The following itemized lists from the Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal grant programs are perfect examples of how the local politicians waste your tax dollars while trying to buy favor.  The chart shows the overlapping taxing districts that lose money to the Coos Bay URA from FYE 2010-2011, which is just one of five UR agency’s in the county.
 
Do not mistake this as an attack on the private businesses that accepted the Urban Renewal money.  To the contrary, those business owners were smart to take good advantage of a very bad government program.  The politicians are to blame for the continuance of this fraudulent tax and of course the people who elected them.  

Urban Renewal siphons money from necessary services.
 
There is no evidence that Urban Renewal has worked to increase the tax base or create new jobs.
 
Urban Renewal is an artificial construct designed to manipulate the market.
 
Urban Renewal centralizes too much power and money into the hands of the few.
 
Urban Renewal is a political slush fund, which is conducive to a culture of corruption.
 
Urban Renewal is public money used by corporations for private profit.  
 
Urban Renewal can make eminent domain claims against any property inside of the area. 
 
Politicians use Urban Renewal funding to create new taxing districts to maintain other projects, such as auditoriums, carousels, convention centers, swimming pools, sports stadiums, theaters, and teen centers---at the expense of the competitors of these industries in the private market.

Ok folks, game on.

As you know, the Governor has signed the Boquist/Burdick gun confiscation bill. What you might not know is how few of our friends in law enforcement are even aware of it.

When the courts begin ordering the seizure of guns from people who have committed no crime, things are going to get real ugly in Oregon. So it's time to go to work.

Rest assured, as the effort begins to repeal this vicious attack on our rights, New York billionaires will be pumping a fortune into our state to continue the lies that the supporters of this bill told to pass it. This will NOT be an easy fight but you can do something about it. And you can start now.

Please visit http://www.repeal719.com/  right now to download petitions to refer this bill to the voters. Please share this link with everyone you know who believes in liberty and due process, especially our friends in the rural parts of the state. Then... start gathering signatures. As many as you can.

The Repeal 719 website had both single signer sheets and 10 signature sheets if you are willing to gather other signatures. And why wouldn't you be? These are your guns.

The website has everything you need to get going on this, including info on how to gather signatures and the reasons this bill is so dangerous.

Bring them to your gun club and share them with your friends.  We have, and the response has been great.

This is the first part of the fight,a part you can play a major role in.  After the referral is on the ballot, we will face a very expensive battle in a campaign against anti-gun billionaires but now we need SIGNATURES. Please do your part.

Coos County Republican Central Committee

Join us for our regular August Monthly Meeting
Where
Pony Village Mall, 1611 Virginia Ave, N.B. OR 97459 Room # 155
When
Thursday, August  24th, 6:00 pm
Bring
A potluck dish to share.

Guest speaker Rob Taylor will be speaking on the permanent increase in the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan, and a coming referendum to let the people decide!
Any questions call or email CCRCC Chair Rod Schilling @ 541 294-8902 [email protected].

 On Thursday, August 31, 2017, at 1:30 pm in the Owen Building, the Coos County Board of Commissioners will consider adopting an ordinance to amend the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan.  The final vote will be on September 12. 
 
Commissioners Cribbins & Sweet are going to delete the expiration date from the current plan, allowing the debt to exist in perpetuity.  The agency has the capability of a maximum indebtedness of Sixty Million Dollars.  They are going to enact the extension by just a vote of the Board of Commissioners thus eliminating the voice of the voters.
 
Imposing a time limit on the UR debt meant it had an ending date, but no expiration means the politicians never have to pay off this $60 million dollar Charge Card.   
 
The alternatives for the county Board of Commissioners is to pay off the current UR debt of $50,000, shut down the agency, and allow those property taxes to flow into the districts that were supposed to get the money in the first place.       
 
The county's Urban Renewal Agency formed the North Bay Urban Renewal District back in 1986, and they updated the plan for that district three times since, once in 1998, then again in 2000, and again in 2006.  The most recent plan allows the district to sunset in 2018.  
 
The UR agency pays the district's debt through a process called Tax Increment Financing.  TIF is a taxing scheme designed to siphon money from other taxing districts that overlap the urban renewal area.  Those include the Coos Bay Fire District, the cities of North Bend and Coos Bay, and the Coos Bay & North Bend School District.  Also, there are several countywide districts including the airport district, the county, the library district, and SWOCC, so every property owner in the county contributes to the North Bay URA. 

The idea of redevelopment is to increase the property values of the urban renewal area as a way to bolster the local tax base---all to create economic development that most likely would have taken place with or without these business incentives.  
 
When a city or a county wants to obtain TIF funding, they create a boundary around an underdeveloped, blighted area of their choosing and that is the urban renewal taxing district.  The revenue generated from the property taxes remains in a frozen state from that point on, and that becomes the base taxes, which will continue to fund the other overlapping taxing districts.  However, after that day, the UR agency retains all the increase over the frozen tax base, which is the tax increment. 
 
The districts that are losing money due to TIF eventually have to replace that loss by either raising fees and new taxes or cutting essential services to the public, which is the usual practice. These budget cuts have had damaging effects on the community, especially when it comes to public safety. 
 
The taxes collected through the UR district is nondiscretionary funding.  The members of the URA board can spend it on any political pet project they deem necessary, which concentrates too much money and power into the hands of the political elite.  Many of these projects are nothing more than welfare for private corporations paid for with public dollars. 
 
The worst aspect of the agency is the ability to use its authority to make "eminent domain" claims against any private property inside the UR area.   Private ownership is the cornerstone of a free society.  Allowing bureaucrats the power to seize assets undermines those values and destabilizes the market.    
 
The original purpose of urban renewal was to eliminate blighted areas by removing abandoned buildings, deteriorated houses or debris left from past industrial projects, but the government has expanded the definition of blight.  Now, in some cases, the money goes directly to developers to pay for construction costs and building improvements.  Some UR money has gone to cover mortgages and even to pay for advertising for private business.   
 
There is no proof that Urban Renewal will generate new jobs or increase the tax base.  In fact, most studies have found no evidence that municipalities with Urban Renewal Agencies developed any faster than ones without it did.  In one thorough study from September of 1999 titled "The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development" it stated,  In summary, the empirical evidence suggests that TIF adoption has a real cost for municipal growth rates. Municipalities that elect to adopt TIF stimulate the growth of blighted areas at the expense of the larger town. We doubt that most municipal decision-makers are aware of this tradeoff or that they would willingly sacrifice significant municipal growth to create TIF districts. Our results present an opportunity to ponder the issue of whether, and how much, overall municipal growth should be sacrificed to encourage the development of blighted areas.
 
The people of Coos County are weary of the shenanigans of our local politicians and the special interest groups in which they serve. Demand that Commissioners Cribbins and Sweet honor the will of the people, or suffer the consequences in the next election.  Saving money is simple as conveying the message, so show up at 1:30 pm to the Public Hearing on August 31, 2017, and the Final Vote on September 12, 2017, in the Owen Building, Coquille Oregon.   
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is the founder of a virtual network of activists at CoosCountyWatchdog.com and the chief petitioner for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. 

County Commissioners John Sweet & Melissa Cribbins are planning on deleting the expiration date of the Urban Renewal Agency, so its public debt can exist in perpetuity.

On Thursday August 31, 2017 at 1:30 pm in the Owen Building, the Coos County Board of Commissioners will consider adopting an ordinance to amend the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan to extend any accrued debt for eternity with a maximum indebtedness of Sixty Million Dollars.  

Coos County Commission will be holding a public hearing and consider an ordinance for the adoption of the proposed North Bay Urban Renewal Plan Amendment on Thursday, August 31st at 1:30 PM.
The meeting will be at The Owens Building, Large Conference Room at 201 N. Adams, Coquille, OR.

Related Posts:
Bandon Budget Committee Meeting April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm
Coos Bay Review Meeting for City & Urban Renewal Budget on April 13, 2017
Coos Bay Legally Steals from Average Citizens to Decorate a Private Business
Oregon Department of Revenue Timber Tax Links Exposing Taxing Inequities  
Coos Bay Taking from the Poor to Give to the Privileged Using Urban Renewal
LOC ~ Rules Finalized for Regional Infrastructure & Corporate Welfare Fund
Expectations of the Natural Resources Committee & Donald Trump's Promises
Coos Bay Gives $97,000 of Public Money to the Local Drama Club
Coos Bay Redistributing Money to Owners of Historical Places
Planning CD-16-127 CIty of Coos Bay ~ Messerle's Determination to Apply Bio-Solids
LTE ~ An Open Letter to the Mayor of Coos Bay Crystal Shoji from Fred Kirby
Coos County District Attorney Letter on the Daily ~ Hudson Opinion
Coos Bay Procedural Rules for Replacing an Empty Seat on the City Council
Coos Bay Giving Away Public Money to a Private Business Using Urban Renewal
Invoice of Services for Coos Bay Council's Wastewater Treatment Plant August 2016 
Mayoral and Council Candidates for Coos Bay
LTE ~ Wastewater Treatment Plant "Suchadeal"
Time to Teach a Lesson to the Local Politicians
LTE ~ One Very Confused Dick in Coos Bay
Coos Bay Two Ballot Measures on Marijuana Tax & Dispensary License in November
LTE ~ Coos Bay Privatization of Wastewater Treatment Plant for Overpriced Lawyers

To whom it may concern:
Starting August 1, 2017 and ending August 31, 2017, the FTA Triennial Goal will be posted on the Office of Civil Rights webpage
(http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Business/OCR/Documents/FTA_Triennial_Goal_18_20.pdf) for review and comment.  Comments will be received at [email protected].  Please refer to Intermodal FTA Triennial Goal in the subject of the email.
Title VI Goals & Accomplishments Report FFY - oregon.gov
www.oregon.gov
- 3 - Introduction The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is a recipient of Federal financial assistance. All recipients are required to comply with various ...

The proposed overall goal document and its rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at

Office of Civil Rights
Oregon Department of Transportation
3930 Fairview Industrial Dr. SE MS 23
Salem, Or 97302

Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 29-38c (2013)
(a) Upon complaint on oath by any state’s attorney or assistant state’s attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state’s attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer’s custody any and all firearms and ammunition. Such state’s attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state’s attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms and ammunition. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms and ammunition seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state.  At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, the court may order that the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, the court shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms and ammunition have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person’s legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms and ammunition in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms and ammunition. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person’s legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms and ammunition shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms and ammunition to the transferee.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “ammunition” means a loaded cartridge, consisting of a primed case, propellant or projectile, designed for use in any firearm.

(P.A. 99-212, S. 18; P.A. 13-3, S. 33.)

History: P.A. 13-3 made provisions re seizure and transfer of firearms applicable to ammunition, added Subsec. (f) defining “ammunition” and made technical changes.

Related Posts:
LTE ~ SB719 Into the Oven, Out of the Stack
Oregon Firearms Federation Responds to Senator Brian Boquist on SB 719
OFF Late Session Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced
Senator Arnie Roblan Votes for SB917A The Gun Confiscation Bill ~ Now in House
OFF ~ CALL TO ACTION ~ Contact Senator Prozanski ~ Time to Fix SB941 
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868
Second Amendment Legislation Repeals Parts of Background Checks HB 2973
OFF ~ Legislative Update
Lake County BOC  Public Meeting for Legal Update on SAPO February 15, 2017 10am
OFF ~ Multnomah Declares War On Gun Owners
Columbia County Voters ~ Download & Sign Second Amendment Petition
Action Alert:  County Commissioners Need to Hear Second Amendment Supporters
Coos County Watchdog Public Meeting on New Initiatives March 3, 2017 @ 6:00 pm
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance “SAPO” Update: January 26, 2017
Coos County Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until Feb 17, 2017
US Department of Justice ~ ATF ~ Firearms Transaction Record
SB548~ Relating to Residency Requirements for Concealed Handgun Licenses
Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until January 25, 2017
OFF ~ The Gun Bills Are Coming, and Some Are Just Weird
OFF ~ First Anti-Gun Bill Proposed

Press Release PLEASE SHARE!
Citizens for Fair Representation's Court Case Moves Forward 
August 8, 2017 For immediate release 
Last week, Federal Court Judge Judge K. Muller, asked the Chief Magistrate to form a 3-judge panel to hear the case; Citizens for Fair Representation vs Secretary of State Alex Padilla. In May, Citizens for Fair Representation (CFR) filed the lawsuit against the State of California, for lack of representation and dilution of vote. The lawsuit was filed on May 8, in the United States District Court, Eastern District, Sacramento Division. The significance of the three-judge panel is paramount, according to the legal team representing the CFR. Issues decided by three judge panels have the right to appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court. Mark Baird, one of the CFR spokespersons, said, “the case will ask important questions: Can one State Senator properly represent one million people? Can one State Assemblyman properly represent one-half million people? Baird added, Californian's have no representation in the state house. The lobbyists and the unions own California and we intend to put the people back in charge of the government through smaller districts where it is cheap and easy to get rid of an incumbent who fails to serve the people. California has the worst representation ratio in the United States and we will prove that to be unconstitutional.” Citizens for Fair Representation is supported by the people of 22 Northern California Counties. 

Monday, August 7, 2017

SALEM, Ore. – One of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest’s iconic fish, native steelhead trout, have been migrating over Willamette Falls in Portland to spawn in Cascade Mountain rivers for millennia. They are now at high risk of going extinct, based on a new analysis by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999 due primarily to the impacts of federal dams and habitat loss, wild native Willamette steelhead have now slipped to high risk of extinction. Willamette steelhead now face a new and growing threat from male sea lions that have learned to exploit the fish as they congregate below Willamette Falls before navigating upriver to spawn.

Continuing a decade-long downward trend, the number of wild steelhead returning to the upper Willamette this year was the lowest on record, with only 512 fish passing above the Willamette Falls. ODFW scientists found that sea lions consumed at least one quarter of the wild steelhead run and warned that if sea lion predation continues at these levels, there is an up to 90 percent probability that at least one wild steelhead population will go extinct as a direct result of the predation. The near-term risk of wild steelhead extinction can be significantly reduced or avoided by limiting sea lion access to Willamette Falls.

“We know what the problem is and have seen this coming for about a decade, we just couldn’t take action to prevent it,” said Dr. Shaun Clements from ODFW.

California sea lions have expanded along the West Coast over the past four decades to a population of nearly 300,000 animals coast-wide today. As numbers increased, a small proportion of sea lions – all males – have expanded their range into freshwater areas where migrating salmon and steelhead are especially vulnerable, including in places such as Ballard Locks in Washington, Bonneville Dam, and at the Willamette Falls, where fish tend to congregate before moving upstream. At these locations, predation by sea lions is especially high and adversely impacts salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon. In the 1980s, sea lion predation on winter steelhead at Ballard Locks in Seattle effectively destroyed the Lake Washington stock.

“Removal of a few problem individuals will have no impact on the overall sea lion population but can significantly benefit ESA-listed fish,” said Robin Brown, lead scientist for ODFW’s marine mammal program.

Any solution to address the threats to wild fish populations will have to strike a balance between the recovery of imperiled salmon and steelhead populations and the ongoing conservation of sea lions. Also at stake are significant regional investments in recovery efforts, such as improvements in fish passage at dams, restoration of fish habitat, and implementation of fishing regulations that prohibit anglers from harvesting wild fish. ODFW scientists have determined that curtailing the immediate impact created by sea lion predation is essential to saving the steelhead from extinction to support the success of long-term recovery efforts.

Sea lions are protected under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA, unlike the ESA, has fewer tools for managers to use to balance the conservation of predators and prey and prevent these situations in locations where fish are most vulnerable. Sections of the MMPA were revised in 1994 to allow limited management ofsea lions for the purpose of protecting ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Unfortunately, the revisions do not allow for proactive management and cannot address emergencies like that occurring at Willamette Falls.

“We are in on-going discussions with state and tribal fishery managers and several stakeholder groups,” said Dr. Clements, “Given the situation at Willamette Falls, everyone is united in their call for swift action, and ODFW stands ready to provide expertise to the Northwest congressional delegation on a bipartisan, compromise bill to revise the MMPA to address these emergency situations without undermining the strength and importance of this law.” Bills in the House and Senate; H.R. 2083, sponsored by Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), and S 1702, sponsored by Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), represent the first steps toward that goal.

“We are at a point where any more delays in the Willamette may condemn this run to extinction,” Clements said. “We need to act now or extinction may be our legacy.”

Upper Willamette wild steelhead have been listed as “threatened” under the federal ESA since March 1999. ODFW has not allowed harvest of these fish for more than 20 years. California sea lion populations are robust, and the animals are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, but are protected under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

###
Contact:
Dr. Shaun Clements, (541) 223-8437
Rick Swart, (971) 673-6038

Related Posts:
NOAA Antibusiness Plan for Coquille River ~ Public Private Property Partnership
ODFW ~ Commercial Crabbing Closed From Coos Bay North Jetty to Heceta Head
ODFW seeks Landowner Representatives for Access & Habitat Program – by Jan. 30
OR State Land Board Public Meeting December 13, 2016 ~ Sell the Elliot Forest
ODFW ~ Deer virus confirmed in Coos County
ODFW ~ Hosts Town Hall On Proposed 2017-19 budget North Bend May 4, 2016
ODFW ~ Commission Meeting in Bandon Friday April 22, 2016
ODFW ~ Harassing Cormorant to Protect Salman but Still a Crime for the People
ODFW ~ Public Meeting Coquille Valley Wildlife Area Discussion Wed. March 2, 2016
OFRI ~ Fish Passage & Habitat Workshop Wednesday, March 9, 2016
NOAA Proposed Recovery Plan for Coho Salmon September 2015
Fish and Wildlife Commission delists wolves statewide in split vote (4-2) ‏
Coos Bay Area Chamber of Commerce Breakfast Meeting w/ODFW October 16, 2015
Coos County Approves Nature Conservancy's Tide Gate for China Camp Creek
ODFW ~ Conservation Opportunity Areas for Stealing Private Property