Event by Cooperation Eugene - A New Economy Working Group Today at 4 PM PDT https://zoom.us/j/94769130641 Meeting ID: 947 6913 0641 Passcode: 387678 Discuss the Lane County Strategic Plan to increase housing options. After a short presentations from a panel, small groups will discuss critical questions of scaling up to meet the demand. Please review the plan before the meeting, especially the summary table on page 11. Most of the report just goes into more details on the five areas below. The final recommendations come in five individual action categories, which the County Commission accepted: • Leverage Land – first right of refusal program, county land bank, inter-agency collaboration • Pilot & Partner – Homeshare program, Faith-based initiatives, ADU development • Trade Support – LCC and UO educational programs in building industries, incremental infill housing • Rural Innovation – Community Land Trusts and ADU • Build Capacity – New Transient Room Tax, Revolving loan fund for construction ----------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfXohiWjzzY

Arundhati Roy https://vimeo.com/100952396

Asked people, 3 years ago, what new Cabinet departments they want?

Todd Boyle October 11, 2017
If you were president, what new Cabinet level department would you create? Jim Lockhart Department of Peace, as proposed by Dennis Kucinich. Judy Hayner Department of Peace and Department of Actually Getting Something Done About Climate Change (DAGSDACC) Kevin Matthews DAGSDACC! Todd Boyle Kevin Matthews It almost seems to have dropped off the radar. In the pres/VP debate and between Defazio/Skarlatos nobody even talks about it except the Republicans accusing democrats of banning fracking (in my dreams), and the democrats immediately disclaiming any association with Green New Deal, banning fracking, banning pipelines etc. · Reply · 20m Write a reply... Rick Fellows Department of empire dissolution. Todd Boyle Federal Liquidation Agency to shut down the United States in an orderly and responsible fashion. LOL S.h. Lobo A walnut cabinet. Michael Allen Department of Sustainability - would oversee national recycling, reuse, and resource redistribution efforts. Jean Lowes Paskalides Dept of Humanity. Gerri Haynes Ethics for Humanity - to respect all life on the planet GW Jones Department of Redundancy Department. Virginia Simson Children, disabled and old people in the lifeboats first Department. Chris Dorf Truth and Reconciliation like they did in South Africa and Rwanda Tammy Wolfgram Yes!!! We so need this. Peggy Hotes Department of Economic Equality Rick Fellows A truth commission sounds like a great proposal to advance. National security has been an endless debacle of high level corruption and deceit. This is the main reason denial is so talked about here in the belly of the beast. Sandra Blessing Department of PEACE! Raj Badri An executioner to carry out executions of all millionaires. Mary Moos The department of Presidential deportment and the Ministry of Human Decency Roger Keith Miller Department of Peace. Claire Wylde Department of Redistribution of Wealth. · Edited Todd Boyle Now we're talkin' !! haha! ?? Marie-Kate Higgins A BS detector for all politicians. Janet Davis Department of Engineering Christopher Derrah Global warming. I would give the new agency more money and power than the defense department. Nancy Ellen Peden Something like this, maybe Engineering...fix infrastructure to be more sustainable on every level....Dept of Sustainability? Joshua Ferguson The Department of State is the 'Department of Peaceful Development' when it is led by a secretary who best tries to carry out its mission with international partners and dedicated diplomatic teams. Todd Boyle Well, the Department of Peace. there was a whole campaign for many years.... Steve Scott Kuchinich mentioned the Dept. of Peace often Paul Covey the cabinet of tar and feathers Guy Taylor Department of Sundown for winding down any department lacking sufficient justification to exist as a budget entry or independent of some more effective department. Kris McAlister Department of Aging. Birth to Earth. Healthcare, Education, and Retirement spheres. Todd Boyle Actually I asked this question 5 years ago on Oct. 11, 2012. only 3 people responded but, my response was "A bureau of policy, which would formulate exactly what the questions are, what the alternatives are, and STATE THEM in straightforward, unambigu… See More Todd Boyle So my new Cabinet position and agency would be kinda like the OMB and other infrastructure departments ... like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census, things like that. But more useful. Because it would deal with the problem of lying politicia… See More Fernando Antonio Department of Accountability of State Employees Reply · 3y Jo Anne Van Datta Human Ecology R & D Bob Perillo The Department of Redundancy Department. Tracy Gallagher A department that would sack govt ministers when they lie to the public. Also when their outside interests affect their policies Zebediah Kozmik The Department of Peace and Diplomacy. John Tinker A Department of Dishwashing. The POTUS itself would chair the meetings, which could only take place in the kitchen while washing the dishes after state meetings. The POTUS and the VPOTUS and the heads of the Department of Dishwashing would take turns scraping, racking, washing, drying, and putting away. Someone would have a waterproof pen, so they could take notes. Rudy Stolfer peace!!!!! Kym Trippsmith Dept of Sanity · Edited Todd Boyle Seriously we could use some sort of Department of Mental Development, or whatever it's called, to operate some modest programs for mental health, I mean going beyond mental health to mental maturity and human potential... like Kris McAlister said up above.. Maybe this is called Department of Human Development? Todd Boyle Or the Department of National Happiness? http://www.happycounts.org/happiness-policies.html Happiness Initiative Toolkits: Tools and Resources for conducting a happiness initiative and using the gross national happiness index for your city, community, campus or company - Happiness Alliance HAPPYCOUNTS.ORG Happiness Initiative Toolkits: Tools and Resources for conducting a happiness initiative and using the gross national happiness index for your city, community, campus or company - Happiness Alliance Happiness Initiative Toolkits: Tools and Resources for conducting a happiness initiative and using the gross national happiness index for your city, community, campus or company - Happiness Alliance · Reply · Remove Preview · 3y John Kirshon Dept of Post-Capitalist Transition David Asia Make it official: US Department of Bullshit Dissemination (USBD). It would naturally have a strong presence on Facebook and other social media... · Edited Ruth Mallery I dont know that I would create a cabinet department however I have been thinking for a while that it would be a good idea to expand these offices (all elected) to include an "advisory body" of senior "former electeds" so that 1. We do not have career poloticians beholden as much to corporations 2. Newer voices can be elected 3. Term limits can be seen as a positive. This body would exist in all federal branches. · Edited Todd Boyle hmm office of presidents... would they have some sort of formal powers? access to information? etc? and how would this protect us from corporations since all the former presidents were just as beholden. Ruth Mallery I envision it as folks who have already held office. So in some matters they have security clearance. It would be more of a consulting, non binding, apolitical advisory committe. Sort of expanding on what ex presidents do now when there are natural disasters. But for example, they could weigh in on stuff like pulling out of the climate aggreement . · Edited Ruth Mallery A voice of experience type thing Ruth Mallery It would protect us from corporations because they are no longer subject to lobbying. Ideally it would work hand in hand with campagn finance reform ..... Write a reply... Maure Claire Briggs None. Todd Boyle Well that's right, of course. I slipped into wishful thinking, that the DC-NY system would ever change. So, the usefulness of this exercise may be more about design ideas, for designing new governments. · Edited Bryan Khan AkaPersaud Is there a need for a new department? How about dismantling DHS, DEA, CIA, NSA, etc. etc. Jerry Munro The Department for Dismantling The State and Democratizing The Economy. Christy Love The Department of Love, which would immediately convene a Commission on Apathy. ?? · Edited William David Fusfield There are many new departments that should be created. But by far the most important in my book would be THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE!! Bryan Khan AkaPersaud The problem with these (Min of Love, Truth, Peace) is that they have already been coined (by Orwell) and were specifically chosen to confuse and obfuscate. For example, the Ministry of Truth's main job was lies. Todd Boyle I tend to agree. The operation of all these departments including the Dept of Defense, EPA, etc. need to be rigorously defined, and needs to be enforced and accountable. I'm not surprised several people called for a department of accountability, of … See More Dee Stahl Sanity Dee Stahl Oops, someone else already thought of that. Whitney Raver Ethics. But for real this time. Reply · 3y Todd Boyle As, Ethics taught in philosophy courses, or in faith communities. · Reply · 2y Bev Bassett Climate Chaos department to do a WWII or New Deal-type retooling that would switch US over to renewables globally. Jill Harrison Department of Peace ~ as proposed by Dennis Kucinich Ann E. Fonfa Peace. · Reply · 2y Pat Elder Dept of State Secessions · Reply · 2y Todd Boyle Dept of National Liquidation · Reply · 2y Richard Everett Department of Corruption. · Reply · 2y Carol Isaac I'm more about coffee table level. · Reply · 2y Todd Boyle All, please have a look at the comments above... many have been added in the past few hours but woven among earlier comments in a way you would never see them unless you go back for a 2nd Pass, and a 3rd Passs.. · Reply · 2y Dave Warren Dept. if Constitutional Reform. · Reply · 2y Write a comment...

50 IDEAS For Cheaper Housing are listed after these basic suggestions:

Recognize the human right of every human being to space somewhere, i.e. land. This is inherent in having a physical body and the right to life.

Recognize the right of lower income people to build or occupy whatever shelter they can afford, consistent with public health and safety.

Reject the idea that governments have any duty to existing homeowners to protect the sales value of their property, since every increase results in an exactly equal increase in cost to some other citizen, i.e., buyers, renters and displaced people.

Reject the idea that governments have a duty to protect the "livability" of neighborhoods for one class of citizen, to such a degree that it makes housing unaffordable to another class of citizen.

Abolish the role of Neighborhood Associations in land use planning, since their overwhelming consensus will always be the self interest of existing property owners.

Abolish code and policy based on percentages of AMI ("Area Median Income" published by Census Bureau) which results in excessively wide bracketing aggregating the destitute with lower middle class incomes to justify "affordable" workforce housing). Replace it by deciles of income. Establish guidance and policy of City and County to break down the population into tenths (deciles) of income, in order to apply public resources to the bottom deciles first. Recognize the displacement and homelessness of the bottom 20% as higher priority of governments than the "affordability" of housing for middle class people complaining about their rents, or businesses needs for cheap working class housing.

Reject "Trickle down" housing theory, that building more middle income housing at $250,000 will result in more housing affordable by the bottom 20%.


---

Allow home owners to partition single-family lots.

Reduce the minimum lot size to 1000 square feet, sufficient for Tiny Houses. (the typical Tiny is 250sf)

Eliminate the many restrictions against ADU's (accessory dwelling units on existing lots) such as 7500 square feet minimum lot sizes. Implement SB 1051 in the spirit intended by the legislature.

Allow homeowners to rent space to RV dwellers, trailers, vans, etc. RV dwelling is already legal but the collection of rent by homeowners is prohibited.

Allow developers, optionally, to apply national building code for RVs for new home construction. If it's safe enough for RV's, it's safe enough for Tiny Houses on foundations.

Allow Yurts, Tuff sheds, and any other reasonable alternative housing types.

Give incentives for conversion of any garage or outbuilding that can achieve building code for insulation, heat and safety, to residential use (either as ADU or spare bedroom). (the New Housing Unit incentive.)

Implement HB2001 (2,3, and 4 plexes by right) as intended by the legislature.

Allow and encourage lofts or residential floors above bonafide business operations in commercial and industrial zones.

Amnesty and grandfather all the unpermitted housing that has been built in Eugene. With public gratitude.

Raise the height limits for housing in Eugene, and reduce slope and setback restrictions to make more housing feasable.

Make the property tax progressive rates, with no tax on the first 1000 square feet of land per household. and progressively higher rates thereafter, based on progressively higher land values in order to discourage land accumulations for investment.

Give property tax rebates to low income renters. We had a Renters Rebate.

End the mortgage interest deduction on any form of real estate.

Stop forcing non-drivers to subsidize drivers: ABOLISH Transportation SDCs (System Development Charges) for roads, upon housing construction.

Stop requiring on-site parking, to get a permit for new residential construction. (automobile subsidy)

Require vehicle owners to identify a place where they will park it, before they can get a vehicle registration at the DMV. i.e. issue building permits without driveways or parking. (this is common in other countries)

Flag vehicles at the registration level who don't have on-site parking, and prohibit those from parking the vehicle on the street. Perhaps a special flag on the license plate.

Abolish System Development Charges (SDCs) on qualifying low income housing.

Convert some of Eugene's 3 square miles of pavement, to low income housing. i.e. close some streets and sell them, or use them for RV parks with facilities.

Allow any block of street to be privatized if all the adjoining land holders agree, and fire access lanes and utility easements are maintained, and low income housing is built. City or county simply vacates the land.

Stop the public housing authority (Homes for Good) from liquidating low income housing and lands.

Cut the cost of construction of low income housing, which is recently exceeds $250,000 per unit. Use manufactured housing, capped at $50,000/unit.

Stop allowing neighborhoods to block low income housing developments. As, Seattle abolished their neighborhood associations' role in land use planning after they organized to kill the multiyear effort for reasonable density along major bus corridors.

Establish completely new code setting forth, what is low income housing by definition. It's less than $50,000 per unit, and less than 500 square feet for an individual, for example. Because otherwise it inevitably gravitates to higher rents.

Grant government lands for low income housing projects, both public and private, for the lowest incomes. All existing private and corporate "Title" in Oregon was originally "granted" by the federal or state governments, to "settlers" and homesteaders.

Modernize the County database for Section 8 and other services, and create a certified reliable ranking system for households who need public housing the most, integrating their household expenses as well as incomes.

Identify concessions or exemptions from all building or zoning code not necessary for health and safety, to be granted to housing for certified low income people.

Establish a new zoning type for low income housing with code concessions and incentives for cheap housing. but only for certified low income owners or tenants in the County database. "Low Income Housing" zoning (LIH) would have two components: cap on production cost e.g. $50,000 per unit to reduce likelihood of gentrification, and, restriction to qualified low income households.

Expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)

Designate percentages of all annexations to the City UGB based on income deciles, ensuring 20% of the land goes to the bottom 20% incomes, and so forth.

Adopt the Portland plan whereby Housing Authority builds ADU for property owners who agree to rent it to certified low income household.

Restrict demolition of usable housing that is not end-of-life. Calculate the value of housing lost, collect fees from the demolisher based on those years of rental value, and apply to public housing programs.

End all public programs for "low income housing" that revert to private ownership and market rates later, e.g. LIHTC projects. Terminate Eugene's participation in LIHTC.

End the requirment for sewer connections, if approved, inspected compost toilets and graywater disposal.

Develop building code for Tiny Houses on steep slopes, e.g., 10x20 structures on one concrete pier, with gravel path access, with no parking requirement or road if conditions are met.

Abolish restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house (currently five people)

Abolish the MUPTE and all forms of city subsidies, land grants etc. for middle housing or luxury development.

Identify most progressive revenue streams by which to significantly fund municipally-owned social housing.

Remove restrictions upon, and provide funding and support, for SROs. (Single Room Occupancy hotels)

Levy a money-creation tax on the major banks' branches in Eugene, calculated as their share of the free-moneyprinting operations by the Fed. The cause of housing inflation is the money creation. We need to reclaim that free money, and use it as operating capital within a municipal bank. The rising tide of money creation has not lifted all boats, but it sure as hell lifted all housing prices.

Enact limitations on maximum lot size. Like 4000 square feet. Abolish new developments with these excessive lot sizes of the last ccentury.

Impose fees on single-story construction, to drive more intensive use of the space. Use the revenue for public housing.

Require new construction anywhere the lot is bigger than 4000sf, to be tight against one corner of the lot, in order that future generations can build another house on the land without tearing down the old house.

Stop prohibiting alley development.

Allow low-volume commercial activities such as food service in residential housing.

Enact the CET (construction excise tax) at the highest levels allowed by the Oregon statute, instead of half measures.

Require registration and quarterly reports from STRs (short term rentals) so we can understand the degree of impact on the bottom 10 or 20% of incomes.

Provide pre-approved plans for the low-cost houses, apartments, duplexes and ADUs

Terminate existing deed restrictions that limit occupancy or residential use of property.

Rezone some Commercial and Industrial land for Residential use.

Purchase or lease excessive and unused Union Pacific, EWEB, and other institutional land for low income housing.

Suppose we have direct democracy. Individuals vote on every significant policy decision-- at the *policy* level. This would be carefully worked out-- what is "policy", what is the structural level versus what is administration.

And we could, with the Internet, be enabled to change and update our votes on a continuous basis over time. So you would have direct polling probably 100 times a year. again, over the Internet. Imagine if a policy starts to fail, people logging in and changing their votes.

I mean, abolish the 1787 Constitution, abolish the Congress and president. And set up a more effective decisionmaking structure. as follows.

Since the world is complex, individuals can't actually make competent, rational choices on all the policies that affect us. It's too complicated and interrelated. Let's face the fact-- NONE of us. This is what's driving the anti-intellectual, anti-science movement. This problem must be corrected by formal, constitutional process quite different from "the 1787". so here's a solution:

For example, the federal government might be composed of 30 different agencies, similar to existing departments of transportation, environment, education, food, public health, defense, etc but many more, for example, budget, and public information. Each agency would be governed by a congressional committee which would be "tightly coupled" with its agency. All policy for each domain of knowledge would be authored by the relevant agency and its governing committee, not a general "congress".

There might not be any president at all. Who needs that guy? And there might not be any general "congress", at all, pretending to understand, know and guide everything as a whole. Which they never did, very well. I recommend approximately 30 governing committees or agencies for different aspects of governance-- including most of the present cabinet level agencies in the US but restructured into maybe twice as many agencies.

Furthermore, voters who are voting directly, for the first time, on these complex and detailed policies would *need* the right to appoint specialists we trust-- experts --as proxies to vote our votes on complex things like technology, telecoms, medical care, pharma, the monetary system, finance, foreign policy, etc.

There would be no elections for these proxies-- you could appoint anybody you like, but they might need to meet some qualifications, for the sake of everybody else in the country, not just your religious leader, your mother, etc. They could be accountable to professional licensing boards for each 30 domains, to pass tests, take continuing education, etc like other professions. No duopoly Party could block your choice.

Basically I want all significant policy *choices* to be thoroughly well explained and documented in the clearest, unambiguous language. The development of this semantic framework is one of the biggest tasks. This would require literally a "Department of Truth"-- some formal structure of linguists, perhaps lawyers, but deeply wise people to define the legal meaning of words, and phrases and the underlying realities of legislation. They would develop the wording on the 'referenda' we vote on. Do you understand the goals of this? It is to make voters' policy guidance exactly clear, making it enforceable upon the agencies of government-- not optional. And this would require very significant amounts of money for staff, continual investigation/auditing of agencies.

Because legislation would be exact, there would be less need for courts or high level apparatus in federal agencies to interpret or implement the law. The constitution and legislation would be properly written to anticipate problems and resolve them up front, or kicked back by the 30 agencies to their Committees' to clarify.

Basically I want to *see* the real legislation and have the right to vote on it, and expect this to happen about 100 times a year. I also want the right to delegate my vote or proxy, to experts in particular domains of expertise who I trust, for 20 or 30 categories like medical, transportation, military, foreign relations, energy, housing, toxics, climate change, etc. We MUST stop appointing one single politician for long terms of years, to decide EVERY policy that affects our lives, since they cannot possibly be expert in more than one or two of those domains.

So the U.S. is printing money at a rate of $1 Trillion a month. And the natives are restless, out in the colonies (China, etc) as the dollar declines and gold increases.

I expect three things. In the next few months, a deflation of the dollar bubble to protect the "reserve currency" status of the US Dollar, a huge, fascist crackdown on dissent in the US against the resulting pain upon the bottom half, and, another major war on the first country who "blinks", and tries to establish a new currency or other threat to the dollar.

At this point the EU as well as the BRICs want a new currency regime. This is bigger than Bretton Woods.

And the global banking cartel the BIS member banks, owe no loyalty to the $US dollar. The reserve currencies are fungible, from their POV.

But the global banking cartel *needs the US military* to maintain their absolute monopoly on maintaining the balances of accountholders, executing transactions (+/- transactions across accounts within their network, i.e. settlement), and prevent any alternative settlement system from getting started. So, count on the US to oppose any EU-BRICs breakout, and the US holding a gun to the head of the global banking cartel.

If the global banking cartel allows the nations of the EU or BRICs to dump the dollar, the US military will stop supporting the global banking cartel, and start wars directly for certain territory or resources like oil, allowing the global settlement system to go fuck itself-- whether the BRICs or the BIS.... This is big stuff.

To: "mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us"
Subject: First Decile Housing is too expensive. 50 ideas for you.
Cc: Isaac@HearthstoneRE.com, "Cliff Gray" , , Sherri Schultz , "Eliza Kashinsky" , Timothy Morris , John VanLandingham , zondie zinke ,Kaarin Knudson , richieweinman@gmail.com, Laurie Hauber , Karl Eysenbach ,brittany.qw@me.com,Stephanie Jennings , Marty Wilde , lcbcccom@lanecountyor.gov, Sen.JamesManning@oregonlegislature.gov, Sen.LeeBeyer@oregonlegislature.gov

Policy reorientation required for First Decile Housing (housing the bottom 10 or 20 percent of incomes: make it less costly, remove barriers against the poor. This is way different than housing tools and strategies list of 80 items. )

At the level of basic assumptions or principles,

RECOGNIZE the human right of every human being to space somewhere, i.e. land, that is inherent in having a physical body and the right to exist.

Recognize the right of lower income people to build or occupy whatever shelter they can afford, consistent with public health and safety.

ABOLISH the idea that governments have a duty to existing homeowners to protect the sales value of their property, since every increase results in an exactly equal increase in cost to some other citizen, i.e., buyers, renters and displaced people.

Abolish the idea that governments have a duty to protect the "livability" of one class of citizen's housing, since that decreases the livability of others' housing outcomes.

Abolish the role of Neighborhood Associations in land use planning, since their overwhelming consensus will always be the self interest of existing residents.

ABOLISH code and policy based on percentages of AMI ("Area Median Income" published by Census Bureau) which results in excessively wide bracketing aggregating the destitute with lower middle class incomes to justify "affordable" workforce housing). REPLACE it by deciles of income. Establish guidance and policy of City and County to break down the population into tenths (deciles) of income, in order to apply public resources to the bottom deciles first. Recognize the displacement and homelessness of the bottom 20% as higher priority of governments than the "affordability" of middle class people complaining about their rents, or businesses needs for cheap working class housing.

Reject "Trickle down" housing theory, that building more middle income housing at $250,000 will result in more housing affordable by the bottom 20%.


---

Allow home owners to partition single-family lots.

Reduce the minimum lot size to 1000 square feet, sufficient for Tiny Houses. (the typical Tiny is 250sf)

Eliminate the many restrictions against ADU's (accessory dwelling units on existing lots) such as 7500 square feet minimum lot sizes. Implement SB 1051 in the spirit intended by the legislature.

Allow homeowners to rent space to RV dwellers, trailers, vans, etc. RV dwelling is already legal but the collection of rent by homeowners is prohibited.

Allow developers, optionally, to apply national building code for RVs for new home construction. If it's safe enough for RV's, it's safe enough for Tiny Houses on foundations.

Allow Yurts, Tuff sheds, and any other reasonable alternative housing types.

Give incentives for conversion of any garage or outbuilding that can achieve building code for insulation, heat and safety, to residential use (either as ADU or spare bedroom). (the New Housing Unit incentive.)

Implement HB2001 (2,3, and 4 plexes by right) as intended by the legislature.

Allow and encourage lofts or residential floors above bonafide business operations in commercial and industrial zones.

Amnesty and grandfather all the unpermitted housing that has been built in Eugene. With public gratitude.

Raise the height limits for housing in Eugene, and reduce slope and setback restrictions to make more housing feasable.

Make the property tax progressive rates, with no tax on the first 1000 square feet of land per household. and progressively higher rates thereafter, based on progressively higher land values in order to discourage land accumulations for investment.

Give property tax rebates to low income renters. We had a Renters Rebate.

End the mortgage interest deduction on any form of real estate.

Stop forcing non-drivers to subsidize drivers: ABOLISH Transportation SDCs (System Development Charges) for roads, upon housing construction.

Stop requiring on-site parking, to get a permit for new residential construction. (automobile subsidy)

Require vehicle owners to identify a place where they will park it, before they can get a vehicle registration at the DMV. i.e. issue building permits without driveways or parking. (this is common in other countries)

Flag vehicles at the registration level who don't have on-site parking, and prohibit those from parking the vehicle on the street. Perhaps a special flag on the license plate.

Abolish System Development Charges (SDCs) on qualifying low income housing.

Convert some of Eugene's 3 square miles of pavement, to low income housing. i.e. close some streets and sell them, or use them for RV parks with facilities.

Allow any block of street to be privatized if all the adjoining land holders agree, and fire access lanes and utility easements are maintained, and low income housing is built. City or county simply vacates the land.

Stop the public housing authority (Homes for Good) from liquidating low income housing and lands.

Cut the cost of construction of low income housing, which is recently exceeds $250,000 per unit. Use manufactured housing, capped at $50,000/unit.

Stop allowing neighborhoods to block low income housing developments. As, Seattle abolished their neighborhood associations' role in land use planning after they organized to kill the multiyear effort for reasonable density along major bus corridors.

Establish completely new code setting forth, what is low income housing by definition. It's less than $50,000 per unit, and less than 500 square feet for an individual, for example. Because otherwise it inevitably gravitates to higher rents.

Grant government lands for low income housing projects, both public and private, for the lowest incomes. All existing private and corporate "Title" in Oregon was originally "granted" by the federal or state governments, to "settlers" and homesteaders.

Modernize the County database for Section 8 and other services, and create a certified reliable ranking system for households who need public housing the most, integrating their household expenses as well as incomes.

Identify concessions or exemptions from all building or zoning code not necessary for health and safety, to be granted to housing for certified low income people.

Establish a new zoning type for low income housing with code concessions and incentives for cheap housing. but only for certified low income owners or tenants in the County database. "Low Income Housing" zoning (LIH) would have two components: cap on production cost e.g. $50,000 per unit to reduce likelihood of gentrification, and, restriction to qualified low income households.

Expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)

Designate percentages of all annexations to the City UGB based on income deciles, ensuring 20% of the land goes to the bottom 20% incomes, and so forth.

Adopt the Portland plan whereby Housing Authority builds ADU for property owners who agree to rent it to certified low income household.

Restrict demolition of usable housing that is not end-of-life. Calculate the value of housing lost, collect fees from the demolisher based on those years of rental value, and apply to public housing programs.

End all public programs for "low income housing" that revert to private ownership and market rates later, e.g. LIHTC projects. Terminate Eugene's participation in LIHTC.

End the requirment for sewer connections, if approved, inspected compost toilets and graywater disposal.

Develop building code for Tiny Houses on steep slopes, e.g., 10x20 structures on one concrete pier, with gravel path access, with no parking requirement or road if conditions are met.

Abolish restrictions on the number of people who can live in a house (currently five people)

Abolish the MUPTE and all forms of city subsidies, land grants etc. for middle housing or luxury development.

Identify most progressive revenue streams by which to significantly fund municipally-owned social housing.

Remove restrictions upon, and provide funding and support, for SROs. (Single Room Occupancy hotels)

Levy a money-creation tax on the major banks' branches in Eugene, calculated as their share of the free-moneyprinting operations by the Fed. The cause of housing inflation is the money creation. We need to reclaim that free money, and use it as operating capital within a municipal bank.

Enact limitations on maximum lot size. Like 4000 square feet. Abolish new developments with these excessive lot sizes of the last ccentury.

Impose fees on single-story construction, to drive more intensive use of the space. Use the revenue for public housing.

Require new construction anywhere the lot is bigger than 4000sf, to be tight against one corner of the lot, in order that future generations can build another house on the land without tearing down the old house.

Stop prohibiting alley development.

Allow low-volume commercial activities such as food service in residential housing.

Enact the CET (construction excise tax) at the highest levels allowed by the Oregon statute, instead of half measures.

Require registration and quarterly reports from STRs (short term rentals) so we can understand the degree of impact on the bottom 10 or 20% of incomes.

Provide pre-approved plans for the low-cost houses, apartments, duplexes and ADUs

Terminate existing deed restrictions that limit occupancy or residential use of property.

Rezone some Commercial and Industrial land for Residential use.

Purchase or lease excessive and unused Union Pacific, EWEB, and other institutional land for low income housing.

Impose a TTIK Timber Tax in Kind on all logging, of 1% payable in lumber and sheet products for building LIH. The total Oregon harvest is like, 4 million board feet per year, enough for 200,000 current sized houses and a 1% TTIK would be enough wood for 3000 LIH units

---------
(1) two minute explanation of the right to some space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpjLCMc7x40

explanations of the other points,
Eugene Planning Commission Meeting: March 26, 2018
ADUs, Tiny Houses and smaller lot partitions
https://youtu.be/1lRvrk2AgXw?t=970

Eugene City Council Meeting: July 23, 2018
Request permission to video Housing Tools; Bracketing, Firewalling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynD-P69L1go&t=581s

Eugene City Council Meeting: November 26, 2018
A play in 4 acts. and, first decile has to be CHEAP. and, mashed potatos.
https://youtu.be/By1resPPKr4?t=1778

Eugene City Council Meeting: December 10, 2018
Calling for CHEAP HOUSING and 1000 sf lot partitions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbd6tGk_xk0

Eugene Planning Commission Meeting: December 11, 2018
36000 < $1000/month
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mB7pL2mjW0&feature=youtu.be&t=447

Eugene City Council Meeting: January 14, 2019
CET in perspective, straining at gnats; Social devastation of housing crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCizyOJhXo&t=633s

Eugene Planning Commission Meeting: January 28, 2019
Cost of THOWs and, Two Wings of bird: CHEAP, and Limited to low income people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLvz4SgNORs&feature=youtu.be&t=442

Eugene City Council Meeting: January 28, 2019
Suggesting Two Wings of bird: CHEAP, and Limited to low income people
https://youtu.be/qX9N-fwlFvo?t=2948

Lane County Commissioners
50,000 low income people; the scale of the problem; Call for Humility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHHxW3-GQTM&feature=youtu.be&t=1694
Commissioner Sorenson responded in agreement,
https://youtu.be/tHHxW3-GQTM?t=6498

City Council Public Hearing: May 20, 2019
ADU Hearing,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHzbHyZGFlA&feature=youtu.be&t=460

Eugene City Council Meeting: March 11, 2019
General- against land ownership, courthouse etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6QDRNbTsAw&feature=youtu.be&t=747

Eugene City Council April 8, 2019
No on FCC control of 5G, No on the CET,
https://youtu.be/vfmdawZGPjs?t=495

Eugene City Council Meeting: May 13, 2019
TAC Report: Where is the housing? and WHY we must reduce stress on Low Income populations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdQiNzJRfb8&feature=youtu.be&t=815

Eugene City Council Meeting: June 10 2019
Recommending R-1L zoning for low income housing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mR7eCKdjk&t=687s

Eugene Planning Commission Meeting: June 11, 2019
Recommending R-1L zoning for low income housing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee22N8znBzo&feature=youtu.be&t=390

City Council Meeting: July 8, 2019
Advocating for housing for the bottom two deciles, based on HUMAN RIGHT to housing.
https://youtu.be/rrtbzDKWUWM?t=1938

City Council Meeting: Sept. 23, 2019
Asked Council for housing that would be set aside for low income people:
1. must be cheap, 2. must be reserved for lowest income people, and 3. must be rent-capped.
https://youtu.be/A5oqenhMWaQ?t=995

City Council Meeting: Oct. 14, 2019
Discussed low-income housing ideas and concerns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQp1xQt_1ms&t=1950s

City Council Meeting: Nov. 11, 2019
Expressed concern about the Pledge of Allegiance, Low income housing; Eugene Wake up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trJ1ZuawYoQ&feature=youtu.be&t=823

City Council March 9, 2020
Demand City Council worksession on Human Rights of homeless,
and, attacked STR owners' pronouncements the STRs don't affect the poor.
https://youtu.be/kigL9QcKgCs?t=3960

What were you doing in 2004, 2005, 2006?

I was raising public awareness of military recruiters in high schools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyDd84wMY-A

But, what were you doing?

When people say, major change is possible now, here is why I believe that is true. 40 years ago entering public accounting, as an auditor, I quickly learned that the agencies and companies we audited TOTALLY understood their business, way more than we ever would. And they told us, to our faces. It hurt.

Only senior auditors in our firm, long-experienced on that particular audit, understood those clients. They did NOT need auditors and they did NOT need their owners or managers, either. Workgroups and experienced staff ran the operations.

Fast forward to the 1990s as I worked 14 years in Japan, workers and managers in Japan *totally understood* that the workers in the departments not only knew their business better than the old men, but the layers of owners, directors etc. who were nothing but a parasitic layer. So, in company after company I learned who really runs Japan and it is the workers. Nobody denies it. The owners or directors don't deny it.

Capitalism is not necessary. In fact the money system itself is not necessary, at all. Consider that *all corporations* and public sector agencies operate internally without money. You don't have to negotiate with your other departments, divisions, workgroups over prices, and there are not competing suppliers, etc. Ridiculous. No.


Read Coasian economics of the firm. Ronald Coase. Nobel laureate. This is why firms work so much better than the "private sector" competition model. Why they are eating our lunch. Because they are NOT market.

I worked 12 hours a day in the dotcom boom 2000 building P2P, person to person, transaction systems, settlement systems. We all knew it was possible We were replacing the BAMs. the Bricks and Mortar systems... before Amazon. But Wall Street de-funded the whole thing. Hard.

What is possible today is a spasm of such proportions that not only sweeps aside Capitalism (the parasitic burden of management and owners) but the use of money itself. We don't need it.

Quoting https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html
Copyright New York Times.

Bernie Sanders
Senator from Vermont, 78

1. Use of Force

Presidents from both parties have taken an expansive view of their powers as commander in chief, deploying troops and ordering airstrikes without explicit congressional approval and, sometimes, without an imminent threat. The Democratic candidates frequently criticize such actions, but they have been less clear on the circumstances in which they would consider military force justifiable.

Apart from responding to an attack on the United States or a treaty ally, what are the conditions under which you would consider the use of American military force?

sanders's Answer

Bernie's first priority is to protect the American people. Military force is sometimes necessary, but always — always — as the last resort. And blustery threats of force can often signal weakness as much as strength, diminishing U.S. deterrence, credibility and security in the process.

Read full answer [sorry, the "full answer" link does not respond. --T.]

Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
sanders's Answer

Yes.
Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?
sanders's Answer

Yes.
Would you consider military force to protect oil supplies?
sanders's Answer

No.

Is there any situation in which you could see yourself using American troops or covert action in a regime-change effort? If so, under what circumstances would you be willing to do that?

sanders's Answer

No.

Is it appropriate for the United States to provide nonmilitary support for regime-change efforts, as the Trump administration did in Venezuela?

sanders's Answer

No.

2. Iran

In 2015, the Obama administration signed a deal with Iran that lifted sanctions in exchange for significant limits on Iran’s nuclear program. Many Republicans fiercely objected to the deal, saying it was not tough enough, and in 2018, President Trump abandoned it and reinstated sanctions. But Iran kept up its end of the agreement until last month, when Mr. Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general, Qassim Suleimani. The killing of General Suleimani brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran, which retaliated by attacking two military bases that American forces were using in Iraq.

What would you do with the now-abandoned Iranian nuclear deal, as negotiated in 2015?

sanders's Answer

Bernie would re-enter the deal with no new preconditions, provided Iran is also meeting its commitments. He would then pursue wider talks to resolve issues of ballistic missiles, support for terrorist groups, and human rights.

Do you believe President Trump acted within his legal authority in giving the order to kill Qassim Suleimani? Was the killing justifiable? Was it wise?

sanders's Answer

No. The U.S. is not at war with Iran, and Congress has not authorized any military action against Iran. Clearly there is evidence that Suleimani was involved in acts of terror. He also supported attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. But the right question isn't "was this a bad guy," but rather "does assassinating him make Americans safer?" The answer is clearly no.

Read full answer

Regarding possible future military action against Iran, is there any type of response that is off the table for you?

sanders's Answer

Bernie would work with our European allies to de-escalate tensions with Iran and engage in aggressive diplomacy that would safeguard the security of the U.S. and our partners while preventing a disastrous war with Iran.
What would your military strategy to deter Iran be? What would your diplomatic strategy be?

sanders's Answer

Bernie would work with our European allies to de-escalate tensions with Iran and engage in aggressive diplomacy that would safeguard the security of the U.S. and our partners while preventing a disastrous war with Iran.

3. North Korea

Dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program has long been an American priority, and President Trump has tried to do so through unusual means: direct diplomacy with the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. It started in Singapore in 2018 but began to fall apart last February, when Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim emerged from a summit meeting in Vietnam empty-handed. In the interim, sanctions have remained, the North’s arsenal of weapons fuel and missiles has steadily expanded, and Mr. Kim recently threatened to resume missile tests.
Would you continue the personal diplomacy President Trump began with Kim Jong-un?

sanders's Answer

Yes.

Would you tighten sanctions until North Korea has given up all of its nuclear and missile programs?

sanders's Answer

No.

Would you gradually lift sanctions in return for a freeze on fissile material development, as President Clinton attempted?
sanders's Answer

Yes.

Would you insist on substantial disarmament before relieving any sanctions?
sanders's Answer

No.

Would you agree to begin withdrawing American troops from the Korean peninsula?
sanders's Answer

No, not immediately. We would work closely with our South Korean partners to move toward peace on the Korean peninsula, which is the only way we will ultimately deal with the North Korean nuclear issue.
Please describe your North Korea strategy further.

sanders's Answer

Every step we take to reduce North Korea's nuclear force, to open it up to inspections, to end the 70-year-old Korean War and to encourage peaceful relations between the Koreas and the United States increases the chances of complete denuclearization of the peninsula. Peace and nuclear disarmament must proceed in parallel, in close consultations with our South Korean ally. I will work to negotiate a step-by-step process to roll back North Korea's nuclear program, build a new peace and security regime on the peninsula, and work toward the eventual elimination of all North Korean nuclear weapons.

4. Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan, begun after the Sept. 11 attacks, is the longest war in United States history, and documents released in December revealed that three successive presidential administrations misled the American people about the progress — or lack thereof — being made on the ground. That the United States should withdraw has become a rare point of agreement between President Trump and Democrats. But there are still significant disagreements over when, and under what conditions, that withdrawal should happen.
Would American troops be in Afghanistan at the end of your first term? If so, would you limit those troops' mission to counterterrorism and intelligence gathering?

sanders's Answer

No.

Would American presence in Afghanistan be dependent on other nations contributing troops on the ground?

sanders's Answer

No.

How long do you envision American troops being required, in any numbers, in Afghanistan?

sanders's Answer

As president, Bernie would withdraw U.S. military forces from Afghanistan as expeditiously as possible. Bernie intends to have U.S. forces out of Afghanistan by the end of his first term. Our military has now been in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years. We will soon have troops in Afghanistan who were not even born on Sept. 11, 2001. It's time to end our intervention there and bring our troops home, in a planned and coordinated way combined with a serious diplomatic and political strategy which helps deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid. Withdrawing troops does not mean withdrawing all involvement, and my administration would stay politically engaged in these countries and do whatever we can to help them develop their economy and strengthen a government that is responsible to its people.

5. Israel

In Israel, a two-state solution — long viewed as the only workable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — appears more distant than ever after President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embraced a plan that appeared to tilt the outcome in Israel’s favor. Mr. Trump’s decision in 2018 to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was deeply polarizing. So is the B.D.S. (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, which has grown increasingly prominent and which the House condemned in a bipartisan resolution last year.
Should the United States maintain its current level of military aid to Israel? If not, how should the level of aid change?

sanders's Answer

Yes, but that aid can be conditioned on Israel taking steps to end the occupation and move toward a peace agreement.
Bernie believes that U.S. aid should be conditioned on a range of human rights concerns. American taxpayers shouldn’t be supporting policies that undermine our values and interests, in Israel or anywhere.

Read full answer

Do you support the B.D.S. movement? If not, should the president and/or Congress act to hinder it?

sanders's Answer

No. While Bernie is not a supporter of the B.D.S. movement, he believes that Americans have a constitutional right to participate in nonviolent protest.
Should the United States Embassy in Israel be moved from Jerusalem back to Tel Aviv?

sanders's Answer

Not as a first step. But it would be on the table if Israel continues to take steps, such as settlement expansion, expulsions and home demolitions, that undermine the chances for a peace agreement.

Should all Palestinian refugees and their descendants have the right to return to Israel?

sanders's Answer

The right of refugees to return to their homes after the cessation of hostilities is an internationally recognized right, but this issue will be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians as part of a peace agreement.
Do you support the establishment of a Palestinian state that includes West Bank land as demarcated by pre-1967 borders, except for longtime Israeli settlements?

sanders's Answer

Yes, if the settlement issue is negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians.
If you answered yes to the last question, what will you do to achieve that where past administrations have failed? If you answered no, what solution do you envision to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

sanders's Answer

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, credible United States leadership is desperately needed. Bernie is a strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist in independence, peace and security. But he also believes that the United States needs to engage in an even-handed approach toward that longstanding conflict, which results in ending the Israeli occupation and enabling the Palestinian people to have independence and self-determination in a sovereign, independent, economically viable state of their own. In his view, that end result would be in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinian people, the United States and the entire region.

Read full answer

6. Russia

Russia has been a deeply destabilizing force on the world stage for several years, including through its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and its meddling in the United States’ 2016 presidential election. After it annexed Crimea, it was suspended from the Group of Eight bloc of industrialized nations (now, in Russia’s absence, the Group of Seven). But President Trump has pushed to readmit Russia to the G-7 and has held several meetings with President Vladimir Putin, the contents of which have not been disclosed.
If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?

sanders's Answer

Yes.

Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back into the G-7?
sanders's Answer

Yes.

7. China

The Chinese government has been systematically persecuting Muslim minorities: separating families, subjecting Uighurs and Kazakhs to forced labor and operating internment camps. It is also embroiled in a political crisis over Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China. At the same time, President Trump has taken a hard line on trade with China, imposing economically damaging tariffs. Last month, the United States and China signed an initial trade deal.
Should respect for Hong Kong’s political independence, under the terms of the handover agreement with Britain, be a prerequisite for normal relations and trade with China?

sanders's Answer

Yes.

Should normal relations and trade be contingent on China’s closing its internment camps for Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups?

sanders's Answer

Yes.

8. NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance among 29 North American and European countries, has been a linchpin of the United States’ foreign policy for decades. But President Trump has often criticized the alliance, arguing that the United States gives too much and gets too little from it. During his 2016 campaign, he refused to commit to NATO’s central pledge — defending other members if they are attacked — if the members in question had not met their spending commitments, and aides say that in 2018, he repeatedly suggested withdrawing. Last year, NATO agreed to reduce the United States’ contribution and increase Germany’s.
Should NATO nations pay more for defense than their current commitment of at least 2 percent of G.D.P.?
sanders's Answer

No.

Should nations that do not fulfill their NATO funding commitment still receive an assurance of United States aid if they are attacked?

sanders's Answer

Yes.

9. Cyber Policy

Cyber weaponry has emerged as the primary way nations compete with and undercut each other in short-of-war conflict. Yet there are few international rules that govern the daily battles — or prevent escalation. As a shadow war emerges in cyberspace, President Trump has given far more powers to the United States Cyber Command and the National Security Agency.
Should a presidential order be required to launch a cyber strike against another country, just as it is required to launch a nuclear strike?

sanders's Answer

Yes.

The United States Cyber Command’s new strategy is “persistent engagement,” meaning the U.S. goes deep inside foreign computer networks to constantly engage with adversaries and dissuade strikes on the United States. Would you continue this policy?

sanders's Answer

Bernie would undertake a comprehensive review of U.S. cyber strategy and work to bring countries together around international conventions to control the use of these dangerous weapons.
If you answered yes to the last question, would you nevertheless insist that other nations pursuing “persistent engagement” could not be inside American power grids and other critical infrastructure?

sanders's Answer

Not applicable.

10. National Security Strategy

In the post-Cold War era — and especially after the Sept. 11 attacks — the focal point of American foreign policy moved to counterterrorism, the Middle East and Afghanistan. President Trump has, at least on paper, argued for shifting American foreign policy back to confront the “revisionist powers” of Russia and China.
President Trump’s national security strategy calls for shifting the focus of American foreign policy away from the Middle East and Afghanistan, and back to what it refers to as the “revisionist” superpowers, Russia and China. Do you agree? Why or why not?

sanders's Answer

Despite its stated strategy, the Trump administration has never followed a coherent national security strategy. In fact, Trump has escalated tensions in the Middle East and put us on the brink of war with Iran, refused to hold Russia accountable for its interference in our elections and human rights abuses, has done nothing to address our unfair trade agreement with China that only benefits wealthy corporations, and has ignored China's mass internment of Uighurs and its brutal repression of protesters in Hong Kong. Clearly, Trump is not a president we should be taking notes from.

Read full answer

11. Top Diplomatic Priority

The next president will be confronted with an array of foreign policy challenges, from North Korea’s nuclear program to international efforts to combat climate change. It will not be possible to address all of them at once. This makes it essential to understand not only the candidates’ policies, but also their priorities.
What would be your top priority for your secretary of state?

sanders's Answer

Bernie has long believed that the U.S. must lead the world in improving international cooperation to address shared challenges. That's why, together with his secretary of state, Bernie's administration will implement a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, environmental justice and economic fairness. Leading an international effort against the urgent threat of climate change will be a top priority.

Read full answer


How The Times Conducted This Project

In December (2019), we sent a questionnaire to the 14 Democratic presidential candidates who were then in the race. Eleven completed it, including two — Cory Booker and Marianne Williamson — who subsequently dropped out of the race.
John Delaney (who has also since dropped out) and Tulsi Gabbard did not respond, and Pete Buttigieg answered only some of the questions. The Times will update this graphic if any of them provide additional answers.

Drumbeat for war on Iran? I will be on the streets and overpasses, as every time they try to build up their momentum. NOW is the time to go on the streets, they are trying to get momentum.

Overview of proposed Cascadia Constitution

The achievement of 1787 was to design an oligarchy that has been stable for 230 years without a monarch. But it failed to protect us against oligarchy, or the present power system of NY-WashDC composted of corporations, public agencies, financial houses, military commands, etc.

We could have direct democracy (individuals vote on every significant policy decision-- at the *policy* level, the structural level. And we could, with the Internet, be enabled to change and update our votes on a continuous basis over time).

And since the world is complex, there's *no possibility* that individuals can make competent, rational choices on policies that affect them. This fact must be corrected by formal, constitutional process. For example, the federal government might be composed of 30 different agencies, similar to existing departments of transportation, environment, education, food, public health, defense, etc but many more, for example, budget, and public information. Each agency would be governed by a congressional committee which would be "tightly coupled" with its agency. All policy would be authored by the relevant agency and its governing committee.

There might not be any president at all. Who needs that guy? And there might not be any general "congress", at all, pretending to understand, know and guide everything as a whole. Which they never did, very well. Just the 30 governing committees for different aspects of the country.

Furthermore, voters would be voting on these complex and detailed operations. We would *need* the right to appoint specialists we trust-- Experts --as proxies to vote our votes on complex things like technology, medical care, pharma, finance, etc. There would be no elections for these proxies-- you could appoint anybody you like, but they might need to meet some qualifications, for the sake of everybody else in the country, not just your religious leader, your mother, etc. They could be accountable to professional licensing boards for each 30 domains, to pass tests, take continuing education, etc like other professions.

Basically I want all significant policy *choices* to be thoroughly well explained and documented in the clearest, unambiguous language. The development of this semantic framework is one of the biggest tasks. This would require some formal structure of linguists, perhaps lawyers, but deeply wise people to define the legal meaning of words, and phrases and the underlying realities of legislation. Do you understand the goals of this? It is to make voters' policy guidance exactly clear. And this would require very significant amounts of money for staff, continual investigation of agencies and definitions of the problems.

Because legislation would be exact, there would be less need for courts or high level apparatus in federal agencies to interpret or implement the law. The constitution and legislation would be properly written to anticipate problems and resolve them up front, or kicked back by the 30 agencies to their Committees' to clarify.

Basically I want to *see* the real legislation and have the right to vote on it, and expect this to happen about 100 times a year. I also want the right to delegate my vote or proxy, to experts in particular domains of expertise who I trust, for 20 or 30 categories like medical, transportation, military, foreign relations, energy, housing, toxics, climate change, etc. We MUST stop appointing one single politician for long terms of years, to decide EVERY policy that affects our lives, since they cannot possibly be expert in more than one or two of those domains.

Diagram of the MICC

A NEW CALL TO RESIST ILLEGAL WAR AND ILLEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
By Courage to Resist.
July 3, 2014

Courage to Resist calls on all U.S. military personnel to resist any effort to pursue a new military attack on Iraq via troops, bombs, drones or any other means. In keeping with our Mission Statement, we affirm that, just as there was never any legitimate reason for the United States to send military forces to Iraq in the past, there is not now any reason for the United States to participate militarily in the affairs of the people of Iraq. The refugees being created every day by the wars in Iraq need humanitarian aid. The solution to the problems in Iraq lies in the nations and parties involved talking it out.

The U.S. destroyed Iraq. Sending U.S. troops and/or weapons again cannot improve the situation. It can only cause more unnecessary death and destruction. Troops, bullets, bombs, mines, and other weapons will continue to kill, maim, and breed hatred in the people of Iraq. More warfare cannot do anything positive for the men, women, and children of Iraq.

"Today the US is sending a few hundred military advisers, backed by an additional group of mercenaries, to prop up the Iraqi regime. Some of these individuals may well be the last US service members to die for the Iraq War lie, to paraphrase John Kerry regarding the end of the Vietnam War. What happens if the neo cons have their way and the US “surges” back into Iraq to save the al-Maliki government? Courage to Resist wants service members to know that they have options, including doing the right thing--resistance.

-Jeff Paterson
Courage to Resist
Project Director
July 3, 2014

Every U.S. service person has a conscience. Every member of every branch of the U.S. military service is bound to obey that conscience, and the oath s/he took to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution binds the U.S. to honor its international agreements. All U.S. presidents in this century have broken the law of the land as well as international laws and treaties with the illegal use of war powers. Sending U.S. troops to Iraq was, and would be again, in violation of numerous international laws and treaties as well as a violation of U.S. war-making powers. And it certainly would not be in defense of the United States. U.S. citizens do not support a return of the U.S. military to Iraq.

Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Airperson, you are strong enough to resist illegal and immoral war. We’d be honored to support your refusal to deploy to Iraq. U.S. troops are not the cops of the world. There is no legitimate mission for you or any U.S. service members in Iraq. Don’t be fooled by more lies from the President, the Congress, the media or anyone else.

Courage to Resist exists to support service members who resist illegal and immoral war and occupation. Since 2006, Courage to Resist has provided moral and material support to GI objectors, including legal aid when needed.

Military service members we have had the honor of collaborating with include: Army Lt. Ehren Watada, the first military officer to articulate the illegal nature of the Iraq War and refuse orders to deploy, Marine L/Cpl Stephen Funk, the first military service member to publicly refuse to deploy, and scores of service members who have formally applied for discharge as Conscientious Objectors.

Marines, Sailors, Soldiers and Airpersons who have taken refuge in Canada, and have publicly fought for the right to remain there. We’ve also supported those who have returned to the U.S. to face U.S. military injustice. Nearly 50 service members who have required assistance with legal fees, and related support, for fighting military court-martials for having gone AWOL/UA. Hundreds of Individual Ready Reservists (IRR) who have refused involuntary activations.

Refuse illegitimate authority. Have the Courage to Resist illegal war. We support the troops who refuse to fight!

Mission Statement

COURAGE TO RESIST is a group of concerned community members, veterans and military families that supports military objectors to illegal war and occupation and the policies of empire. Our People Power strategy weakens the pillars that maintain war and occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere by supporting GI resistance, counter-recruitment and draft resistance, which cuts off the supply of troops. We are autonomous from and independent of any political organization, party or group.

I highly recommend this informative, educational talk by Kazu Haga last July, on how nonviolent civil disobedience campaigns succeed. I recorded their three-hour short-version of a week-long course. I boiled it down into one hour, and you will be richly rewarded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNT_b0NQnUM

Bruce Gagnon: The Deadly Connection: Endless War and Economic Crisis

Bruce Gagnon Washington Tour
Contact: Holly Gwinn Graham

International peace activist and organizer Bruce Gagnon comes to Washington State April 24 to April 30, 2012 to engage local communities around the theme “The Deadly Connection: Endless War and Economic Crisis.”

Gagnon is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, and long-time member of Veterans For Peace. (A detailed bio on Gagnon is attached to this release.)

Having recently returned from demonstrations in South Korea protesting the construction of a huge US Navy base on Jeju Island, Gagnon will speak on U.S. expanding militarism, as well as the impact of militarism on the economic crisis here at home. He will stress the need to promote the conversion of the military industrial complex to sustainable production if we hope to have the slightest impact on climate change. These and similar issues are contained in his book Come Together Right Now: Organizing Stories from a Fading Empire.

The Washington speaking engagements are part of Gagnon’s West Coast speaking tour that begins in Los Angeles, California on April 1st and ends in Tacoma, Washington on April 30th. Washington stops include Olympia, Walla Walla, Bellingham, Seattle and Tacoma.



See full Washington schedule below.

Tuesday, April 24 – Olympia – 6:30 PM, Traditions Café, 300 5th Avenue Southwest, Contact: Holly Gwinn Graham,hollygg@msn.com

Wednesday, April 25 – Walla Walla - 7:00 PM, Whitman College, Olin Hall Room 130, Contact Jennifer Doering,doerinje@whitman.edu

Thursday, April 26 - Bellingham - 4:00 PM, Western Washington University, Arntzen Hall, Contact Gene Marx, 253-653-4423

Friday, April 27 – Bellingham – 7:00 PM, Mt. Baker Theatre’s Encore Room, 104 North Commercial Street, Contact Gene Marx, 253-653-4423

Saturday, April 28 – Seattle - 7:30 – 8:00 AM, Interviewed by Mike McCormick on KEXP, 90.3 FM, Mind Over Matters.

Saturday, April 28 – Redmond - 1:00 PM, Soul Food Books, 15748 Redmond Way.

Sunday, April 29 – Seattle - 4:00 pm, University Temple United Methodist Church, 1415 Northeast 43rd Street, Contact: Leonard Eiger (for all Seattle and Redmond events), subversivepeacemaking@gmail.com

Monday, April 30 – Tacoma - 12:30 – 1:30 pm, University of Washington, Tacoma, Carwein Auditorium, 1551 Broadway, Contact: Rob Crawford, crawford@u.washington.edu

Seattle events sponsors include Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, Veterans for Peace (Seattle Chapter), United Nations Association, Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation, University Temple United Methodist Church, The Alliance for Democracy and the Abe Keller Peace Education Fund.

For further information on the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, seehttp://www.space4peace.org/. Also see Bruce Gagnon’s blog, Organizing Notes at http://space4peace.blogspot.com/

OCCUPY discussion, West Seattle Library

Inspired by Occupy Seattle?
Just curious?
Come to A Public Meeting
6:00 – 7:30 PM
Thurs., January 5
West Seattle Library
2306-42nd Ave SW, 98116
Meet some Occupy Seattle participants.
Bring your questions, concerns, ideas.
Find out how to get involved!
Hosted by: West Seattle Neighbors for Peace & Justice

Transcript of Ashley Joppa Hagemann at Kings Books

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsuNhDeK48Y

ahem hm hmmm

Hello Everyone my name is Ashley Joppa Hagemann.

And, um, I don't know if any of you have heard about my husband, and our story that we, um, about our, the last few years. our struggle.

My husband is Jared August Hagemann, he was a staff sergeant in the 2nd of the 75th Ranger regiment and he was in the A company, before he took his life on June 28th.

And I know that there, um, the military is saying, that there is pending, um, an investigation into his death.


I don't understand why it is stil pending

Clearly um, it is the Rangers' fault, the command's fault, that my husband chose to free himself from the pain, and from the Rangers. That is why he took his life.

And to give you some information about my husband,
he was going on his 7th year in the military. This would have been about the 8th or 9th deployment for him.

And with the Rangers, they. About every six months, they usually re-deploy. There were a few times when my husband went for a short period of time. and the next time, they would stay longer than the usual time. The "usual time" is anywhere from 4 to 6 months.

And it all started in 2009 when he was diagnosed with PTSD

He came home from that deployment, and the day he was supposed to return back to work, he... All he did was drink himself senseless.

Which is what he did before and after... a deployment.

He said the reason before was, he wanted to distance himself, numb himself, for what he had to do.

And afterwards, it was to forget. and numb himself from what he had to do.

And so that day he was supposed to return back to work he had called the Rangers and told them I quit, I'm done.

And, so, he called me up after that and told me he was thinking about taking his life. So I rushed over there, I stood by his side like I always did. and of course rangers showed up. Tried to talk him into staying longer--staying into the Rangers and all he said was, "Get away from me. FU. I Quit. Don't you hear me? I quit. I CAN quit. "

And, people, a lot of people aren't aware, with the rangers it's a voluntary unit. You're able to leave whenever you want.

So, my husband was telling them he quit, and, after a few hours of that, we took him... well, I took him, to the ER to sober up. Then he admitted himself into Five North in Madigan, which everyone, um, it's also known as the mental ward. And there is um, there, he received some counseling, and they held him for about three days. A friday, I believe it was a friday all the way til monday, they let him out monday morning. And they told him that as long as he continued his counseling and his alcoholics class, he'd be OK. He didn't want to leave. He wanted to stay as long as he could to get the help that he wanted. He admitted himself.

About that time they moved him to HHC. They put him in the S5 Shop. And according to everybody in the Rangers, the S5 Shop is where they put the troublemakers. The problems. So they could hide you away, sit you in an office, and forget about you. And that, that was the choice that they gave my husband. Either we can hide you away, so that you can get the help, or, you can go to the regular army and we will make sure that you get a, excuse my language, we'll make sure you get a shitty job. And we'll make sure that they deploy you overseas for the normal period of time which is, I think 12 to 14 months, I'm not sure what it was at the time.

And so, my husband chose to get the help. Because that's what he wanted. So they bullied him into staying in the rangers, when he wanted out, and about a month or so later, they actually told him that the counseling and the alcoholics anonymous program that he was in, was taking up his work time. They needed him doing more important things. And that he needed to take time from his personal life, to seek the help that wanted. Which was not the deal in the beginning.

So we went and sought out our own help. We tried so many times. But every time Jared would start to talk about overseas, the counselor would try and force him to give details. and just kind of push him. And I don't know but from my experience when someone says no, No means No. And that would just set him back for about two weeks. He, he wouldn't talk to anybody. He'd start drinking again. Become aggressive. And I'd, the only time I felt that the rangers would listen was when I would call local law enforcement. But after a few times, that no longer seemed to help. All they would do was tell my husband, stay in your barracks, don't talk to your wife. Like I was the problem. It wasn't me. It was them. They did not take any responsibility for my husband. Even that last month of his life when they knew. When the police had called them and told them that they had responded to a call at our house that he had a gun to his head. That one, those two incidents, were probably two months before his death.

In that last month, he held a gun to his head three times. And by that time he had this look of despair in his eyes. And, I haven't told anybody this, but the last time he had that gun to his head, and he was yelling, "Should I do it? Would this make everybody happy?" It's as if he was asking me, Please. Let me go. And the worst part is that I love him so much. And that is what keeps me going right now. Talking. Getting in front of people. Letting everybody know about my husband. I didn't want him to suffer any more. And at that moment, I was thinking, if that is the only way that you will be at peace, do what you need to do.

And I hate myself for thinking that but to see someone in pain every single day, waking up, telling me "I hate myself. I hate my job. I hate my life. I hate what I've become."

And so the last day that I had heard from him, I hadn't talked to him directly. But he did say that he was going to kill himself. Local law enforcement knew. They said they were going to contact his chain of command. Tried calling his cellphone. He didn't pick up. Tuesday rolled around. And they said he went AWOL. That's not my husband. He has pride. He has responsibilities. He's a strong man. They took that from him.

And now, they are refusing to give my husband, who gave his life for the rangers, a memorial. At first they told me it was because they didn't want media around, to get the story. Because they know, they've learned that from me over the years, that you can't keep me quiet. I'm a fighter. I, I always stood by my husband. And now that I no longer have him, I have to stand up for him. And everybody else who wants help. Because nobody else will. That's what my husband wanted to do.

So, all I'm asking is that, as a community, that everybody gets together and stands up for these men. Because the military's not going to do it. They took what they could from these men, and they won't let them go.

Thank you.

Paul Chappell in Bellevue, Wed. Sep. 21

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation presents
Paul K. Chappell

Why Peace is Possible and How we can Achieve it
September 21, 2011
7-9:15 pm
East Shore Unitarian Church
12700 Southeast 32nd Street Bellevue WA 98005
for more info contact Judith Shattuck
425.830.2323

7 - 8:15 pm—Intro / Peace Panel
8:15 - 9:15 pm—Keynote - Paul Chappell

International Peace Day 2011
Bellevue WA

“Paul K. Chappell has given us a crucial look at war and peace from the unique perspective of a soldier, and his new ideas show us why world peace is both necessary and possible in the 21st century.” —Archbishop Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Paul K. Chappell graduated from West Point in 2002. He served in the army for seven years, was deployed to Baghdad, and left active duty in November 2009 as a Captain. He lives in Santa Barbara, California, where he is serving as the Peace Leadership Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

SEE THE VIDEO OF THIS TALK ON BLIP.TV

Additional information
about Paul K. Chappell
can be found at
PaulKChappell.com
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Native American, Buddhist, and
Unitarian faith leaders along with Washington Physicians for Social
Responsibility, American Friends Service Committee, Fellowship of
Reconciliation, and Veterans for Peace will challenge the audience to
take responsibility for bringing peace to fruition.