Ranked-Choice Voting: A Viewpoints Feature

/in

By Robert Mumby

The Complement, Viewpoints, and their contents are not supported or endorsed by, or representative of, the RVM administration or the Residents Council.  Opinions expressed are those of the author(s). Discussion is encouraged, either by the ‘’Reply” function at the end of every article, or by submitted letters or articles, which are subject to review and editing.

 

In this year’s election, there is a proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution to adopt ranked-choice voting: Measure 117.  This article presents an overview and summary of the measure.  For the complete text, pro and con arguments, history and background go to the Ballotpedia webpage for Oregon Measure 117

What is ranked-choice voting?

Known as “instant-runoff voting,” this method was invented around 1870 and has been adopted by a few democracies worldwide. Australia has used ranked-choice voting in its lower house elections since 1918. This system allows voters to rank candidates by preference, ensuring a winner who most satisfies the majority.

Here’s how it works. In ranked-choice voting elections, voters can—but do not have to—rank the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, they win. If not, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and the second-choice votes of those who preferred the eliminated candidate are reallocated to those still in the race. This process continues until one candidate achieves a majority.

Currently, Oregon voters who belong to a political party vote twice: during party primaries and in the final election. Non-party members in 10 states (including Oregon) cannot vote in the partisan primary. Other states have partially open partisan primaries.

Ultimately, Oregon voters choose between two or more partisan candidates. Besides Democrats and Republicans, there are seven recognized parties. This can cause a majority of citizens to vote for losing candidates and a winner who lacks widespread approval.

Ranked-choice voting could ensure that a winner has the approval of a majority by considering all preferences, not just the first choice. This mitigates the problem of winning by a mere plurality and ensures that public servants reflect the electorate’s true desires. It could also streamline the election process, making it less expensive and more efficient. Primaries and runoffs are costly, and critics argue that elections would improve if voters ranked their choices instead of voting twice and often for a party primary winner they don’t particularly support.

Instead of holding primaries, political parties would list all eligible candidates on a single final ballot, allowing a true consensus choice to emerge. Instant-runoff voting would eliminate the need for runoffs in close elections, say supporters of ranked-choice voting.

Do We Want Ranked Voting?

The system is used statewide in Maine (starting in 2020), by Alaska and Hawaii (starting in 2022), is pending in Nevada, and is used by municipalities and in other local elections in fourteen other states. Its use is prohibited in five states, and it has not been the subject of any legislation in 34 others.  In Oregon, it is used in Benton County, Multnomah County, and Portland.  The map below , from Ballotpedia, illustrates its use in the U.S.

 

Proponents argue ranked-choice voting ensures a majority winner and reduces spoiler effects from third-party candidates. Political parties are not significantly affected; they will still select and campaign for candidates. If two or more party members run for one office, then the ranking process gives more party members a voice in the selection than would be the case in which a single candidate is selected by a plurality.

In our current primary system, independent voters cannot vote in the party primaries—they have no chance to vote in the “first round” and have fewer choices on the final ballot. In the ranked choice system, all voters could participate, and voters would rank only those candidates they find acceptable. If all of their preferred candidates are eliminated before the final round, the result is no different from voting for a losing candidate under the present system.

Ballot Measure 117 would establish ranked-choice voting for federal and state elections, including president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries. However, it allows but does not require ranked-choice voting by counties, cities, and other local jurisdictions. This means a voter may find that some officials are elected either the current way by party primary, or through ranked-choice voting. This could cause confusion because for multi-candidate non-partisan positions, you currently vote for only one candidate, but if it’s a ranked-choice position, you rank all acceptable candidates in order of preference. The ballot should clarify the voting method for each position. Nevertheless, one might question why the amendment permits local governments to choose their voting method.

Representative Pam Marsh, a sponsor of the ballot measure, explained: “We explicitly gave local jurisdictions the opportunity to use ranked-choice voting because we thought it was helpful for clarity. We know some jurisdictions will want to jump in, while others will stick with the current system. Adapting to ranked-choice voting will require voter education and community discussion, and not all places will want to take that on.”

 

 

Climate Resilience

/in

 

By Bob Buddemeier

The Complement, Viewpoints, and their contents are not supported or endorsed by, or representative of, the RVM administration or the Residents Council.  Opinions expressed are those of the author(s). Discussion is encouraged, either by the ‘’Reply” function at the end of every article, or by submitted letters or articles, which are subject to review and editing.

The RVM Green Team, chaired by Gini Armstrong, has recently begun addressing conservation and sustainability needs and opportunities at RVM.  In that process, they have discovered that a consortium of six Portland-area not-for-profit CCRCs (a.k.a. Life Plan Communities) have Green Teams that have been collaborating since 2019.  Two of these communities are PRS organizations.

This group has prepared and distributed a document entitled Building Climate Resilience, and another, distributed through Leading Age OR, entitled Seniors Going Green: Resilient Practices for Your Communities.  Leading Age is a trade organization of not-for-profit senior care and residential facilities that operates on both the national and the state level.

The following is an excerpt from the introduction to the Building Climate Resilience document:

We focused initially on sustainability because that was the language of the industry… Over time, however, we have become increasingly sobered by the dire warnings from international climate institutions concerning the impacts of unmitigated climate disruption…We think that to be responsible, elder institutions should be forward thinking in light of unknowable but unavoidable climate disruption consequences. Let us cease talking about sustainability and instead develop resilience…As a civilization we have overshot our resources and future generations may have to do with much less.

I believe that both the content and the fact of public distribution of these documents are important, and relevant to RVM and its residents.

The outcomes and duration of the efforts presented in these public Green Team documents illustrate that neither the national organization nor multiple individual institutions (including PRS) consider the topic off-limits for discussion and action by not-for-profits.  This should allay the concerns of residents who have feared that discussion of climate change might violate policies of RVM or PRS, or threaten RVM’s not-for-profit status.

The consensus document refers to “…dire warnings from international climate institutions…”   That almost certainly refers to mounting evidence that the rate of change of climatic variables has dramatically accelerated over the past decade or more.  An excerpt from the 5th US National Climate Assessment summarizes the expected future climate developments for the Pacific Northwest.  These include more frequent, more intense, and more protracted extreme events (heat waves, storms, droughts, floods, wildfires), as well as continuing increases in temperature and sea level. Oregon temperatures have risen by 2.5oF since 1900, and are projected to increase another 5-10oF by the 2080s, depending on the amount of greenhouse gas emission. These changes will have both direct and indirect physical and socioeconomic impacts.

Local Issues and Possible Actions

The path to resilience will be determined by the nature of the dominant local threats and the strengths and vulnerabilities of the community.  The following sections address threats facing RVM that are serious but potentially manageable and discuss some approaches to developing resilience.

Socioeconomic issues:  There are no readily available estimates of effects on Oregon or local areas,  However, one analysis estimates that by 2050 climate change will reduce average global income by $38 trillion per year, or about 19% of the total. Added to and partially caused by this will be sociopolitical stresses such as abrupt regime changes, uncontrolled migration, and intra- or international conflict.  This cannot fail to have a systematic effect on national and local economies.

RVM is already experiencing financial stresses from rising wages and energy costs – electricity costs have gone up 21% in the last year.  These are compounded by difficulties in achieving full occupancy.  Although the economy has remained reasonably good, resident resources are largely based on their own or institutional investments, and are likely to suffer in the apparently inevitable economic contraction.  In turn, this will reduce the resource base from which RVM meets its operating costs.  How will we retain institutional vitality, resident quality of life, and also the ability to recruit our replacements and maintain the community resource base?

One possible way is to transform resident time, talent, and inclinations to volunteer into services and cost-savings at the community level.  In the nine years I have been here, residents have become increasingly involved in supporting and organizing activities that serve residents, some of which were formerly supported by employees.  This is particularly obvious in, but not limited to, the Wellness and Community Engagement Departments, Marketing, and in the Foundation operations.  Over the same period of time, the Advisory Committees have become more effective, and organizations such as the READY Team (formerly Residents Preparedness Group) and the Technical Committee have taken on real responsibilities within the organization.

These developments could be taken much further, with residents providing services that are technically optional, but highly supportive of the quality of life at RVM.  Although there are barriers based on laws, policies, and traditions, a systematic planning effort now could eliminate or work around some of these barriers.  In addition to meeting economic needs, this integration of community components could greatly strengthen both sense of community and marketing appeal.

Environmental Issues  Physical or environmental threats vary in the degree to which they are important in a given locale, and to whether or not they are feasible to address at the local community level.  For RVM, sea level rise and direct flood impacts are in the former category. Loss or major reduction of regional water supply usually can’t be replaced locally, but conservation measures can reduce demand and help adapt.  Probably the most advantageous climate resilience to pursue is that related to high temperatures.  In Oregon, as in many other places around the world, heat waves have become both hotter and longer – trends that are confidently expected to continue.  With the heat come more and longer droughts, and with heat and drought comes a major increase in wildfires and smoke pollution

Temperatures above 90o F are hazardous, becoming potentially lethal as they increase. The Rogue Valley now experiences many days per year with air quality in one of the hazard levels.  People become more vulnerable to the ill effects of heat and smoke with advancing age, making it a  key issue for RVM.  The basic need for heat resilience is access to electricity for air conditioning and purification for people, and refrigeration for medicines and food.  Access to cooling in turn requires access to an adequate supply of electrical power.

There are two types of threats to electricity supply.  One is economic; the cost of electricity may be high for reasons independent of temperature, but rising temperature increases power use for two reasons – the increasing number of degree-cooling and dangerous air-qualiy days, and the fact that AC units become progressively less efficient as the difference between indoor and outdoor temperature increases.  The other is availability – power grids are vulnerable to simple failures, events such as storms or wildfires, and sabotage or cyberterrorism.  If heat waves generate demand in excess of what the grid can provide, brown-outs, black-outs or rationing may occur.

Long-term mitigation of excessive cost, and a replacement supply to deal with an extended or permanent outage both require local generation and storage.  Backup power for shorter outages may be supplied by storage batteries, with or without some kind of generator attached, but the power provided needs to be adequate for several days to a week of cooling that can keep indoor temperatures below the critical health threshold. Beyond that, or in cases where community demand outpaces supply, local generation is required.  In RVM’s case that almost certainly means solar power.

I’ll discuss approaches by first outlining an intermediate-term project that can inform both prompt upgrades and a long-term vision.

A proactive project:  RVM is planning to build a new block of cottages on the Quail Point golf course.  I suggest that this be designed as a demonstration project to incorporate as many feasible conservation-related features as possible, with emphasis on electricity and heat resilience. This will be more expensive than conventional construction, but the units will have enhanced marketability (justifying a higher payback), and with appropriate promotion it should be possible to attract grant funding (from foundations or within the industry) and/or component discounts.

Some of the features might include:

  • Design for easy use of an electric vehicle (EV) battery for emergency power. These batteries can typically power a household for 2-3 days, and presumably more with careful use rationing.  As EVs become more common, this would mean more and more cottages could have emergency power for such things as medical equipment as well as heat mitigation.
  • A solar panel power system adequate to make a significant contribution to household power use and possibly some emergency power as well (or provision for easy upgrade).
  • A heat pump.
  • A zoned heating/cooling system so that cooling could be limited to part of the house.
  • High quality insulation, window tinting, etc.
  • A reflective exterior and extended eaves to shield windows.
  • Motion and/or light sensitive switches and high efficiency appliances.
  • An interior meter readout and a power use recorder so that occupants can be aware of usage and administration can analyze variations.

In addition to these, other design features could facilitate recycling, use of a golf cart or mini-EV, and provide drought-tolerant low-maintenance landscaping, etc.

Research and planning for these designs could be substantially assisted by resident participation (in particular, the Technical Committee and the Green Team), and would yield improvements in the short-term modifications that could be retrofitted (at either RVM or resident expense) into existing living units.  One of the major findings should be payback times for various levels of electricity cost, making it possible to prioritize upgrades.

There are barriers to undertaking a rapid campus upgrade. One example is that the electrical infrastructure on parts of campus is inadequate to permit upgrading the cottages to have fast EV chargers.  Another is that some very promising technologies (e.g., iron batteries) are not quite fully mature.  This strongly supports the idea of using a demonstration project to initiate action on developing a long-term strategic plan that relies on progressive upgrades to reach an economic and resilience goal at a reasonable cost – while maintaining quality of life and marketability.

RVM has entered into an agreement with Energy Trust of Oregon, a legislatively-mandated, public-utility-funded non-profit corporation. Energy Trust has completed data collection for an energy audit of RVM, and is in the process of developing a model to predict and assess future energy use.  They will also advise on both resident and corporate energy conservation measures.

The Energy Trust relationship could prove to be a major step toward climate resilience.  However, my understanding is that their modeling will use historic temperatures as a baseline for predicting power use. The 5th US National Climate Assessment reports that the average temperature in the Northwestern US has increased 2.5oF since 1900, and is expected to increase by about 5-10oF by the 2080s, depending on the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted. Projecting future temperatures without considering anticipated trends will underestimate demands and overvalue accomplishments.

Experience obtained in design and construction of climate-resilient residences, and feedback from potential and new residents, will make it possible to refine ongoing programs, and to update an overall strategic plan – which might be as extensive as substantial energy independence. In order to be fully effective, probable and/or worst-case climate scenarios need to be used to establish goals.

At present, residents who wish to practice conservation measures have to opt in, often by expending money or effort.  One goal of long-range planning should be to develop an environment in which people are opted in by their environment and the existing infrastructure, and have to make an effort to opt out.

As the natural environment becomes physically, and possibly socially, less hospitable, people who are in or near retirement are likely to find a forward-looking resilient community much preferable to developing their own climate resilience by themselves.

References and Supporting Information

 Information: graphs, maps, tables, etc.

Heat

Economics

Emergency electricity

Various climate issues

 

Problems of Pets and Preparedness

/in , ,

by Bob Buddemeier

INTRODUCTION:  I was recently privileged to be asked to organize a resident review of a draft RVM document on handling of pets in a wildfire evacuation. I say “privileged” because I am committed to emergency preparedness and to resident consultation on RVM actions, and (disagreement on details notwithstanding) I believe that the RVM Administration is too.

I contacted a group of 6 pet-owners.  After two rounds of email discussion it seemed clear to me and to the RVM representative (based on my report) that more preparation is needed before going ahead with meetings and joint discussion, especially considering current RVM staffing limitations and the fact that fire season is 6-7 months away.

Perhaps foolishly, I have decided to attempt to lay out the issues in hope of fostering understanding.  My qualifications: (1) Pet owner – currently 2 cats, with a history of many others.  (2)  Professional training and responsibility for both public and employee safety and preparedness.  (3)  Six years of involvement in various relevant RVM resident activities and organizations.

This article is based primarily on my own knowledge, ignorance and opinions.  I do not pretend, and do not want, to speak for RVM or for the residents as a group.  The intention is to present the issues, as I see them, so that readers can develop more informed opinions of their own and carry out more effective communication.  The article is long (especially including the appendices), partly because I am a wordy writer, but mostly because it is a complex subject with many components.  I hope you will read it.

Note:  This article addresses pets and companion animals, fully trained service dogs may be an exception.

 

External sources:

https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/downloads/is10comp.pdf  FEMA Course:  Animals in Disasters, Module A  Awareness and Preparation

https://www.redcross.org/get-help/how-to-prepare-for-emergencies/pet-disaster-preparedness.html
American Red Cross

https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/make-disaster-plan-your-pets
Humane Society

https://thecomplement.info/2021/09/14/pet-preparedness/
by Victoria Gorrell, based on https://www.ready.gov/pets

Evacuations and Pets

Most of us have had the experience of combining two good ideas or actions, only to find out that the combination produces more problems than obvious benefits.  Will this be the case with proposed evacuation of pets and pet owners in response to a wildfire threat to RVM?

Right Thing #1:  Having pets.  There is abundant evidence that people with pets are, on average, more mentally, physically, and socially healthy.  Most retirement and care facilities encourage permanent or surrogate pets.

Right Thing #2:  Emergency preparedness and disaster response.  People, organizations, and communities that have plans and equipment to deal with dangerous and disruptive events are better positioned to survive and recover than are those without preparation.

What about emergency preparedness with pets included in the mix?  Well, that can get a little tricky.  This article looks at some of the issues at Rogue Valley Manor, a pet-friendly retirement community that is working to improve its level of emergency preparedness.

Background:  In September of 2020, the Almeda fire forced a first-ever evacuation of RVM.  At that time there was no recommended response option but to leave the campus (although some residents chose not to do so).  The evacuation was accomplished successfully, with no resident or staff losses or injuries.  An immense amount of credit is due to RVM management and staff for accomplishing this, much of which had to be improvised on the fly.

However, there were many lessons learned.  Communication was a problem.  The total evacuation required several hours – if the fire had continued moving north with the speed and intensity it demonstrated in the Ashland to Talent stretch, the outcome might have been far less favorable.  Occupants of the licensed facilities were transported substantial distances – successfully, but that is not the most desirable scenario.  Residents were scattered widely, with many finding refuge at the Country Club, some at the Expo, and others farther north or just car-camping.

RVM, in consultation with the Medford Fire Department, has since improved fire safety on campus and developed a different plan for responding to wildfire evacuation alerts.  This plan (https://thecomplement.info/2021/08/23/rvm-campus-evacuation-guidelines-for-fire/) is based on the assessment of the high-rise (tower) buildings as being able to provide protection against any wildfire threat.  The present plan is that, in the event of a wildfire evacuation alert, residents will have the option of self-evacuating off-site, or of sheltering in one of the towers.  Residents in the licensed facilities will be sheltered in the towers, and tower residents will remain in their apartments unless they choose to self-evacuate.  The unadvisable option to stay in place rather than evacuating anywhere will still exist.

OPINION:  This is a major improvement in emergency management planning.  It leaves in place all of the options that residents had before, and adds the potential for providing local shelter with travel of minimal time or distance.  This is not only a huge benefit for those in the care facilities, but also for the substantial number of “independent living” residents who have limitations that would interfere with an effective self-evacuation.

Published guidance so far is preliminary.  Actual implementation in case of a fire evacuation alert will require that locally-sheltering cottage residents be safely moved to the towers and accommodated there, while other residents are concurrently self-evacuating.  In addition, there may need to be preparations for secondary effects on tower residents (discussed in Appendix A).

Provision has to be made for transport and accommodation for independent and for less-than-fully independent residents, and for residents in either of these categories who have pets.  Residents may require assistance personally, or only with regard to managing their pets.

This is where pets and preparedness collide head-on.  In an emergency, resources may be severely limited – from space on the bus to space in the shelter room to the time available to make the transition, and then to the staff time available for assistance and oversight.  It can be, at least for a while, a zero-sum game – resources allocated to one group or purpose are subtracted from those available to another.

ASSUMPTIONS (= evidence-based opinions):  RVM tower shelters will not be typical evacuee shelters, but will be protective bunkers, potentially in the midst of the fire.  Therefore:

  • The entire facility will be under the control of an Incident Commander.
  • In addition to resident evacuees, the towers will have to accommodate RVM staff who remain on site.
  • Traffic and space around the buildings and on access routes must be strictly controlled to permit access by firefighters and emergency equipment.
  • Due to external hazards (fire, smoke, heat) the building is likely to be locked down for an extended period.
  • The towers are likely to be on emergency power, if the generators can be protected from the fire. This will have multiple implications for both the permanent residents and the evacuees.

Opinions/Assumptions about animal control (a combination of “what I would do if I were in control” and “what I read in the preparedness literature”):

  • Animals and people need to be segregated so that nobody is in proximity to an animal unless they choose to be, and so that animals do not pose a sanitation threat (e.g., to food facilities).
  • Animals need to be confined/controlled at all times. The standard is use of kennels or carriers; whether securely tethered is an acceptable substitute is a local decision.
  • Animals not confined or tethered need to be managed by a handler with the knowledge and ability necessary to maintain control.
  • Housepets need to be housed indoors and where their owners can be with them, in the interest of both humane treatment and owner satisfaction.

The requirements outlined above will be somewhat challenging under conditions of accommodation, but may be particularly problematic in the mobilization and transportation stages of an evacuation.  Appendix A, attached, outlines some of the specific issues that need to be considered in developing the overall emergency plan.

The details of RVM evacuation procedures are still in development, to be completed before the next fire season.  As the legally responsible body, RVM must decide where to place the boundary between pet support and pet control, and how to implement or enforce it.  If possible this should be done with the input and understanding of pet owners – but it has to be done, and it needs to be done with an eye to what may go wrong rather than an optimistic assumption of normality.  It is essential to have plans and procedures that are clear, simple, and easily followed.  Complex arrangements or finely nuanced alternative actions for various situations will be unworkable.

The bottom line for pet owners is to do advance planning and preparation.  There are the three options: do nothing, go nowhere, and take the risks inherent in that; if you have or can get transportation, evacuate off-site either to a specific destination or just to anywhere else; or take advantage of shelter opportunities in the towers.  It would be ideal to be prepared to take advantage of any of those, and very reckless not to be prepared for at least one.

Potential problem resolution:

Potential conflicts need to be avoided or resolved in the interest of both effectiveness of emergency response and overall community harmony.  There are some possible approaches for doing so; all involve resident action or interaction.

An important preparation is to identify the number and type of pets likely to shelter in the towers (those whose owners do not plan to stay home or evacuate off-site).  Also, it would be very useful to identify pet-owners likely to need assistance in case of an evacuation, and solicit volunteers to serve as helpers.

Policy and procedure formulation should involve dialog with residents (both pet owners and non-pet owners), especially those likely to remain on campus either of necessity or as volunteers.

Organizing transport and drop-off at the towers for pet-owners not able to take their animal on the RVM evacuation vehicles could speed the process for all concerned, if adequately controlled.

Identification of tower residents who would be willing to serve as hosts or pet-sitters for evacuated animals (and possibly owners) – either in general or for specific acquaintances – could take some of the pressure off the common facilities.

Formation of a cadre of resident volunteers (possibly former pet owners) to monitor and support the pet containment facilities would facilitate meeting pet and human needs without burdening staff.

Educating pet owners about the needs and requirement, once they are established.

 

Appendix A to Problems of Pets and Preparedness

The Pet Evacuation Dilemma

Animal behavior under stressful conditions –unfamiliar surroundings, close proximity of unfamiliar humans and other animals, and a general atmosphere of distress — are unpredictable and potentially dangerous.  Incident Commanders and emergency planners do not want dog fights, dog bites, cat scratches, pursuit of loose animals, or conflicts between residents over pet management.  In addition, as identified by FEMA, pet allergies and phobias are an issue.  These are all at best distractions, and at worst the cause of disruptions that could seriously interfere with the primary mission of incident response.

Transportation issues

  • It may be permissible for securely contained small animals (cats, small dogs) to be transported on vehicles with non-pet-owners, but it should be avoided if possible. Animals on leash, if accepted, need to be transported separately – from people, and from each other.
  • Large animal containers may be difficult to transport, either in terms of the people required, or of the vehicle.
  • Animals may require more control and effort than their owners can provide [comment: two of my neighbors have been pulled off their feet by their dogs – one sustaining a serious injury – and my late wife was bitten by a resident’s dog while the owner was holding its leash].
  • Issues of traffic control, especially near the towers, will be important in terms of maintaining emergency access. This will be particularly the case if it is necessary to supplement RVM vehicles with private volunteer transport.
  • Guides, and possibly assistants, will be needed at both the loading and unloading ends of the transportation.

 

Appendix B:  to Problems of Pets and Preparedness

Planning and Preparation for Local Evacuation

Supplies needed for evacuated pets are well-identified in the on-line references cited, and in draft RVM guidance.  Further attention needs to devoted to human evacuation preparations, however.  For an on-site evacuation, cottage residents need to know what to take with them for themselves (e.g., pillow, blanket?) as well as for the animals.

The full-service go-bag recommended for disaster and off-site evacuation is not required — basic shelter, food, water and sanitation can be expected in the towers.

Residents should have basics such as medicines, masks (for smoke), contact information and identification, phones, money/credit cards, and convenience items (e.g. toilet articles).

The question of what else might be required or desirable in a local evacuation depends very much on expected conditions in the towers.  Although the final decision is the responsibility of the resident, basic information is needed for informed decision making.  For an on-site evacuation, cottage residents need to know what to take with them for themselves (e.g., pillow, blanket?) as well as for the animals.

Accommodation issues:

For an on-site evacuation, cottage residents need to know what to take with them for themselves (e.g., pillow, blanket?) as well as for the animals.

Tower environment considerations: Resident volunteers who assist in preparation or response, as well as staff, need to understand the probable and possible effects of going on emergency (local generator) power.  This applies to managing tower residents as well as evacuees, and will probably be different for each building.  What facilities, utilities and services can be counted on, and what will be the progression of loss if “load shedding” is required?

  • Emergency lights and outlets – where? Will some be reserved for those with medical equipment needs?
  • Will elevators run? How many?  Where?  If limited, how will use be managed?
  • Cooling and air filtration?   Will it be reliably available
  • Food storage and preparation? Meal provision?
  • Rest rooms (auto-flush toilets, water faucets)
  • Water pumps (potable and sanitary water circulation)?

 

To download a PDF of this article, Click Here

War?! Not again…..

/in ,

by Pratibha (Shuli) Eastwood

The Viewpoints goal: community building by sharing ideas and experiences

Editor’s Introduction — STRAIGHT TO THE BOTTOM LINE

Actually, to Shuli’s next-to-bottom line:

“Now I am also happy to share that I am an Israeli Jew.”

There will be those who say:

“You must be anti-Palestinian!” with the “you” applied not only to Shuli, but also to the editors who chose to publish her essay and the readers who choose to read it. 

NO!  If the Palestinians could say: “Now I am also happy to share that I am Palestinian Arab” and both Jew and Arab could make their statements without trying to tear each other’s throats out, then perhaps both could get to her true bottom line: “We are great, we are like everyone else: Human.”

Shuli’s viewpoint looks over a lifetime of “otherness,” revealing the corrosive effects of fear and hatred on one’s personal identity.  In her comments on “the nice things that war brings” she identifies the addictive aspect of defining and rejecting outsiders; it pulls or pushes the insiders closer together.  Exclusion can strengthen belonging – both among the excluders and the excluded.

It is a long and tortuous journey to “We are great, we are like everyone else: Human.”  Shuli gives us a glimpse of one itinerary.

Pratibha Eastwood

 

 From the moment I was born, I almost drowned in a tsunami of Too Much Information (TMI) and, consequently, feelings of being at the risk of being annihilated—first for being Jewish, and later for being an Israeli Jew.

When I left the country for an extended time to study in Switzerland, I remember being attacked by drunken guys who screamed at me and some younger kids laughing joyously coming down the stairs as I was taking them on a walk:  “Hitler didn’t do enough, get out of here dirty Jews.” I froze, shocked and terrified.  Like Mother Goose, I felt very protective of the kids with me. We silenced and, while trying to disappear into the walls, we snuck out into the snowy day.

Before that, as a child still in Palestine before Israel was born, I learned to be fearful, hungry, and distrustful of the seemingly extremely dangerous, hostile world around us: the Germans who were swiftly progressing towards Tel-Aviv; the English Mandate soldiers who ruled the country with guns; and the Arabs who were throwing stones in the streets.

 War was a way of life for us as children. We even created games of hide-and-seek, naming them Israelis against Arabs or the other way around. But in truth, we Israelis were a proud group of intelligent people who joined together to create a start-up nation and shone with our growth and achievements. I felt safe in the state of Israel, able to walk with my head up and a smile on my face, unlike being in Europe by myself as a Jew pretending not to be one.

From all the wars we had survived, we learned the nice things that war brings in its fold: a unity and family-like bonding between all of us under attack. It was us against them. We were always a smaller country against a larger force—either the Germans or the seven countries that surrounded us.

But it was only later in school where we had two different History classes: onefor Jewish history and one for the world at large, that I truly learned that being a Jew is dangerous—something to hide from the world for self-protection. It seemed that over many centuries—and maybe eternity, Jews were persecuted, abused, killed, and chased out of their homes—all while being blamed for their demise, as if it was their fault or creation.

When this latest intense mutual killing between Hamas in Palestine and Israel happened this month, the same story came through in the media: Israel is the aggressor and needs to be punished or condemned. It is our fault even though we were defending ourselves from purposeful harmful attack by Hamas, one of the Palestinian terrorist groups. The attack was sudden and intended to hurt innocent civilians. Israel defended itself, and cleverly decided to demolish the tunnels and headquarters of the violent aggressive missiles with clarity and force. The Palestinians used videos to make it look once again like the defenders were the aggressors.

Yes, Israel was going for the “Throat” of the attackers. But here is a question for you, an allegory I heard from a friend: If, during an attack in WWll, only 10 British people were killed, and 100 Germans died, would the British be at fault—or would it be OK (appropriate?) for the Germans to be hurt more?

 I am not a believer in war or killing, and became a conscientious objector to killing as a child. But once again Iran, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon all colluded in attacking the small territory of Israel, with full intent to harm. Their claim is that Israel should give back all the territory they live on and disappear from the earth—nothing less will do. If we look at America—who conquered much property and claimed many lives of the American Indians—under the Palestinian assumption, America should return Manhattan to the Indians… It is ok to demand this from Israel but not of any other country.

What’s more, they refuse the most obvious two-states solution. They won’t rest until they kill every Israeli Jew and take over the entire territory. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself: anti-Semitism is getting support from the world yet again. For that reason, it was instilled in me that being a Jew is something to hide—unless you are in Israel where you can defend yourselves together and live as normal citizens. Is Israel another Ghetto?

With that history in mind, it is easy to understand why I decided to hide my Jewish name when I became an American citizen. I am now Pratibha (a Sanskrit spiritual given name) Eastwood (through marriage to an English descendant in Berkeley). So, for those who ask me who Shuli is in my memoir From Mud to Lotus: I meant to behave but there were too many other options—and who is Pratibha, here is my true confession: My Hebrew name is Shuli, my American name is Pratibha. Coming out of grief and fear of being a persecuted minority, I hid—until now when I so openly shared my life in my book. Now I am also happy to share that I am an Israeli Jew. We are great, we are like everyone else: Human.

TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING AT RVM

/in
Read more

THE EXPERIMENT CONTINUES — READ ME AGAIN!

/in ,

THE EXPERIMENT CONTINUES

For the next one or two months the editorial team of The Complement will provide trial posting of VIEWPOINTS, an online resident discussion forum .

For our second VIEWPOINT, we move away from the theme outlined in the following paragraph.  Pratibha Eastwood’s essay War!?  Not Again is extremely personal, and insightfully addresses racism, war and politics.  It is more than we want to handle in the Complement, but not more than we think deserves a forum at RVM.  Comments and contributions solicited.

The intended topics started out as RVM community issues involving residents, Residents Council, and Administration.  These are normally considered taboo – to be ignored because of the potential for divisiveness or disruption.  We believe that a community of adults with undeniable common interests should be able to identify and work toward constructive resolution of issues of community concern.  In the interests of civility and accuracy the discussion is moderated and all contributions subject to editing.

RVMlist discussions and resident input to the editors have suggested a need for this kind of forum.  However this goes well beyond the role envisioned for The Complement, so we will see if the trial can develop an independent identity.

For VIEWPOINTS to continue beyond a trial period, we will need to have:

  • Significant participation in the form of contributed articles or substantive comments;
  • Expressed approval at least comparable in magnitude to expressed disapproval; and
  • At least two individuals willing to serve on an editorial board that provides selection of topics and moderation of discussion.

Comments on either the basic idea of the discussion page or the specific contents of the articles presented may be submitted by either of two pathways:  The Reply forms at the end of each posted article, or by email to myinforvm@gmail.com.  We will periodically summarize and post results; although we prefer signed communications we will honor requests for anonymity when we publish results.

The first topic is transparency in RVM/PRS decision making.  Mark Edy has initiated RVMlist discussions on this topic more than once.  The editors considered his submitted compilation reasonable, respectful, and indicative of as much effort to find answers as could reasonably be expected of an individual resident.  We worked with him to produce a briefer summary of the issues he presented, and have added brief notes from the RVMlist discussion of the freeway off-ramp project, and a brief history of key actions with respect to that project.

Please let us and your fellow residents know your views on this online forum experiment and on the issues raised by Mark Edy’s and Pratibha Eastwood’s essays.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

PRS and RVM Planning and Development Lack Transparency

/in

A personal  exploration by Mark Edy

This essay was prepared by Mark Edy following an extended discussion on RVMlist, stimulated in part by recent announcements concerning I-5 offramp modification.  It documents his research and reflections on recurring issues of management transparency that are of concern to residents.  It is an example of the sort of information and opinion that  VIEWPOINTS hopes to provide as a basis for discussion (use the Reply form at the end of the article to post comments).  To provide an easy overview, the issues have been summarized in a shorter document, Transparency in Decision-Making at RVM.

Item 1:  On Friday, April 23, Stan Solmonson announced that RVM was funding the expansion of the southbound off-ramp, exit 27, from I-5.  His report spoke of data studies of the number of vehicles traveling through this overpass to E. Burnett during peak hours.  The announcement focused upon a revision to the southbound exit which RVM was funding.  On the next day, Saturday, the Medford Mail-Tribune printed an article on page 2 that addressed this subject.  The MT article provided more information but in reality it only created more questions than answers relative to the information provided by Mr. Solmonson.  Key to the MT report was the statement of ODOT spokesman, Gary Learning, who said that RVM “is wanting to expand and the reason for this project—it’s part of their mitigation for some of the development that they are planning on building on their property.”  The article continued by stating that RVM was paying for the entire project including engineering the design through to the construction.

After having spoken with numerous residents, posting thoughts on rvmlist and listening and reading comments to those posts, I come away with the feeling that what we are dealing with is not just RVM’s payment of exit 27 expansion but instead goes much further.  In reality this is about Transparency or the lack thereof.  Let us examine some of the underlying cases.

First, let’s look at the exit 27 since that was the primary focus of my thoughts.  As I have stated previously, we were told of RVM’s involvement of the expansion of exit 27 southbound by Mr. Solmonson on Friday.  Some residents with whom I have spoken have said that this agreement with the city was made several years ago and that the RVM board believed they had no choice other than to vote in agreement.  Having not lived in residence here at that time, I do not have first-hand knowledge.  The Saturday, April 24, issue of the Medford Mail-Tribune provided more details as to the issue but it clearly stated that RVM had agreed to fund the entire widening of the offramp including the engineering design and construction.  Possibly this was knowledge shared to residents a few years ago, but I have been unable to confirm that it was.  Mr. Solmonson’s explanation primarily touched on the traffic flow data that showed current flow during peak times as well as projected flow after completion of the project.  With this completed, we were advised that RVM would have more valuable property to sell.  Many of those that shared their thoughts with me believed as did I that the properties involved were the two parcels near the two Hilton venues.  Another has stated that this actually referenced the property along Phoenix Road that PRS has proposed as being a European style construction where the ground floor would be commercial and floor above could be residential.  This would occupy the area alongside Phoenix Road and the 18th hole of Centennial Golf Course.

My thought has been that Centennial is too far removed from exit 27 to be involved in this type of mitigation.  Anything off of Phoenix Road has closer access to both entrances and off ramps from exit 24. Any type of mitigation or negotiation with the city could include topics such as this area, but it would seem more likely to me that the properties involved are the two off Ellendale and/or easing the permitting for the construction of eighteen cottages between the fifth fairway and including the current ninth hole at Quail Point.

 

In exploring the Medford tax lot website, it would appear that there are actually four separate tax parcels listed as owned by RVM.  The one which is in front of the Hilton properties and has been for sale for a long time has an area of 2.43 acres.  The second one further up Ellendale and backing up against the Annex has 1.21 acres.  There are two separate additional parcels that front Bear Creek.  One has 0.79 acres and the other 1.04 acres.  One supposedly has issues with Bear Creek and I would assume that must be the one fronting Ellendale that includes 1.21 acres.  Quite possibly the two smaller parcels which have Bear Creek frontage could be combined and the access to them would be off Hospitality Way which accesses the two Hilton properties.  Regardless, the attractiveness as a restaurant site is questionable due to visibility.  More likely the 2.43 acre site would be more attractive as a two or three story office building. Under the current situation of ongoing Covid-19 restrictions and reduction in the need for office space due to higher volumes of office employees working from home, it would seem that this property could still sit unsold without a substantial reduction in the price.  The tax lot appraised valuations seem high.

What have we learned?  RVM has worked out an agreement with the city of Medford to pay $350,000 for the entire design and construction of an expansion of the southbound off-ramp off I-5 and in exchange they hope to increase the valuation of the properties they would like to sell.  Anything else is speculation and I choose not to take any more liberty than I already have without more concrete information.  What I would say is that the residents of RVM should not accept what has been said as being sufficient.  One resident has questioned whether it is legally possible for RVM to withdraw $350,000 from the Capital Improvements Fund.  I have no information as to from where the funds might originate.  If this agreement was made with the city several years ago, many residents who have moved here would have no knowledge of it.  That doesn’t explain the fact that I have no knowledge of anyone else remembering hearing of this, other than one person who was on the board and stated that they voted in favor under the belief that they had no choice.  The point is that there is not enough clarity in what has occurred and in what way it can realistically benefit RVM.  Without a doubt it could benefit PRS if they are able to pave the way for permit approval.  In my opinion this is a case of lack of transparency and that this needs to be addressed by RVM management.

The other topics I will consider relate to the Quail Point golf course.

Item 2:  As we know over a year ago, PRS through RVM decided to close the putting course.  Although the idea of a putting course was a good one, the design was such that maintenance of it would be high.  If it had been constructed as one large putting green including mounds and varying levels it would have been both easier to maintain and an attraction to players of all skill levels.  The important point is that RVM never built in any funds in the budget to maintain this putting course after it was completed.  The result was that it in relatively short time began to show the effects of this.  Prior to closing a survey was submitted to all RVM residents to get their ideas on what should be done.  If I recall correctly the options were to return the putting course to its original condition, reduce the number of holes from 18 to 9 and restore the conditions or to close it completely.  My understanding was that the majority of respondents, both golfers and non-golfers, viewed it as an attractive feature of RVM.  It was visible for those potentially new residents as they drove into RVM and beyond that provided a venue for Senior Women and Men Putting Groups.  The vote was to keep the 18 hole format and to return it to its original condition.  Shortly after the vote, Sarah Lynch returned from an extended leave and announced that she would be departing as director of RVM and would be replaced in the interim by Anthony Sabatini.  It was also announced that the putting course would be abandoned.  I was asked by a couple of other men residents to attend a meeting with them and Mr., Sabatini on the putting course.  These two men were hopeful to get an explanation and possibly a chance to revisit the issue.  From the moment we sat down it was apparent that Mr. Sabatini was going through the motions to hear what we had to say but would not actually explain or consider anything new.  He said the issue was settled and that was all there was to it.  I told Mr. Sabatini that I had owned a couple businesses and as part of them we had company vehicles.  I explained that I could not just buy them but had to maintain them as well.  I asked how they could spend the funds to develop the putting course but not allocate funds to maintain it.  I didn’t receive an answer.

Item 3:  I recognize that RVM / PRS has had a master plan showing the construction of cottages between the fifth fairway and the ninth fairway.  Last year more information came out regarding the closure of the ninth hole as it exists today and the construction of a new hole beyond the current sixth hole.  This new hole would be a par 3 as is the current ninth hole.  The par for the course would not change, but this would create to par 3 holes running consecutively as the current seventh hole is also a par3.  This may not seem like much to the non-golfing residents, but in doing so they would be lowering the quality of the golf experience as there are few courses where par 3 holes run back to back.  Last fall we were advised that the decision on going ahead would be delayed most likely for three to four years.  In February this year, markers were placed and irrigation equipment was moved.  Following that, trees were cut down and bulldozers began to clear the ground for this new hole.  We were told that the tee grounds would be closer to the freeway so as to eliminate balls being hit onto I-5  The future green was constructed where drainage coming down from the Plaza would flow in the case of a large rain event.  Numerous dump truck loads were required to build in this location which was a geographical V-notch.  Now the ground preparation has been mostly completed.  However, the tee ground is up on the hill and tee shots will aim closer to the freeway.  It will not be difficult to hit onto I-5 unless a net is installed.

In reality, if they were convinced that construction of a new hole was needed, it could have been done by building it between the sixth green and the seventh tee.  When the course was constructed, the seventh hole was a longer hole and was a par 4.  It was shortened into a par 3 to prevent balls being hit onto I-5.  The tee ground was still remaining and it would have been less expensive to build a green nearer to the current seventh tee as little dirt would have been required.  Now that is not an option.  What would be possible however would be to erect a fence similar to that on Hole No.1 and move the tee back on hole number seven to again return it into a par 4.   Of course, a fence will require funds, but certainly not a huge amount.

The point here is credibility is being lost.  We were told that nothing would happen for a few years and then all of a sudden earth is being moved.  Of course, if these 18 cottages can be constructed soon, it is money in the pocket of PRS.  The jury is out on whether there is benefit to RVM.

As a final note, I believe that the majority of RVM residents feel that RVM has done made a strong effort to get us through the COVID pandemic.  In Mr. Solomonson’s address to us on April 23, he failed to announce the new positive cases that now have impacted our healthcare  and memory care facilities.    This announcement came via email to all residents an hour after his address was completed.  The discovery of these positive cases and the resultant quarantining of 8 skilled health workers was known on Tuesday, April 20.  In my opinion, we should have been notified of this occurrence on Wednesday or Thursday and why was it not even mentioned in Mr. Solmonson’s address on Friday morning?  This is mystifying.

All in all, the discussion of these points is to provide some insight into what appears to be going on.  Possibly I have taken too much liberty with assumptions although that was not the intent.  I am open to hearing all the comments both negative and positive on these thoughts.  What I feel is most important is the understanding that both RVM and PRS should recognize that the residents of RVM have all been successful in their careers.  We have moved here and seen many changes in a relatively short period of time (including the resignation of many key employees which is another issue that could be discussed).  The residents are intelligent and have proven to be focused upon working together to improve the lives of others residing here.  In order for that to continue, it is imperative that RVM / PRS become more transparent.  The residents deserve to have full understanding of changes and not have them white-washed over with a brief announcement on Channel 900.  Without this, skepticism will increase and trust will be lost.  RVM / PRS management needs to take that into strong consideration. In the past, residents were an extremely important conduit to prospective residents, more so than any marketing campaign. If management does not become more transparent and treats existing residents as being unimportant, the trust will vanish as well as the recommendations of our residents to friends, relatives and other potential recruits for life here.  Inclusion should be the word of the day as the current residents represent a wealth of experience and can be one of the greatest assets RVM / PRS has available.  RVM / PRS need to work towards rebuilding the relationship with the residents and that can only be done by effective communication and transparency.

About VIEWPOINTS

/in

“Viewpoints” is an experimental site intended to facilitate constructive discussion of problems, both real and perceived, that confront the RVM community.  These may be strictly local problems, or broader problems with local impacts.  After much discussion, it was created  by the editorial team of The Complement to provide a forum for presentations and discussions that were worthy of attention, but did not fit well within the format and “personality” of The Complement.

Viewpoints is a place for RVM residents to express and respond to ideas and opinions. Submissions — both primary articles and comments — must be

  • relevant to the RVM community,
  • civil, and
  • factually accurate according to the writer’s best information.

Objective discussions of issues involving politics or religion are acceptable; partisan or sectarian advocacy is not.

Constructive statements are strongly preferred, but may not always be feasible in the process of problem identification.

The role of the editorial team is to ensure that the above conditions are met and to moderate discussions if appropriate.  It retains the option to accept, reject, or edit any submission.

The pieces published herein represent the opinions of the writers, and are not necessarily the opinions of the editors or of any other individual or organization.

We solicit feedback on both the content of the articles posted and the concept and structure of the site.  Please use the reply forms at the end of each article.  Submissions and comments may also be mailed to openinforrvm@gmail.com.

 

Editorial Team:  Joni Johnson, Bob Buddemeier, Tom Conger, Reina Lopez, Diane Friedlander

 

 

Historical perspective, Questions and Conclusions

/in ,

. . . about the I-5 offramp construction project

by Connie Kent

In his broadcast talk to residents on Friday 7 May, Stan Salmonson, RVM Executive Director, offered some background information to help clarify confusion over the freeway offramp construction project at the southbound I5 exit at Barnett. Hoping to gain some historical perspective, I consulted Faye Isaak’s Vision with a View: How Rogue Valley Manor Evolved Through Grace and Gumption, published in 2015.

In his talk, Stan explained that in 1992, RVM bought the properties on Ellendale north of the Annex. According to Isaak’s book, Tom Becker was the Administrator of RVM at that time, serving from 1978-1991 (Isaak 77).

In 1997, he said, RVM submitted a PUD* request to the City of Medford. Co-administrators of RVM at that time were Patricia Kauffman and Brian McLemore (Isaak 78), while Tom Becker had become CEO of Pacific Retirement Services the year after it was formed in 1990 (Isaak 49-50).

Finally, in 2019, Solmonson explained, RVM submitted an update to the PUD, in order to “increase the trip count.” Sarah Lynch was then the Executive Director of RVM, and Brian McLemore was CEO of PRS. Since that time, Sarah Lynch has become vice president of administration for PRS.

According to the Mail Tribune article of 23 April 2021, “. . . obviously (Rogue Valley Manor) is wanting to expand and the reason for this project — it’s part of their mitigation for some of the development that they’re planning on building on their property.” Quoting Sarah Lynch, the article goes on to say, “The Manor has a stake in the project because it owns a property at 1020 Ellendale Dr. That piece of property is up for sale, Lynch said, and is only part of a commercial village, which the Manor is planning to develop.”

Sarah Lynch adds, “The trip cap applies to the entire commercial village, not just that property.”

Communications Advisory Committee minutes of May included this: [Sarah Lynch] explained that RVM’s request to change the zoning of the property it owns on Ellendale – from “10‐unit residential per acre” to “commercial” – brought with it a requirement by Oregon Department of Transportation to increase the trip cap traffic by more than double. She noted that the property, which RVM has on the real estate market, is more valuable if zoned for “commercial.”

Apparently because development of the property on Ellendale would be enhanced by less congested access from the freeway, Oregon Department of Transportation required RVM to pay for the off ramp upgrade.

That’s the historical perspective. Here is what I wonder about. There seems to be a clear pattern in this series of events: the relationship between RVM directors and PRS leadership. Is there any significance to this pattern?

I would like to learn more about how developing property for commercial purposes jibes with RVM’s status as a not-for-profit entity. On the surface, there would seem to be a disconnect. I don’t know enough about how this works.

My tentative conclusion is that since the property value has undoubtedly increased since 1992, RVM will benefit financially from having acquired the property almost 30 years ago. And maybe that sort of transaction is part of what has allowed RVM to continue on a sound fiscal path for the last sixty years. Thus, despite potential inconvenience to RVM residents in terms of traffic congestion on E. Barnett and Ellendale, we, the residents, benefit from living in a community that is financially stable. I realize that this conclusion doesn’t address all my questions. But it’s a start. And I trust that more information will become available. 

* PUD stands for Planned Urban Development, a real estate development that integrates residential and commercial buildings with open spaces in a single project. It can be loosely considered as a planned unit development (PUD), which uses the same acronym and for all intents and purposes is interchangeable (Investopedia).

 

Sources:

Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/planned_urban_development.asp

Isaak, Faye. Vision with a View: How Rogue Valley Manor Evolved Through Grade and Gumption. 2015.

 

Confusion over Freeway Offramp Construction

/in , ,
by Connie Kent

A Medford Tribune article, published on April 23, 2021, caused confusion among Manor residents. The article claimed a single-payer construction project was being undertaken to widen Exit 27, the South Medford I5 freeway exit for traffic coming from the north, so that, during peak hours, traffic on the off-ramp won’t build up to the point that it interferes with the fast-paced traffic on the interstate.

The single payer is reportedly RVM. One wonders, naturally, what’s in it for RVM? The article attempts to explain: the project will “mitigate” some of the development planned on the empty lots at 1020 Ellendale Drive (near the two Hilton hotels), which are owned by RVM, and which, according to Sarah Lynch, are to become part of a “commercial village”.

A number of comments were posted on the RVM listserv, expressing everything from puzzlement and concern, to alarm and distrust.

“. . . not enough has been explained.”

“The article in yesterday’s MT brings more questions than answers.”

“This change will increase the traffic onto E.  Barnett.” “ RVM population traffic that tries to make a left turn from Ellendale onto East Barnett. . . already has to wait up to five minutes to make that turn, and very few vehicles can make it through that light on one light cycle.”

“How can RVM develop a ‘Commercial Village’? [It] is a non-profit CCRC and cannot be in the business of selling or providing items for a profit. That is the reason the golf courses are leased to a sub-corporation for profit of PRS as RVM cannot offer golf play for a fee.”

“I am unsure as to the overall benefit to RVM. Possibly I do not have enough information.”

“It is amazing what the RVM Board approves without the residents being aware???”

A skeptic summed it up: “I think the fundamental question is about what it means to live in a retirement community that happens to be operated by a corporation whose primary objective is real estate development.”