Is foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land a threat to the U.S.? Elizabeth Warren thinks so.

wheatharvesting-wheat-field-in-oregon-buddy-mays

Does growing foreign ownership of farmland threaten family farmers, food supply and U.S. national security.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, a leading challenger in the race for the Democratic nomination for president, thinks so.

Warren says she’s so alarmed about foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land she wants to ban it.

“Foreign companies and foreign countries like China and Saudi Arabia already own 25 million acres of American farmland,” she posted on Medium on March 27, 2019. “That jeopardizes our food security, which threatens our national security, too.”

She certainly has some support among America’s farmers. “Our rural communities are becoming factory farms for foreign corporations,” argues Family Farm Action, a Kansas City-based organization launched in 2017 to fight for America’s family farmers and rural communities.

In 2018, family farmers packed a Missouri House hearing room to support bills banning foreign ownership of agricultural land. They emphasized the values of family farmers and the deep connections that make them stewards of their land and communities. Foreign-owned companies don’t care about the community because they are so far removed from it, they argued.

“I would hate to see what our forefathers would think of us brokering our American soil off to foreign countries,” said Missouri farmer Terry Spence.

Land law is generally state law in the United States and state laws vary widely.

As of 2017, Six states had laws banning foreign ownership of farmland: Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota and Oklahoma.

Oregon’s only restriction was Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 273.255, saying that “Any individual who is 18 years of age or older and who is a citizen of the United States, or has declared an intention to become a citizen, may apply to purchase state lands. “

Warren’s solution? National legislation similar to that enacted in Iowa prohibiting foreign individuals or entities from purchasing farmland for the purchase of farming.

Warren’s acreage figure, drawn from a 2011 Dept. of Agriculture report, is out of date, but it does illustrate a trend.

Foreign investors controlled 13.7 million acres of U.S. farmland in 2004. By 2014, total U.S. farmland under foreign investors’ control was 27.3 million acres, more than twice the level in 2004 and about the size of Tennessee.

By 2016 it was at least 28.3 million acres, according to a report by The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting using data filed pursuant to the 1978 Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA).  7 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A thorough review of current law on foreign investment of U.S. agricultural land can be found in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law: Acquisition and Disposition of U.S. Agricultural Land by Foreign Investors: Federal and State Legislative Restrictions, Limitations, and Disclosure Requirements.

Foreign investors acquired at least 1.6 million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 2016, the largest increase in more than a decade, according to the Midwest Center.

The Disclosure Act requires that foreign owners who acquire, sell or gain interest in U.S. agricultural land must file disclosure paperwork, known as the FSA-153 form, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency.

In May 2019, Newsweek made it all sound like the sky is falling, “American farmland is increasingly being bought up by outside investors,” Newsweek wrote. “As NPR noted in a recent report, nearly 30 million acres of U.S. farmland were held by foreign investors in 2015, nearly double the acres owned by foreign investors a decade before.”

That may sound threatening, but the fact is only 2.2 percent of U.S. agricultural land is foreign owned.

And while Warren’s criticism of foreign ownership of agricultural land emphasizes the food security issue, most of that foreign-owned agricultural land is forestland, with pastureland next and then cropland.

The Midwest Center has found that timber companies and renewable energy companies are the biggest group of foreign investors.

forest_property_land_sales_brokerage_alt

For example, EDP Renewables, a Portuguese renewable energy company, and Enel Green Power, an Italian renewable energy company, both control significant swaths of farmland through long-term leases, according to the Center.

In highlighting Saudi Arabia and China, Warren is also overplaying their role in U.S. farmland ownership, probably to make it appear more threatening.

In truth, Canadian investors owned the most U.S. agricultural land nationwide (6.87 million acres) in 2016, followed by The Netherlands (4.87 million acres) and Germany (1.94 million acres). Chinese investors owned 240,000 acres of U.S. farmland., and Saudi Arabian investors even less, just 35,731 acres, according to The Midwest Center.

The state with the most foreign ownership and investment in 2016 was Maine, which had 3.1 million acres that are foreign-controlled, followed closely by Texas at 3 million acres. Alabama, at 1.6 million acres, Washington, at 1.5 million acres, and Michigan, at 1.3 million acres, rounded out the top five, according to the Midwest Center’s analysis.

Oregon was way down the list, with just 315 plots of agricultural land totaling 792,864 acres under foreign ownership out of a total of about 15.9 million acres of agricultural land. That’s about 5%.

Warren seems to have a plan for just about everything. In this case, her plan is wrong. Foreign ownership of agricultural land in the United States or Oregon isn’t a crisis by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much Warren wants to make it one.

Advertisements

Political appointees as U.S ambassadors: a recipe for failure

President Trump clearly doesn’t believe the European Union  and its 28 member countries are important enough to have a trained career diplomat serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the large and complex organization.

Instead, Trump’s man in Brussels is Portland businessman Gordon Sondland, the Founder and CEO of Portland-based Provenance Hotels, which owns and/or operates 19 hotels in seven U.S. states and has another six hotels currently under development.

sondland

Hotelier turned ambassador, Gordon Sondland

According to OpenSecrets, which tracks money in politics, Sondland is a major Republican donor and bundler. He has given more than $446,000 to federal candidates and groups, 94 percent of which went to Republican causes. After Trump won, he funneled $1 million into Trump’s inaugural committee through four different LLCs.

The U.S. Department off State doesn’t even bother to emphasize Sondland’s experience in international diplomacy in his biography, choosing, instead, to start off with a description of his background that reads more like a promotional brochure for Provenance Hotels:

Ambassador Sondland is the Founder and CEO of Provenance Hotels, a national owner and operator of full-service boutique “lifestyle” hotels.  Provenance and its affiliates (founded in 1985), currently own and/or operate 19 hotels in seven states and have another six hotels currently under development.  Provenance creates unique, independent full-service, urban hotels, each with their own design, story and closely associated art collection.  The Company employs over 1,000 associates between its hotels and its Portland headquarters.  The Company has received critical acclaim for its hotels from such varied publications as The New York Times, Conde Nast, Travel and Leisure, and many other national and international publications.

You almost expect the bio to end with a link to Sondland’s hotels so you can book a room.

I spent part of my professional career working with the talented people of the U.S. Department of State on international treaties. I assure you there is no substitute for education and training in international affairs and diplomacy. Just as it is a mistake to believe that a businessperson is most qualified to be president because “the country should be run like a business,”  businesspeople are not necessarily naturals in the world of diplomacy.

Sondland’s involvement in sensitive discussions with Ukraine and the chaos that has ensued illustrates the point.

As Edward L. Peck, a former Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department oi State, wrote in The Foreign Service Journal.,“Without a doubt, the ability to raise millions of dollars for a presidential campaign is a valuable skill. But rewarding a fundraiser or “bundler” with the job of heading a U.S. embassy reveals total ignorance of what the job entails. Almost unknown outside diplomatic circles, an ambassador’s responsibilities are numerous, complex and important—sometimes critical. And, as with any and all top management positions, they cannot be effectively carried out by beginner.”

But that is who President Trump has been appointing ambassadors in far too many cases – diplomatic beginners.

As of Sept. 26, 2019, there had been 166 ambassadorial appointments under President Trump. Of those, 92 (55.4%) were career and 74 (44.6%) were political appointees. Among Trump’s political appointees are:

  • Jamie D. McCourt, Ambassador to the French Republic and Principality of Monaco: A former Owner, President, and CEO of the Los Angeles Dodgers
mccourt

Jamie D. McCourt (center) being sworn in on November 2, 2017, as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and Principality of Monaco.

  • Robert Wood Johnson, Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Court of St. James’s: Chairman and CEO of The Johnson Company, New York, NY, a private asset management firm, and Chairman and CEO of the New York Jets football team;
  • Sharon Day, Ambassador to Costa Rica: Worked for more than 20 years for the Republican Party at the local, state, and national level, and most recently in leadership roles as Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and RNC Secretary.
  • Ronald J. Gidwitz, Ambassador to Belgium: Former President and CEO of Helene Curtis, a toiletry and cosmetic manufacturer and marketer.

Many of the political appointees may be accomplished people, but that does not always translate into diplomatic skill.

“The United States has enjoyed a position of unprecedented global leadership in our lifetimes,“ said Barbara J. Stephenson, former President of The American Foreign Service Association. “This leadership was built on a foundation of military might, economic primacy, good governance, tremendous cultural appeal–and diplomatic prowess to channel all that power, hard and soft, into global leadership that has kept us safe and prosperous at home.”

Going forward, the interests of the United States in our troubled world will be best served by ambassadors with diplomatic prowess instead of political connections.

Boeing’s CEO should resign

恥 Haji

BOW

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) President Masataka Shimizu, center, TEPCO executive Toshio Nishizawa, right, and Vice President Masaru Takei bow during a news conference on its fiscal 2010

Tokyo Electric Power Co. President Masataka Shimizu resigned in disgrace in 2011.  He had been in charge when a tsunami devasted the company’s nuclear plant, endured public criticism for not stepping up in the disaster’s initial days and faced criticism for  the biggest financial losses in the company’s history.

He needed to take responsibility for the crisis.

Boeing’s CEO, Dennis Muiulenburg, should pay attention.

It was during Muilenburg’s watch that Lion Air Flight 610 took off from Jakarta, Indonesia on October 29th, 2018, at 6:20AM local time. Its destination — Pangkal Pinang in Indonesia’s Bangka Belitung Islands. Twelve minutes later, Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea, killing all 189 passengers and crew.

It was during Muilenburg’s watch that Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 took off from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on March 10th, 2019, at 8:38AM local time. Its destination – Nairobi, Kenya. Six minutes later, Flight 302 crashed near the town of Bishoftu, Ethiopia, killing all 157 passengers and crew.

That’s 346 dead people.

As the planes plummeted down to their doom, seatbelts sliced and shredded internal organs. At impact, arms were torn off, spinal columns broken, brains separated from nerves. Organs flattened against internal cavities and blood poured out of all orifices, even into chest and stomach cavities. Bowels were punctured, so bile filled the space around hearts, lungs, stomach, and other intestines like a can of organ soup. Then, for the plane that hit the ground, there was fire, consuming jet fuel at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.*

Masataka Shimizu did the right thing.

“We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 accidents,” Muilenburg said. He owes those 346 dead people, their grieving families, their saddened friends and their countries, so much more.

 

*Source: What Happens To Your Body When You Die In A Plane Crash

He’s back: Key player in Oregon securities fraud case resurfaces

Like a bad penny, Guy B. Rencher II, who swindled local investors out of millions during 2000-2001, has reappeared as one of the public faces of a West Linn, OR-based business.

Fraud-Alert-728x539.png

The October 2019 issue of Lake Oswego Living magazine, produced by N2 Publishing, features a 2-page ”business spotlight”  spread on the local owners of Action Northwest, an exterior home maintenance company. Prominently featured on the first page of the story is a color photo of Guy Rencher, a manager at the company, and his wife, Meadena., the owner.

“We caught up with these good local folks who own and run Action Northwest learn more about their services,” the Lake Oswego Living magazine said.

Good local folks?

That’s not the way a lot of folks defrauded of more than $7 million by Guy B. Rencher II see it.

In 2002, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) filed a civil suit against against Guy Rencher, The Rencher Law Firm LLP, Paul James Peiffer of Aloha and Robert J. Skirving of Portland alleging securities fraud and other violations of Oregon Securities Law. Assistant Attorney General Daniel H. Rosenhouse and Special Assistant Attorney General Caroline L. Smith litigated the case for DCBS.

During 2000 and 2001, Rencher and two associates, Robert Skirving and Paul James Peiffer, sold more than $7 million of illegal investments to multiple investors, promising them high risk-free returns.  Many of the investors were Portland-area residents, and some were clients of Rencher’s law firm. Most invested at least $100,000. Some invested substantially more, $3.5 million in one case.

Investors purchased ownership interests in limited liability companies formed by Rencher and his law firm. Rencher used some investor funds to purchase certificates of deposit issued by a purported off-shore bank called Bank of the Nations, controlled by Peiffer and Skirving, and collected more than $300,000 in “management fees.”

But Rencher, Peiffer and Skirving were running a con game that took advantage of too-trusting people. DCBS officials said the three men were not licensed to sell securities and none of the securities they sold were registered.

On Aug. 6, 2003, Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris excoriated both Guy Rencher and his wife, Meadena Rencher, for their conduct.

“Debtor has fallen far short of providing complete disclosure, and his failure to do so is attributable to a deliberate and concerted effort to withhold information,” Perris wrote.  “The number and magnitude of the inaccuracies in debtor’s bankruptcy papers are, as the trustee’s attorney said during his opening statement, staggering. This is especially true considering that debtor is an experienced attorney and businessman and that he has had the benefit of being represented by an experienced bankruptcy attorney.”

“Debtor’s conduct leading up to trial was marked by a lack of cooperation and obstructiveness,” Perris added. “At trial, debtor did not directly answer the questions posed to him. Instead, he testified with calculated evasiveness. When debtor did testify directly as to relevant matters, I often found him not to be credible.”

Perris also took Guy Rencher’s wife, Meadena, to task. “Debtor’s wife, Meadena Rencher, also testified at trial,” Perris wrote. “I found her credibility to be equally suspect…I also found Mrs. Rencher’s testimony on other points to be evasive, rehearsed and generally unbelievable.”

On Oct. 15, 2003, Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Frank L. Bearden ordered Guy Rencher, his law firm, Peiffer and Skirving to pay more than $2.3 million in fines and sanctions for scores of fraudulent securities transactions in what Bearden referred to as “a classic Ponzi-type scheme.”

Rencher was also fined $20,000 per violation for each of 16 violations involving misrepresentation to investors. The Rencher Law Firm LLP was fined $5,000 for each of 23 counts of selling unregistered securities. Total Rencher and Rencher law firm fines: $435,000.

The Oregon Department of Justice has not responded to a request for information on payments by Rencher, if any, of the fines ordered by Judge Bearden.

But Guy Rencher, who was already morally bankrupt, has avoided reimbursing the investors deceived by his schemes by filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

A graduate of Redmond High School in Central Oregon, Rencher started college and then went on a two-year Spanish-speaking mission for the LDS Church in Chicago, according to information he posted on his Redmond High School class of 1970 reunion page. He subsequently graduated from Brigham Young University in 1977 and then Willamette University College of Law. He was admitted to practice in Oregon in 1980.

guyrencher1970

Guy B. Rencher II, Redmond High School, Class of 1970 yearbook photo.

In a Profile he posted to a Redmond High School Class of 1970 website, he wrote: “I mostly practiced law from 1980 in my own small firm in Corvallis and Portland until I retired from law practice in 2002.”

“Retired” hardly told the whole story.

According to the Oregon State Bar, at the time of his resignation from the bar a formal disciplinary proceeding was pending against him for violations of the disciplinary rules involving multiple matters, including:

  • DR 1-102(A)(2) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice);
  • DR 1-102(A)(3) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); DR 1-103(C) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);
  • DR 5-101(A) (lawyer self-interest conflict);
  • DR 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or failing to reveal that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal);
  • DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of fact);
  • DR 7-106(A) (disregarding a standing rule or ruling of a tribunal);
  • ORS 9.527(1) (commission of an act or course of conduct that would preclude admission) and ORS 9.527(4) (willful deceit).

Guy Rencher’s resignation from the Oregon Bar was accepted by the Oregon Supreme Court effective Dec. 7, 2004. (Rencher was also once registered as a member of the State Bar of Texas, but he has been suspended for an “Administrative” reason and is not eligible to practice in Texas.)

Now living in a $500,000 home in West Linn and working as a manager at Action Northwest (a.k.a. Action Window & Gutter Cleaning, LLC), Guy Rencher appears to have emerged successfully from his transgressions. His investors haven’t been so lucky.

Donald J. and Michelle Yvonne (Shellie) Freund of Lake Tapps, WA, who invested $200,000 with Rencher, filed for bankruptcy in Dec. 2000 and never recovered any of their investment.

Philip Harker of Highland, Utah sought to recover $587,500 invested with Rencher. He recovered $0.

Joy Vandervelden died on Dec. 13, 2002 at age 88, without having recovered any of the $3,350,000 million she invested in Rencher’s scheme.

Even the Oregon Golf Club in West Linn was stiffed. Rencher owed the Club $18,544..16. It recovered nothing.

Guy wrote in his Redmond High School profile, “Life has been a lot of things, some expected, some unexpected, but it hasn’t ever been boring!”

Certainly not for his victims, many of whose whose lives were changed unalterably by his greed and perfidy..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enriching the rich: Trump’s opportunity zones

Another tax break for the wealthy sold as an economy-boosting innovation that will help the poor. We deserve better.

OZtrumpsignsbill

President Trump signs the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including Opportunity Zone provisions,            on Dec. 22, 2017

Stand in front of the vacant building at the corner of S.W. Pacific Hwy and Dartmouth St. in Tigard and you’ll be enveloped in activity.

IOZbuildingMG_3101 copy 2

11688 Pacific Hwy, Tigard

The traffic is heavy and constant. Nearby businesses include Costco, a thriving Car Toys store, a bustling shopping center and numerous restaurants. It doesn’t look much like an under-invested, economically distressed area badly in need of economic development and job creation.

But the building on the corner, 11686 S.W. Pacific Hwy, is in one of Tigard’s three “opportunity zones.” All are tax-advantaged sites added to the tax code subsequent to President Trump signing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on December 22, 2017.

TigardOpportunity-Zones

Tigard’s Opportunity Zones (in dark blue)

The idea, proposed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), was that high-poverty areas/distressed communities would get a leg up with new investments if they were eligible for generous preferential tax treatment. The program was originally proposed in the Investing in Opportunity Act, which Sen. Scott co-sponsored with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) earlier in 2017. The program allowed investors to reduce and defer paying capital-gains taxes if they invested in a qualified opportunity zone fund which invested in an opportunity zone.

“The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan,” the president told reporters prior to a Sept. 2017 White House meeting with the bipartisan Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus.

Areas can qualify as opportunity zones if they have been nominated for that designation by the state and certified by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury via the Internal Revenue Service.

Investors in a zone earn a 10% tax discount on their gains after five years, then a 15% discount after seven years. If they keep their opportunity fund shares for 10 years, they can sell them without paying any taxes on the money they made from that investment.

But investors have to act fast because to get the greatest potential tax break they need to leave their money in a fund by the end of this year. Under the law, they can defer paying taxes on their initial investment only until 2026. That’s motivating many investments in projects planned well before opportunity zones were designated.

“With Opportunity Zones, we’re drawing investment into neglected and underserved communities of America so that all Americans, regardless of ZIP code, have access to the American dream,” Trump said on Dec. 12, 2018.

But things got off on the wrong foot when real estate experts got hold of the law.  “…what we were greeted with, and I don’t think it’s unfair for me to say this, were eight pages of the most poorly written statute that I’ve come across in my time covering tax policy,” said Tony Nitti, a CPA, currently a Tax Partner with RubinBrown in Aspen, CO. and a Senior Contributor to Forbes.

It took almost a year after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law before the IRS published a lengthy list of proposed regulations on Oct. 19, 2018.

Then the IRS had to address more questions with a second set of 44 pages of proposed regulations on May 1, 2019.

Another problem that has emerged is that not all of the country’s 8,764 certified opportunity zones encompass just under-invested, economically distressed areas badly in need of economic development and job creation. Some also include areas of relative affluence that would be ripe for investment even without the new tax break.

As Samantha Jacoby, a Senior Tax Legal Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Policies, a progressive think tank,  has warned, the opportunity zone law is “fundamentally flawed” and the “… tax benefits will flow to wealthy investors with no guarantee that the zones will help distressed communities.”

Even the Wall Street Journal recently  highlighted this problem, noting that, “a tax benefit intended to help poor areas is channeling money to places that are already relatively well-off.”

One such place in a Tigard opportunity zone is raw land at the corner of SW Dartmouth St & SW 72nd Ave.  The 1.69 acres of commercial land in an already prosperous and heavily developed area is being offered for sale for $3,300,000 by the Real Estate Investment Group.

OZDartmouthland

Because no structure is on the land to improve, it might seem like a speculator could buy this raw land, sit on it without adding anything and then sell the land after ten years tax-free.

But it’s not so simple. An owner must conduct a trade or businessand just holding raw land is not a trade or business. So the purchaser of raw land will also need to invest in substantial improvements on the property, though the owner would not be bound to as specific an amount of improvements..

It would also be quite a stretch to call 11646 S.W. Pacific Hwy, a 29,978 sq. ft. site with a vacant 11,260 sq. ft. building that’s for sale at the corner of S.W. Pacific Highway and Dartmouth St., “economically distressed.”

Marketing material for the site has highlighted that average household income was $71,601 within one mile and $89,792 within three miles in 2015. The material also points out that the site is in the middle of a bustling commercial area that includes retailers such as Costco, PetSmart. A Walmart Supercenter, WinCo Foods and Fred Meyer.

Some readers may remember when the building on the site was occupied by Magnolia Hi-Fi.  The building was constructed in 1996 and NTN Pacific, LLC bought the site from Toyama Hawaii Corp. for $3,100,000 on Jan. 7, 2004 It’s now being offered for lease or sale through Norris & Stevens, Inc.

The buyer of this property won’t automatically qualify for the opportunity zone tax benefits. Since the goal of the program is to improve distressed communities, substantial improvements will have to be made to the property within 30 months.

To be precise, the new owner will have to spend on improvements an amount at least equal to the purchase price of the building. If 60% ($1.5 million) of a $2.5 million purchase price is allocated to the building’s value and 40% ($1 million) to the land’s value, the purchaser will have to invest an additional $1.5 million on substantial improvements, such as redeveloping the building and building out spaces for incoming tenants.

One of Tigard’s stated objectives in creating opportunity zones was to spur the development of more affordable housing.  Tigard is considered a rent-burdened city with over 28 percent of residents spending over 50 percent of their income on rent/mortgages.

But it would be a mistake to assume new housing being built in Tigard’s opportunity zones will address this problem. For example, The 72nd, a 38-unit apartment building that’s under construction on S.W. 72ndAve. will be far from affordable housing.

OZhousing

The 72nd apartment complex under construction in a Tigard opportunity zone.

A 517 sq. ft. one-bathroom studio at The 72nd will start at $1263 a month; a 690 sq. ft. one-bedroom one-bathroom apartment at $1534 a month. And rents go as high as $1,776 a month for a one-bedroom one-bathroom apartment.

And then there’s the impact of the opportunity zone tax breaks on federal and state tax collections.

The new tax breaks will cost an estimated $1.6 billion in lost federal revenue over ten years, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

At the state level, all the tax breaks lower individuals’ and corporations’ “gross income,” as the Internal Revenue Code defines it. If states piggyback on that definition, as most do, the breaks will automatically flow through to state individual and corporate income taxes unless the state proactively “decouples” its law from the opportunity zone provisions. Without decoupling, states will miss out on collecting revenue needed to fund other priorities needed for healthy economy.

As the Oregon Center for Public Policy, a left-leaning think tank, put it, “Someone will have to pay for the subsidies going to the wealthy investors profiting from Opportunity Zones, and that someone will be schools and essential services.”

So it’s not cynicism to see the opportunity zone program as yet another misguided giveaway. As Caesar proclaims in David Staller’s adaptation of “Caesar and Cleopatra,”  “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”.

Welcome to opportunity zones — tax shelters for wealthy investors and real estate developers who can put their money to work in areas the least in need of assistance, reducing state and federal tax revenues and increasing already excessive federal deficits.

Another well-intentioned program gone awry.

 

 

And you still think Joe Biden has all his marbles?

Biden confused

Question at the Sept. 12 Democratic debate:

“Mr. Vice President, I want to come to you and talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, ‘I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather, I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago..’ You said that some 40 years ago. But as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?”

Biden’s response:

“Well, they have to deal with the — look, there’s institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Red-lining banks, making sure that we are in a position where — look, you talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend from 15 to $45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise, the equal raise to getting out — the $60,000 level.

Number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we need — we have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy.

The teachers are — I’m married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. We have — make sure that every single child does, in fact, have 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds go to school. School. Not daycare. School. We bring social workers into homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children.

It’s not want they don’t want to help. They don’t — they don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the — the — make sure that kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school — a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.”

Moderator

“Thank you, Mr. Vice President.”

 

Oregon’s new K-12 instructional mandates will erode quality education

Oregon’s already underfunded and overwhelmed K-12 teachers are getting ready to deal with the addition of  more labor-intensive, complicated and questionable  instructional mandates imposed on them by politicians.

_MG_7334

It began with the passage of legislation in the last session requiring all Oregon school districts to teach about the Holocaust and genocide beginning with the 2020-2021 school year.

Claire Sarnowski, a freshman at Lake Oswego’s Lakeridge High School, came up with the idea of mandating Holocaust instruction after hearing Holocaust survivor Alter Wiener tell his story. Sarnowski approached state Sen. Rob Wagner, who agreed to introduce a bill.

It all sounded so simple and straightforward at the outset, but the final legislation was a classic example of mission creep.

The legislation went far beyond mandating that students be taught about the Holocaust and genocide. Employing the coercive power of government, teachers are going to be required to address a slew of  social justice topics: the immorality of mass violence; respect for cultural diversity; the obligation to combat wrongdoing through resistance, including protest; and the value of restorative justice.

Do we really need teachers encouraging a hodgepodge of demands from children, resistance to authority and protest by K-12 students rather than learning and dialog, particularly when adults are using students as part of a cynical political strategy?

Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise, wrote in The Atlantic  that too often faculty and administrators are engaged in “a shameless dereliction of duty” when they embrace student activism.

“Student activism can be an important part of education, but it is in the nature of students, especially among the young, to take moral differences to their natural extreme, because it is often their first excursion into the territory of an examined and conscious belief system, ” Nichols wrote. “Faculty (and administrators), both as interlocutors and mentors, should pull students back from the precipice of moral purity and work with them to acquire the skills and values that not only imbue tolerance, but provide for the rational discussion of opposing, and even hateful, views.”

Oregon teachers probably aren’t too enthused about another little – known new classroom instruction mandate either.

Starting this year, Oregon schools are required to teach tribal history and the Native American experience in class.

Senate Bill (SB) 13, enacted in the 2017 legislative session, called upon the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) to develop a statewide curriculum relating to the Native American experience in Oregon, including tribal history, tribal sovereignty, culture, treaty rights, government, socioeconomic experiences, and current events.

“When Governor Brown proposed SB 13 during the 2017 legislative session and subsequently signed it into law, it was because she deeply values the preservation of tribal cultural integrity and believes that honoring the history of Oregon’s tribal communities is critically important to our state as a whole, and to future generations of students,” said Colt Gill, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The legislation stated that the required curriculum must be:

(a) For students in kindergarten through grade 12;  (b) Related to the Native American experience in Oregon, including tribal history, sovereignty issues, culture, treaty rights, government, socioeconomic experiences and current events; and (c) Historically accurate, culturally relevant, community-based, contemporary and developmentally appropriate.”

Sounds admirable, but like the Holocaust legislation, it’s a classic example of mission creep.

First, the curriculum won’t be a limited add-on to current lesson plans. Instead, it will roll out as an extensive, complex set of 45 lessons in five subject areas, including English, social studies, math and science, for fourth, eighth and 10th grade classrooms.

It’s also a new responsibility for the Oregon Department of Education, which has never before been responsible for creating curriculum, and one more subject matter mandate imposed on already overloaded Oregon teachers.

Furthermore, it has the potential to become a tool for indoctrinating students in progressive social justice trends du jour.

According to OPB, The South Umpqua School District, which serves 1,500 students from Myrtle Creek, Tri-City and Canyonville, is already planning multiple days of teacher training sessions that will “expand beyond the tribal history and culture lessons to delve into racially sensitive topics, such as cultural appropriation, implicit bias and microaggressions.”

The basic idea of cultural appropriation is that a particular group, nationality or ethnicity who developed a practice should be the only ones allowed to practice it. Others insult the originating group if they practice it as well.

Too many Oregon adults have already disrupted lives by screaming cultural appropriation. This is not what we should want Oregon children to embrace.

burritos

Two white women were forced to close down their Portland pop-up burrito shop, Kook’s Burritos, in  2017 after being accused of cultural; appropriation.

“…the worst aspect of cultural appropriation is that it is inconsistent with the cultural development and enrichment that a free society promotes,” wrote Mike Rappaport in Law & Liberty. “In a free society, people from different cultures bring their practices to the wider society and they are followed by others in that society, making possible a richer and improved culture.”

Author Cathy Young made a similar point in the Washington Post, arguing that cultural appropriation protests ignore history, chill artistic expression and hurt diversity.  “Appropriation is not a crime,” she wrote.  “It’s a way to breathe new life into culture. Peoples have borrowed, adopted, taken, infiltrated and reinvented from time immemorial.”

Filling the heads of Oregon children with the frightening specter that they are burdened with implicit bias would be unwise, too.

Implicit, or unconscious, bias is the idea that the assumptions, stereotypes, and unintentional actions we make towards others are based on identity labels like race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or ability. Because our implicit associations are stored in our subconscious, we may act on our biases without even realizing it.

The problem is that the implicit bias concept is of questionable validity, based on unproven suppositions and oversold as a solution to diversity issues. But buying into the concept of implicit bias is easy because it feels open-minded and progressive.

However, “almost everything about implicit bias is controversial in scientific circles,” Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University, wrote in Psychology Today. “It is not clear what most implicit methods actually measure; their ability to predict discrimination is modest at best, their reliability is low; early claims about their power and immutability have proven unjustified.”

Research suggests that implicit bias training can raise awareness, but there’s not much evidence it actually changes behavior. As John Amaechi, a psychologist and organizational consultant, puts it, the implicit bias concept has become “a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for too many.” Implicit bias training, he says, is too often a “simply a way that organizations can achieve a level of plausible deniability” that they are addressing diversity issues.

And then there are microaggressions, well-intentioned comments or minor slights a speaker may not perceive as negative.

Several years ago, University of California President Janet Napolitano went so far as to tell faculty that saying “America is the land of opportunity” or “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough” or even  “America is a melting pot” were microaggressions. That’s because they delivered an inaccurate message that the playing field is even or that people of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.

Teaching Oregon children about the horrors of microaggressions will turn them into perpetual victims hypersensitive to casual remarks. In other words, into carbon copies of a lot of today’s misguided college students.

What might be better would be to require that students spend 9/11 every year watching the videos recorded on that terrible day in New York City. Hours of it, the scenes on the street, the footage inside the buildings, and the aftermath. Then, a discussion about the heroism of the average American and the fact we have enemies who want to destroy us.