[wmm] Letter by City Councilor Gary Hayes

[George Vetter]

*Letter by Cannon Beach City Councilor Gary Hayes*


I was disappointed by a recent guest column from Watt Childress in the
Daily Astorian regarding the City of Cannon Beach’s plan to repurpose its
former elementary school into a center of cultural and environmental
learning. The inflammatory words of this column are part of a continuing
effort by a faction within the community to undermine the City’s ability to
accomplish our much overdue construction projects including a new City Hall
and Police Station.

 This column gets it wrong on many points and it is important for our
citizens to understand the truth. First, he describes a “diverse group of
villagers trying to defend the civic right to vote on decisions about
government debt and urban growth.” Let’s start with the “diverse group of
villagers.” A quick review of the Cannon Beach Together group that was
formed to push back on these projects by trying to turn the community
against them and attempting legal maneuvers, reveals that individual donors
are limited to a handful, while the vast majority of the more than $20,000
raised has come from our largest corporations in Cannon Beach, mostly the
lodging industry. According to the Oregon Secretary of State website this
group has already spent nearly $7,000  in legal maneuvers. And they are
just getting started.


 Why does the lodging industry oppose this? To finally solve our
community’s long overdue need for these projects WITHOUT increasing taxes
on local property owners, the Cannon Beach City Council DID raise our
lodging taxes by 1.5%. This tax, paid by visitors, fully funds our City
Hall and Police Department projects, along with the portion of the prepared
food tax previously passed by voters. The lodging industry opposed this
increase, but our City Council unanimously decided that this was an
appropriate one-time solution to solve our community’s pressing needs –
again, without increasing taxes on local property owners. The increase in
our lodging tax rate puts Cannon Beach comparable to other nearby
communities.


 The question you could ask now that the lodging tax has been raised is,
“what does this group have to gain by killing needed projects for our
community, including those that will make locals and visitors safer in the
event of a major disaster?” Is it just retribution to our City Manager and
City Council? You must give this group credit, they have organized,
strategized and mobilized in an attempt to turn public opinion against
these projects for any one of a long list of reasons, some diametrically
opposed to each other.

 Then, there is the second point of the column’s comment that this group is
here to defend: “the civic right to vote on decisions about government debt
and urban growth.” Oregon law is pretty clear on the matter. Of course,
when local taxpayer dollars are affected, a referendum is appropriate. This
is not the case here.


 In this latest tactic to deny these construction projects by delay or
driving up the cost, the lodging industry has funded a legal challenge,
demanding the right of the community to vote on them despite NOT increasing
taxes on local homeowners. This was such an unfounded legal claim that the
judge immediately dismissed the case without hearing it. That didn’t keep
this well-funded group from appealing, making it even more clear the action
is about delay and an attempt to derail the projects that are fully funded
now, but every month of delay will increase the costs by hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

 If any disgruntled voter was able to throw a wrench in the gears of needed
public projects funded within the budget and means of a city, few civic
projects would ever be completed. Our State Law recognizes this. In Cannon
Beach’s case, the City Council was elected to look at such a case in depth,
determine the ability of the City to repay the debt, consider all of the
potential impacts and make an informed decision. That is what happened.
This is following years of public meetings and opportunities for citizens
to help shape these solutions and share their concerns. The lodging
industry or a few upset members of the community should not be able to
derail a normal and accepted democratic political process. Instead, the
column suggests that this is a conspiracy to “skirt this civic principle”
on the part of the City.

 The column moves on from there to suggest that “local folks are divided
over plans to revamp a cherished grade school.” That is true, in great part
due to the organized effort of this group to turn citizens against it.
Using inflammatory language like: “[the] idea morphed into a high-end
tourist facility” and that it “now orients toward luxury uses like wine
events and grand scale weddings.” With these statements, the column seems
to ignore the reality of the plan to remodel the school to honor the
historic village of the Native People of Cannon Beach who lived on that
exact site and to create a center of learning about the environment,
teaching stewardship of our natural resources toward a goal of finding a
sustainable balance of environment and tourism in Cannon Beach. The project
known as NeCus will include park improvements and restoration to a more
natural landscape of native plants and trees that can be enjoyed by all.
This is the difference between the writer’s language to turn people against
the project and the stated reality of the project.


 The writer also suggests that it is “not what many locals consider a
responsible use of public revenues.” Here, again, things get confusing, as
the funding for NeCus comes wholly and completely from the portion of
lodging tax dollars that must be reinvested – according to state law - into
tourism marketing or a tourism facility. It may be understandable (though
short-sighted in my opinion) why our lodging industry would not want those
lodging tax dollars to be used for this purpose.

 The lodging industry’s opposition is in direct contrast to the vision of
Travel Oregon, our State’s official tourism organization, that represents
their interests. In its recent 10-year Strategic Vision, Travel Oregon
opens with its vision statement: “Oregon is a welcoming destination where
tourism drives economic prosperity, benefits the natural environment and
celebrates rich, diverse cultures.” It goes on to outline many of the
values it supports including stating: “We lead through a lens of
destination stewardship to build resiliency for a regenerative future.”

 I believe that locals who truly understand this project would not be
opposed to using lodging tax dollars that are restricted to those limited
purposes for a facility honoring this historic site; that promotes a
balance of a sustainability between our beloved natural environment and
tourism; create a park that is a community asset; and preserve a beloved
local structure that will offer many uses to the local community. The
facility and its operation will be fully funded by visitors. Many in the
community see this as a win-win proposition. But not this group supported
by the local lodging industry.


 The column uses a quote from former Governor Tom McCall in an effort to
make a point that maybe he should reexamine. The quote is:


 ”The interests of Oregon for today and in the future must be protected
from the grasping wastrels of the land. We must respect another truism —
that unlimited and unregulated growth leads inexorably to a lowered quality
of life.”

 I find this a curious perspective. Are the “wastrels of the land” the
local citizens who participated in a public process to determine the
direction of NeCus and turn it into a center of cultural learning and
environmental stewardship?  Is the lodging industry coming to save us from
suffering this consequence?

 The column goes on to make the comment “Many towns struggle with the
graspings of excess growth.” I’m not sure if by “excess growth” he is
referring to the plan to construct a lobby that will enjoin the existing
gymnasium and classroom wing at NeCus into a single facility, or is it the
new city hall that will replace the old on the exact same site at nearly an
identical, though certainly more efficient size? Or maybe it’s the new
Police Station and Emergency Operations Center that will be moved out of
the tsunami inundation zone onto an already cleared site the City owns east
of the highway. Excess growth?

 There are legitimate concerns about these construction projects that have
all been considered in depth by City leadership, each of whom are dedicated
to preserving what is special about the village of Cannon Beach. What
should be more disturbing to the community is the intentional exaggeration,
misinformation and fear mongering that has been strategized, organized and
spread by this small group with personal grievances who are supported with
funding from the lodging industry.


 Their divisive rhetoric also includes attempts to vilify City staff and
elected leadership who are making tough choices in the best interest for
the future of our village. If we are truly concerned about the character of
our village, I would suggest we start by rejecting that divisiveness.

 These efforts are driving up the cost of these projects with their tactics
to delay and threaten projects that have be years in the making. These
projects are fully funded NOW within existing revenues, without increasing
taxes on local property owners. Delay will only make the projects more
urgently needed and more expensive.

 You may soon be asked to sign a petition to put the funding for these
construction projects up to a vote. This delay will raise the cost of these
projects by hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, despite the
current funding model NOT increasing property taxes.

 I hope you will not fall for these tactics and refuse to sign. Doing so
will raise the costs and may threaten the current funding  that solves
these issues without increasing taxes on local residents. I also hope you
will encourage our lodging industry and these individuals to stop their
destructive efforts to drive up the costs of these projects.



Gary Hayes, City Councilor

Cannon Beach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.crackmeup.com/pipermail/wedmrnmtg/attachments/20240807/70e71767/attachment-0001.html>