’s interference spells the end of citizen initiatives

Your elected officials have probably killed the citizen initiative. Who in the future will recruit hundreds of volunteers and raise tens of thousands of dollars when our politicians sabotage the process? Without the citizen initiative, we would have had a nuclear reactor right outside of Eugene. We may not be able to stop the next outrage. Save the citizen initiative. Recall Eugene city councilors and county commissioners who defy the voters.

Paul Nicholson is a former Eugene city councilor and the founder of Bicycle Way of Life in Eugene.

TAGS: LOCAL AND VOCAL

https://www.eugeneweekly.com/2020/01/02/voters-should-matter/

Please provide a brief bio including your professional background, volunteerism and any affiliations with local businesses or organizations.

I am a mother and an activist for climate and social justice. I work at Looking Glass Community Services. I volunteer delivering survival items to impoverished people in critical condition on the street and occasionally with Burrito Brigade. My greatest business affiliations are as a patron of New Frontier Market, the Kiva, Tsunami Books, Govindas Restaurant, S.A.R.A.’s Treasures, and St. Vincent DePaul thrift stores. I am also an intermittent member of the YMCA and of Elevation Bouldering Gym.

Please share with us your primary reason for running in this election and what impact you would like to make in the community.

I am gravely concerned that the city has not come close to acting as we need to prepare for climate change and prevent the worst effects of climate catastrophe. I am gravely concerned about the perpetuation and criminalization of poverty. I am concerned about racist police profiling and brutality by the Eugene Police and a correspondent lack of truth-telling by the DA and our mayor.

What individuals or organizations are either supporting your campaign, or are you seeking an endorsement from?

I would hope to adequately represent the concerns of displaced and occupied indigenous people, XR, Sunrise, 350, Huerta de la Familia, Climate Revolutions by Bike, LILA, Ward 9, House Everyone, Beyond Toxics, NAACP, RECLAIM UO, TransPonder, ESSN, CALC, DSA, Centro Latino Americano, Occupy Medical, Peaceworks, ROAR, KEPW, antifascists, the Human Rights Commission, and many vital others.

Do you have a fundraising plan for your campaign?

Grassroots.

If elected, what is your number one priority?

A local Green New Deal.

What important leadership skill would you bring to the position and how would these skills be applicable to the business community.

I am practiced in telling the truth and am invigorated by moral imperatives. My skill and disposition in this regard apply to all aspects of community.

The business community in Eugene is critical to our community’s long-term viability. How would you propose that you, as an elected official, work with the business community to ensure that fees, taxes, regulatory structures, tax incentives and service philosophy allow businesses to be successful?

I don’t know that I would ensure any of that.

How would you involve the business community in a discussion about the future of our community?

I would include all community in plans for a local Green New Deal.

What strategies would you support to control government spending to lessen the need to increase taxes, fees or other charges.

I support a wealth tax. I encourage you to extrapolate from my broad position in this regard.

As a member of an elected body, how would you work with your colleagues to build relationships and build consensus for your ideas?

I would speak baldly about broad and specific truths and demonstrate connection to those representing communal concerns.