Monday, October 13, 2014

Local Heroes: Fairmount Park Oct. 25 ivy removal event

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

From: Margaret Stephens <>
Date: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Fairmount Park Oct. 25 ivy removal event 
To: Margaret Stephens <>


I am a member of the Salem No-Ivy Coalition. The coalition's members include residents of Salem, City Parks employees, Polk and Marion Soil and Water Conservation District representatives, watershed council members, and others.

The coalition -- a fairly new group -- aims to educate Salem citizens about this invasive plant (and other invasive plants), how to remove ivy, and what to plant instead; the goal is an ivy-free Salem. We also work in City of Salem Parks removing invasive English Ivy.

An ivy-removal group event is coming up soon, on October 25. You will find attached a PDF flier for the ivy removal event, which is at Fairmount Park in Salem.

We hope to get a good crew of volunteers to help remove some of the ivy from the trees along the trails in this park, and if you are interested/able, would love to see you there.

However, there are other ways you could help:
  1. If you are able to print out the flier and post it on bulletin boards at work or your organizations, or perhaps ask if local stores will post it, that could help recruitment.
  1. If you could forward this email with the PDF flier to friends or any groups you might think would be interested, that will help too.
Note: this email is being sent far and wide this one time. But do not worry, you are not on a "list" - unless you tell me that you want to be!

Thank you!

Meet the toughest political ad in memory: "Republican Cuts Kill."

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

NO on 90! Ron Eachus points to a MUCH better idea

Privatized elections are no solution.  Instant runoff voting is:  
A faster, cheaper, better way to elect candidates to offices.

Measure 90: Wrong answer for wrong problem
Ron Eachus 1:06 p.m. PDT October 13, 2014
. . . 

In the past, I've written columns supporting the concept of what amounts to an "instant run-off" approach to our primary and general elections. To simplify the explanation, it is a system in which voters can select their top choice and then select a second choice, or a third or fourth even. If no one gets a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and ballots of that candidate are transferred to the second choice designated on each ballot. Elimination and transfer continue until only one candidate remains or has 50 percent.

It's a system used in other developed countries and some local governments in the U.S. It means the winner is likely to be the candidate with the broadest base of support.

Measure 90 still leaves us with a winner-take-all plurality system. In some cases, it eliminates the choices available to voters. So we still face the same problem. A candidate can appeal to a narrow band of dedicated voters and win with a minority of the vote because those who oppose that candidate split their votes between two or more of the remaining candidates.

And if you're hoping to advance the cause of third parties, you are relegated to the "fusion" strategy of being a secondary endorser of major party candidates, as is already happening on this year's ballot in Oregon. I believe third parties are best-served when they have their own candidates representing their party and are able to articulate that party's views.

More than a decade ago, I posited: "Imagine voting for the candidate you prefer but also getting a second choice. And imagine that your vote for a second choice might actually count. Imagine feeling free to vote for your favorite candidate instead of worrying if you're wasting your vote or voting for the lesser of two evils."

I might add to that: Imagine that the candidate who wins is actually the one with the broadest base of support representing the preference of the most voters. . . .

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."