Government propaganda of the worst kind

Your tax dollars are going to help government mislead children into thinking that today's world of personal automobility is going to continue . . . when it's not. Even if it were a desirable thing, it can't (and won't) continue. The only question is how damaged today's kids are going to be by adults' efforts to sustain the unsustainable.

Now here's a place trying to reduce hunger in its midst

Portland has an amazing series of city-sponsored classes aimed at helping people grow more of their own food and increasing the number of pollinators.

Meanwhile, Salem residents trying to reduce hunger here in the heart of the Willamette Valley (and improve food safety and security) are hamstrung by a city government decree that allows Salem residents to keep a 100# pot-belly pig and barking dogs but forbids a few laying hens. Crazy.

Salem Transition Initiative for Relocalization (STIR) - 1st Meeting Coming Up!

How can Salem respond to the challenges, and opportunities, of Peak Oil and Climate Change?

That's the question we'd like you to help us answer. Please attend a gathering, free and open to the public, being held to introduce the Salem Transition Initiative for Relocalization (STIR).

We want to begin organizing in Salem around the issues that arise from the need to rethink the way we use energy, which permeates every other aspect of living today, from how and where we get our food, how we travel, our household budgets, what skills kids will need for the future, and many others. Our first public outreach will be a meeting to introduce the "Transition Towns" model, which is taking off in many places across the United States.

This first meeting will be held at the Straub Environmental Learning Center, at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, February 25, 2009.

We hope to see you there! Until then, if you are intrigued and want to know more, see www.transitiontowns.org.

A prophet is without honor is his own land

It's striking how often the old Biblical saying is true. There's another old saying, about "the fish can't see the water" -- meaning that the water is just "the world" to the fish, and that being surrounded by something can have the odd result of making it invisible. But, sometimes, some odd fish have a mutation or brain warp that makes them able to see the water, even as they swim along with us. This makes them very unpopular generally, these prophets without honor.

James Howard Kunstler is one such. His weekly blog is especially relevant to Salem this week. Excerpts for those who don't go read the whole thing:

Poverty of Imagination

Venturing out each day into this land of strip malls, freeways, office parks, and McHousing pods, one can't help but be impressed at how America looks the same as it did a few years ago, while seemingly overnight we have become another country. All the old mechanisms that enabled our way of life are broken, especially endless revolving credit, at every level, from household to business to the banks to the US Treasury.

Peak energy has combined with the diminishing returns of over-investments in complexity to pull the "kill switch" on our vaunted "way of life" -- the set of arrangements that we won't apologize for or negotiate. So, the big question before the nation is: do we try to re-start the whole smoking, creaking hopeless, futureless machine? Or do we start behaving differently?

The attempted re-start of revolving debt consumerism is an exercise in futility. We've reached the limit of being able to create additional debt at any level without causing further damage, additional distortions, and new perversities of economy (and of society, too). We can't raise credit card ceilings for people with no ability make monthly payments. We can't promote more mortgages for people with no income. We can't crank up a home-building industry with our massive inventory of unsold, and over-priced houses built in the wrong places. We can't ramp back up the blue light special shopping fiesta. We can't return to the heyday of Happy Motoring, no matter how many bridges we fix or how many additional ring highways we build around our already-overblown and over-sprawled metroplexes. Mostly, we can't return to the now-complete "growth" cycle of "economic expansion." We're done with all that. History is done with our doing that, for now. . . .

. . . Mr. Obama is not the only one, of course, who is invoking the quest for renewed "growth." This is a tragic error in collective thinking. What we really face is a comprehensive contraction in our activities, especially the scale of our activities, and the pressing need to readjust the systems of everyday life to a level of decreased complexity.

For instance, the myth that we can become "energy independent and yet remain car-dependent is absurd. In terms of liquid fuels, we're simply trapped. We import two-thirds of the oil we use and there is absolutely no chance that drill-drill-drilling (or any other scheme) will change that. The public and our leaders can not face the reality of this. The great wish for "alternative" liquid fuels (bio fuels, algae excreta) will never be anything more than a wish at the scales required, and the parallel wish to keep all our cars running by other means -- hydrogen fuel cells, electric motors -- is equally idle and foolish. We cannot face the mandate of reality, which is to do everything possible to make our living places walkable, and connect them with public transit. The stimulus bills in congress clearly illustrate our failure to understand the situation.

The attempt to restart "consumerism" will be equally disappointing. It was a manifestation of the short peak energy decades of history, and now that we're past peak energy, it's over. That seventy percent of the economy is over, especially the part that allowed people to buy stuff with no money. From now on people will have to buy stuff with money they earn and save, and they will be buying a lot less stuff. For a while, a lot of stuff will circulate through the yard sales and Craigslist, and some resourceful people will get busy fixing broken stuff that still has value. But the other infrastructure of shopping is toast, especially the malls, the strip malls, the real estate investment trusts that own it all, many of the banks that lent money to the REITs, the chain-stores and chain eateries, of course, and, alas, the non-chain mom-and-pop boutiques in these highway-oriented venues.

. . . We seem to be learning a new and interesting lesson: that even a team that promises change is actually petrified of too much change, especially change that they can't really control.

The argument about "change" during the election was sufficiently vague that no one was really challenged to articulate a future that wasn't, materially, more-of-the-same. . . . and that has all led to a very dead end in a dark place.

If this nation wants to survive without an intense political convulsion, there's a lot we can do, but none of it is being voiced in any corner of Washington at this time. We have to get off of petro-agriculture and grow our food locally, at a smaller scale, with more people working on it and fewer machines. This is an enormous project, which implies change in everything from property allocation to farming methods to new social relations. But if we don't focus on it right away, a lot of Americans will end up starving, and rather soon. We have to rebuild the railroad system in the US, and electrify it, and make it every bit as good as the system we once had that was the envy of the world. If we don't get started on this right away, we're screwed. We will have tremendous trouble moving people and goods around this continent-sized nation. We have to reactivate our small towns and cities because the metroplexes are going to fail at their current scale of operation. We have to prepare for manufacturing at a much smaller (and local) scale than the scale represented by General Motors.

The political theater of the moment in Washington is not focused on any of this, but on the illusion that we can find new ways of keeping the old ways going. . . .

Terrifying on so many levels

There's a frighteningly bad article in the printed Salem.MomsLikeMe (SMLM) magazine for February 2009 --- can't find it posted online.

The premise and title of the article is "Is TV Good for Kids?" and the subhead says "The latest research may surprise you." The big "surprise" lead is that two economists from the U. of Chicago School of Business (are you starting to get the picture here?) claim to find "strong evidence against the view that childhood television viewing harms the cognitive or educational development of preschoolers."

The authors of the study, said to have been published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2008, supposedly "analyzed the test scores of nearly 300,000 kids in grades 6, 9, and 12 in 1965." The story in SMLM says that "Contrary to popular belief there wasn't any difference in the test scores of kids who watched more TV---or kids who watched less." The story claims that "In fact, the kids who watched more TV did better on standardized tests than those who didn't."

Ask a stupid question . . .

So this is what's being sold as evidence that TV isn't as bad as you think: if you park your kid in front of the box for 28 hours a week (the story's reported average child viewing figure) you can expect the kid to perform better on tests that are themselves of dubious validity and that are subject to withering criticisms from people who actually have a greater knowledge of child development than, oh, say two economists.

This same shoddy story (later on, the writer goes on to suggest that watching a certain PBS show made kids better able to "identify lower and upper case numbers [sic] than the control group") goes on to conclude with the completely unsourced, passive-voice assertion that "the PBS shows are considered so educationally sound that many teachers and home-school parents use them as teaching tools."

It's hard to know how a story like this gets planted into a publication like SMLM. Is it a press release that wound up in an editor's hands, who farmed it to a stringer, saying "Here's a peg for a story, why don't you write that up?" Or does the Gannett media empire truly think that this single study rebuts the mountains of evidence that TV is terribly destructive, changing the very structure of young peoples' minds?

This is taken from the website for Marie Winn's outstanding book, " The Plug-In Drug:"

The Plug-In Drug
25th Anniversary Edition

Synopsis

How does the passive act of watching television and other electronic media -- regardless of their content -- affect a developing child's relationship to the real world? Focusing on this crucial question, Marie Winn takes a compelling look at television's impact on children and the family. Winn's classic study has been extensively updated to address the new media landscape, including new sections on: computers, video games, the VCR, the V-Chip and other control devices, TV for babies, television and physical health. Winn shows examples of how parents lose control of their children's TV watching. The book's major purpose is to help families regain control of this powerful medium.

"Declining SATs" and "The Good-Enough Family"

Two excerpts from the 25th Anniversary Edition

Mystery of the Declining SATs

There is an old, unsolved mystery involving scores on the SATs, those tests of verbal and mathematical abilities that high school students must take to be accepted into most colleges. In the mid 1960’s the average scores on the verbal part of the SATs began an almost 20 year decline. In a range from 200 to 800 points, the average scores went from 478 in 1964 to 424 in 1980– a drop of 54 points. At the beginning of the 1980’s the scores began to level off, and have stayed within five points of 424 to this day.

What brought about this troubling decline? Why did it begin just when it did? People have been trying to find the answer to these questions for years. Yet no one seems to have pursued a related question that may offer a clue to the mystery: What caused the decline to end around 1980, with no significant decreases or increases after that? Juxtaposing the SAT scores of high school students during the last 40 or so years with some statistics about TV ownership and viewing times during those years, may help to answer all three of these questions.

In 1977, when the scores had almost reached their nadir, a panel commissioned by the College Board concluded that a major factor for the lower scores was the greater diversity of students taking the test – more minority students, some of them not native speakers of English, were now striving to get into college.] Yet the great increase in minority test-takers cannot be the explanation: the verbal scores of white, middle-class, native-speaking students had declined along with everyone else’s scores.

Various other explanations have been offered for the decline. A Cornell sociologist blamed it on the dumbing down of text books. He showed that latter-day sixth-grade texts are on the same level of difficulty as 4th grade McGuffey readers were in 1896 and pointed out that the decline began when the first wave of Baby Boomers, who had used those simplified text books, sat down at the SAT test tables. But he didn’t explain why the decline suddenly ended around 1980, though the same texts remained in the classrooms.

Others have suggested less effective teaching in the schools. Yet that wouldn’t explain why the decline has been greater in verbal skills than in math skills. And even if it turned out that only reading and language arts teaching had fallen off, while good teaching, for some reason, had managed to prevail for math, it still would not explain why the decline leveled out after a number of years.

How about television’s arrival in American homes as a primary cause? The timing is right. The first generation of children who had watched television during a significant part of their childhood, sat down to take its first college boards during the mid-1960’s, just as the decline began.

The fact that the verbal scores went down far more than the math scores lends support to the theory that TV was a causal factor. As Chapter 7 argues, extensive television viewing effects young children’s verbal development more than the development of their visual or spatial abilities. And as the previous section indicates, numerous studies have shown a strong negative association between television viewing and school performance. Reading achievement seems especially vulnerable to the effects of excessive television viewing and reading, it is universally acknowledged, is the key to academic success.

If indeed television viewing adversely affects children’s verbal abilities, then one may begin to explain the steady decline of verbal SAT scores starting in the mid-sixties by the steady increase in television ownership year after year from 1950 on. In 1950 fewer than 8% of American families owned TV sets. By 1954 more than half had televisions. By 1957, 78% of families were set owners, and by 1964, almost everyone -- 92%. of families had become TV viewers. The saturation point had just about been reached, though set ownership would slowly inch up another 4% during the next 20 years.

The mid-sixties, when the decline in scores began, was when the first children who had spent their formative years watching TV–those who were about three in 1950—turned 16 or 17 and took the test. Every year through the sixties and seventies, thanks to the increase in set ownership, a larger cohort of TV watchers took their SATs, and every year, the scores went down, down, down: from 478 in 1964 to 471 in 1966 to 460 in 1970 to 445 in 1973 to 434 in 1975 to 429 in 1978 and finally to 424 in 1980. That’s when the scores stopped going down. Why? At least partly because the saturation point had been reached around 1964. So sixteen years later the scores bottomed out. They have stayed at about the same level ever since.

Set ownership is not the only factor. More important is the amount of time spent watching. Another explanation for the steady, two-decade-long decline lies in the steady increase in children’s viewing time from 1950 through the 1970’s. The students who scored 478 in 1964 had watched 0 hours during their formative years, having been born in ‘47 or ’48, before TV became a mass medium. They probably didn’t acquire a time-consuming TV habit, until they were in high school, with a lot of reading and other verbal experience under their belts by the time they took their SATs.

After 1950 children’s average weekly television-viewing time began to rise, year after year. One study indicates that first- and sixth-graders (the two groups chosen for that particular study) were watching about an hour more television daily in 1970 than in 1959, and that Sunday viewing had increased by more than two and a half hours for the sixth-graders.8 The rise in viewing time eventually leveled off – after all there wasn’t that much more time left in the day, after school work, chores, sports and a few other activities that continued to compete with television for children's time. And the decline leveled off as well.

Another suggestive pattern emerges when noting the decrease is characterized by changes in the two extremes—fewer high scores and more low scores—rather than an across-the-board slippage.

Why the decrease in high scores? In 1959 the brightest sixth-graders were found to be among the heaviest users of television while the brightest high school students were found to be lighter viewers and heavier readers than their less gifted classmates. Anxious parents were reassured that television would have little effect on their children’s destinies, since by tenth grade the bright students turned to books just as they had always done.

But by 1970 this comforting trend had been reversed. The Surgeon General’s report showed that now more of the brighter students in tenth grade were heavy users of television than heavy users of books.10Television now reigned supreme in the lives of the group that had once contained the most avid readers—the most gifted students. As these brightest students watched more TV, their college board scores began to decline. Year after year the number of students scoring in the 600 to 800 range on the Verbal SATs dropped steadily, going from 112,000 in 1972, to fewer than 72,000 in 1990, a decrease of more than a third.

Why had the scores of those best and brightest test-takers taken a dive? It seems likely that before they succumbed to television, their verbal and analytic abilities had been sharpened and deepened by extensive reading. As more of these students replaced books with TV viewing, their scores decreased dramatically.

[Note: A long footnote clarifying changes in the way SAT scores are published today, as well as others giving sources of all statistics in this section are given on pp. 321-322 of the new edition]

The Good-Enough Family
[a new preface spelling out the book's purpose]

All families are not created equal. Some seem to be spectacularly successful. Others are a total mess. And then somewhere between the heights and depths are most of the rest of us.

The Spectaculars are so comfortably in charge of their children’s lives that they don’t need to establish rules about television watching. Their family life is rich and satisfying. Television never seems to take precedence over human activities—conversations, games, leisurely meals, reading aloud—in this somewhat unreal family.

The troubled families at the other extreme are all too real: parents who don’t get along or who’ve split up, who are abusive, addicted to alcohol or drugs, who don’t understand the first thing about children and their needs, who are too immature, too disturbed, too self-absorbed to place any great value on family life, and whose children, consequently, are likely to have more than the usual share of difficulties. Though excessive television watching is a common symptom of family pathology, these families are not likely to find that watching less TV is going to make much difference in their lives. They have too many other basic problems to deal with first.

The British psychiatrist D. W. Winnicott once coined the phrase “good-enough mother” to describe a parent who may have considerable problems raising her children but still does a good enough job to avoid causing any serious psychological damage.

Similarly one might define a “good-enough family” as one neither so perfect as to be invulnerable to normal human weaknesses nor so precariously balanced as to be swamped by its troubles. Most American families, I believe, fall into this category. The good-enough family may have its shortcomings; nevertheless the parents care deeply about their children’s well-being and strive to make their family life as good as possible. They are the ones for whom television control may make a crucial difference.

In the wide range of good-enough families some might be called “better-than-good-enough,” indeed, approaching the borders of “spectacular” territory. Others are “barely-getting-by,” rapidly heading for deep trouble. For many families, how they control television may decisively influence whether they go in one direction or another.

The idea prevails, perhaps because of this book’s negative title, that my answer to parents’ problems with television is to promote its elimination altogether. But that has never been my purpose. I know that my most persuasive arguments will never make television go away, nor would I want it to. I am not an enemy of the medium nor do I believe it is devoid of value.

My aim, instead, is to promote a new way of thinking about TV. I believe that if parents understand the medium’s power and look squarely at the ways it affects their children and their family life, they can begin to take the necessary steps to deal with television successfully. To help parents and families with this task is the purpose of this book.

Quotes from reviews of The Plug-In Drug:

From Library Journal:
"After 25 years, Winn (Children Without Childhood) has completely revised and updated her landmark study of the influence of television on children and family life by incorporating findings based on recent research and investigating the impact of the home computer, the VCR, and the video game terminal. She has also shifted the focus from the TV programs children watch to the negative effects of television on children's play, imagination, and school achievement. Although Winn pinpoints many key shortcomings of television, this study is not argumentative; Winn instead aims to stress the quality of family life without television, to show educators and parents how to control the medium, and to offer practical suggestions on how to improve family life not dependent on television. This refreshingly candid and inviting study is highly recommended for both public and academic libraries."

From Jim Trelease, author of The Read-Aloud Handbook:
"No one has captured the devastating effects of television the way Marie Winn has. The latest research coupled with candid and inspiring correspondence from actual families make this the best edition yet."

From The Christian Science Monitor:
"If you have children who watch television, you owe it to yourself -- and them -- to read this book."

The worst part of this story is that it appears to be aimed at encouraging Moms to feel good about having their kids watch TV by pointing to performance on standardized tests --- using one destructive habit to justify another. If the story's figures are accurate -- if the average child really is watching TV 28 hours a week, then do we really have to wonder why so many kids today are being drugged and diagnosed with psychological ailments like ADHD, learning disabilities, and oppositional disorders?

28 hours a week is a serious part-time job load for a high-school senior. Given that high school seniors are probably not the heaviest viewers, that means that kids much younger are consuming frightening amounts of TV, essentially being raised by corporations.

If this is true in Salem---and we have no reason to think we're exempt from this trend--then it not only explains much, but it's also terrifying. As our economy struggles and times get much harder in the years to come, there are going to be some seriously pissed-off young people, because they're going to be "unemployed," just like so many adults. These kids will lose the one job they've ever had---watching televised nonsense---and suddenly they will have to contribute something to their own keep, despite having no skills other than snark and anticipating the plot lines of recycled TV formulas.

Help Salem Downtown merchants -- give 'em an earful

Go Downtown, the local Salem downtown merchants group, is offering a survey to get feedback on what you want - so tell 'em!

Cool -- a way to precisely target your help for kids and teachers

Help Teachers and Students Across the Country

Everyone knows about Kiva, but what happens when the call for help comes from our own back yard?  All across America, public schools in poorer districts lack the budget for supplies and materials.  Teachers have had to dig into their own pockets to come up with the cash for essential items (a practice so prevalent nationwide that the government allows teachers a $250 deduction on their tax returns for just this reason), but now there's another way.

You can help students and teachers in public schools by going toDonorsChoose.org and finding a class in need of particular items.  The class teacher posts a short piece indicating exactly what materials are needed, why they're needed, and how much they will cost.  Donate either the whole amount (most are under $250) or a portion.  When the class purchases the materials (thanks to your donation), students will take photographs of themselves with the items your donations bought and send the photographs to you. 

It's that easy.  Go.

Another documentary on an an endangered species

A brilliant short documentary (about 2.5 minutes) on a very endangered species, especially in these parts.

Word

Can't add much to this. Well done. There are hearings scheduled on this issue for next week (2/10) as well, where you can and should come to make sure legislators understand that there are plenty of people who support Oregon's land use planning and who don't want to see the developers win out through a "divide and conquer" strategy executed county-by-county.

House Land Use Committee
Representative Mary Nolan, Chair
453 Oregon State Capitol
Salem OR 97301

RE: HB 2229

Dear Representative Nolan, Members of the House Land Use Committee:


House Bill 2229 represents the recommendations of the "Big Look" task force. The 2005 Legislature enacted legislation directing the Big Look to examine Oregon's land use system was an effort to reconcile the deep divisions that exist among Oregonians regarding land use. The scope of its work was germane in 2005, but was quickly overtaken by events: Measure 49, an upsurge recognizing the need to address the human impact on global warming, and the current economic crisis. What seemed farsighted in 2005 turns out to be shortsighted in today's environment.

It is idealistic to assume that the legislature can bridge the land use chasm. Oregonians are divided between those who see land almost as chattel -- theirs in the same sense as an automobile or toaster -- and those who see the land ownership as a grant from the state, a grant with strings attached.

Though I am one who thinks the work of the task force came down to a solution in search of a problem, I do want to point to the parts of this bill that I believe have value and represent the direction the legislature ought to take.

The Overarching Principles

Some have stated that these are too general to have any legal force. On the contrary, I understand them in much the same way as I read the opening words of the Constitution, or of the Declaration. They form the framework for a common understanding that seeks to bridge the chasm.

The fourth principle, to insure equity and fairness to all Oregonians recognizes that the interests of all Oregonians drives land use policies throughout Oregon. Though I live in Marion County, what happens in Wallowa County or Curry County affects me as a citizen of Oregon. I understand it to clearly state that I can participate in land use decisions in Klamath County as much as I can here in Salem.

I urge you to retain these principles. As stated, these principles provide guidance and constraint in the land use decision-making process. They apply, frame, and restrict what county commissions can do and also substantially assist in framing debates, now and in the future. If they do no more than to frame the debate by diminishing the destructive debate over property "rights" they will serve a useful purpose.

Counties and Regional Definitions

Oregon is a geographic entity; counties are administrative anomalies, carved out over time. Their shape and size represents political decisions made over a period of decades. One has only to walk around the fountain in front of the Capitol to understand that counties are the works of politics, not nature.

To permit a coalition of counties to alter land use decisions affecting the entire state is to justify Balkanization of the state. Land use decisions are local, but the impact of these decisions is statewide. Sub-state definitions are myopic because they assume that what happens in Curry County stays in Curry County. That is false.

The nature of the land surface is the product of climate, soil, ecology, and of the environment. Counties are administrative districts, of which land is merely a component.

The public policy implicit in Sections 5-8 effectively creates new forms of governance and diminishes the impact Oregonians have on what Oregon is.

Not everything in Sections 5-8 is bad. The guidelines in Section (6)(4) (page 5, line 10) should be requirements placed upon the commission, as well as all political subdivisions. All land use decisions should consider these factors -- at all levels of governance. The standards set out in Section 7(5) should also be incorporated as decision framing requirements for all jurisdictions.

Section 17 requires cities to annex lands within the UGB. This is unnecessary and to my mind encourages the very sprawl our land use system is intended to constrain.

Conclusions

I have been deeply concerned with the manner in which the task force operated. I am especially concerned that assertions unsupported by evidence have taken on a degree of truth to which they are not entitled. The task force has become persuaded that Oregon will grow dramatically, but at no point in their proceedings was the extent of this growth ever documented. This enabled an unjustified sense of urgency and crisis; at a time when far more serious crises should cause us to refocus our energies on preserving and enhancing Oregon's agricultural and forest capacity.

There exists a deep suspicion of county government among many Oregonians. Some of these concerns have been brought before this committee. These concerns about permitting local government to decide land use issues using sub-state criteria share common themes - the more local the governance, the less transparent the process; the more local the governance, the greater the opportunity for abuse; the more local the governance, the greater the chance for decisions that, while clothed the mantle of openness, are in truth arbitrary; it is easier to hide at Council or Commission level than it is at an agency or legislative level.

The evaluation measures set out in Section 5-8 attempt to address these concerns; evaluation measures that should be adopted, but without creating sub-state regulations. Plants, soils, wildlife, as well as people and what they do, where they work, and where they live do not recognize counties, except as governmental jurisdictions created to carry out what the legislature delegates to them.

We should not grant to counties the ability to make decisions that have statewide impact. Land use issues are the last issue that should be left to the myopia of county commissioners.

Sincerely,
Richard van Pelt
===============
Update below: More on the sad results of the "Big Look" Task Force -- which looks increasingly like an attempt to make the Big Grab at forest and farmland -- precisely the land which is becoming more and more vital to our future as is.

Join us next Tuesday, February 10th in Salem when the House Land Use Committee will hold the *final public hearing on the Big Look Task Force proposed legislation (HB 2229). The public hearings are scheduled from 3-4pm and from 6-8pm.

The task force has made several proposed changes to Oregon's land use planning program. Some changes we support, including a plan to have key state agencies develop an integrated strategic plan to coordinate land use, transportation and economic development efforts.

Unfortunately, the task force has focused much of their effort on a controversial proposal to allow counties to develop new criteria to redefine farm and forest lands and propose this to LCDC for approval.

This proposal, not supported by any data from the task force, is based on the perception that unproductive lands have been mis-designated by counties, and that counties are prevented from correcting these errors. Counties can, and do, re-designate land from agricultural or forest to other categories. In fact, counties re-designated over 20,000 acres from agriculture to other rural uses between 1989 and 2007. If land is mis-zoned, counties should correct the zoning error, not come up with new definitions for farm and forest land.

Simply put, this Task Force proposal will lead to rural sprawl, increase global warming pollution from cars and trucks, and impact Oregon agriculture at a time when our economy is already in danger. The Task Force report acknowledges that Oregon has a land use system that protects farm and forest land, contains urban sprawl, and manages growth better than anywhere else in the United States. The system can and should be improved, but it makes no sense to adopt proposals to
weaken land use planning in Oregon.

Now is the time to tell the House Land Use Committee to support the task force proposals to adopt better strategic plans and new performance measures and to oppose allowing counties to re-define farm and forest land. Please come to Salem to testify in support of a stronger, more effective land use program for Oregon!

Time: 3:00 - 4:00 pm; 6:00 - 8:00 pm
Place: State Capitol, Hearing Room E, Salem
Date: February 10th
Contact: Gerik Kransky at gerik@friends.org

C.I.T.Y. -- The one-pager

CHICKENS IN THE YARD

We are a group of more than 60 citizens (and growing), united to persuade the Mayor and City Councilors to adopt an ordinance that would clearly allow a few backyard hens as pets and for eggs. Many cities have done this already, including Portland, Eugene, Boise, Fort Collins, Madison, Denver, and even New York City, just to name a few. Newsweek, USA Today, and NPR have all published recent articles about what is being called the Urban Chicken Movement.

We have over 500 signatures on a petition and support from the Marion-Polk Food Share, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Center for Sustainable Communities at Willamette University, Oregon Tilth, South Mill Creek Neighborhood Association, and the West Salem Neighborhood Association, with more forthcoming!

On Monday evening, February 23rd (6:30-8:00 pm), we will give a formal presentation at City Hall. We need to fill the council chambers with supporters. Please come and bring your friends!

Our Request

We drafted an ordinance amendment that allows up to 5 hens (no roosters), which must be enclosed at all times, the coop must be at least 25' away from structures on adjacent properties, and must be kept clean and attractive. Following are reasons for our proposal:

Chickens make great pets - They are friendly, social, intelligent, affectionate entertaining, low-maintenance, and inexpensive to keep. They have distinct personalities and come when you call them, like to be petted, and will eat right out of your hands. They are also quieter, cleaner, and safer than most other common pets.

Chickens are an important part of green-living - Chickens help us reduce our carbon footprint by eating grass clippings and kitchen scraps, providing manure that can be used as garden fertilizer, eating weeds, insects, and slugs, and providing a local source of nutritious eggs.

Chickens give consumers some control - Food recalls have become common and people are concerned with food safety and animal welfare.

Chickens are economical - Home-grown eggs are cheaper and more nutritious than store-bought eggs. Given our current socio-economic situation, keeping a few backyard hens has never been more practical.

Chickens are educational - Backyard chickens provide educational opportunities for children in 4H or FFA who live in the city where it is not practical to keep large animals or livestock. It is also a chance for neighborhood children to learn where their food really comes from.

For more info: http://lovesalem.blogspot.com/2009/02/be-part-of-coolest-thing-going-in-salem.html

To join our group contact: getaholdofbp@hotmail.com