Well written, covered, and highly relevant. Thanks a bunch! What can be done from Stumptown?

I would not have guessed that Blue Oregon (or this author) would be an advocate for putting more people in jail. Times change I guess. Or is this some sort of disguised support for whatever public employee union that runs the jail?

I like unions, I like public services, I like Democrats, but I don't like hidden agendas.

So what, this is how govt works. CoP asks for 18% raise in water just in case they need it to comply with Fed standards.

If it's easy to get money by whining like this, so why should they care what cover story they need to use? There is almost never any audit trail.

The Lane County Commissioners are holding the money up in reserves so that when 2010 comes around, they can say "we saved $2.7 million during the Great Recession, so elect us, blah, blah, blah...."

What a pathetic lot. If only there were 15+ year minimums of public malfeasance for not using taxpayer dollars as the elected representatives of the citizens of the United States of America (hence their tax dollars) intended them to do, then we would not have this kind of shameless, utterly pathetic shenanigans occurring in the first place.

If the Feds tell you to do it, then God damn it, you do it unless you can raise a valid argument based on the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Greg D., I think there's a happy medium between support for Measure 11 and desiring some assurance that a person who commits a crime like assault or theft will face some nontrivial punishment for their actions. Not only do Sen. Wyden and Rep. DeFazio want to see the jail beds restored, but so does state Rep. Phil Barnhart (a proud self-described "south Eugene liberal Democrat") and all 15 of Lane County's circuit court judges.

According to the Register-Guard,

Because of jail overcrowding, Paul John Reid Dawson, the man accused of raping, robbing and seriously injuring a Eugene woman earlier this year, served just three hours of a one-year sentence for a previous robbery and assault. That’s right — three hours of a 365-day sentence.

This is the second time in the past year that someone released early from jail because of overcrowding has been charged with a subsequent rape. In another case, a man was accused of kidnapping and raping a Eugene woman after he was released early from jail pending trial on burglary charges.

In the past week alone, overcrowding prompted early release of eight offenders considered dangerous by jail officials. They included an offender, with a history of serious mental health and substance abuse issues, who was released just one day after he was sentenced to serve 180 days in jail for a particularly vicious physical assault on his girlfriend.

I'm not in favor of locking people up and throwing away the key, but I'm also not in favor of allowing people beat the crap out of other people and yet be free to roam the streets.

Wyden (and others) went above and beyond to secure these funds for counties facing losses of vital public safety services. This is how Lane County chooses to reward that effort? They should be ashamed and other Oregon counties should take note of that similar shenanigans will not be tolerated.

I would not have guessed that Blue Oregon (or this author) would be an advocate for putting more people in jail. Times change I guess. Or is this some sort of disguised support for whatever public employee union that runs the jail?

Actually, police and jail guard unions on the whole have been more supportive of the Republican Party than they have to the Democratic Party for obvious reasons. So if Wyden, DeFazio, and Merkley are doing this for the jail guards' union, it would be a rather important statement about Wyden, DeFazio, and Merkley, and their personal values relative to the values of the Democratic Party faithful.

No one should kid themselves about the reality of what is going on here: Carla, Kari and the loudest mouths/emptiest heads of Blue Oregon continue to just be desperate to be close to the biggest political names they can attach themselves to out here in the hinterlands. Kari's company is paid to build websites for Wyden and Merkley, and Blue Oregon is at times --- like this --- just an astro-turf platform for Wyden and Merkley.

The truth is, Merkley, Wyden and DeFazio owe their seats to the block of Lane County Democratic votes as much or more than any other CMSA in the state. And those three provincial backbenchers and the toadies who dominate their staffs and election teams fully know that.

Ron's not had the best luck polishing his image with the public in the last several months because of he long ago utterly prostituted himself to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and repudiated the bedrock Democratic Party commitment to working people. So go on Ron: Democrats across the state who have kept the faith with the real spirit of our party would love to see the political landscape shift to make room for a real Democrat to beat you in the 2010 primary. End your own career by egotistically picking a fight you can't win, by using a BS neo-con tactic of fear-mongering on "crime" no less, with elected officials who are much closer to the wishes and human needs of working voters in their county at this time when Oregon has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation.

First of all Congress did not vote to reinstate the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, they voted for the TARP, the Secure Rural Schools was just one of many things hung on the bill to insure its passage. To say otherwise is just revisionist history. The passage of the TARP did not reinstate the Secure Rural Schools as originally passed but rather approved a modified form of the original Act, one in which Lane County would receive only four more Annual payments the amount of which would decline each year by ten percent. This effectively converted the program from an on-going revenue source to one-time money. Further, paying for additional 84 jail beds does not even come close to addressing Lane County’s Criminal Justice problems.

A County the size of Lane County should have between 1500-1600 jail beds (Main Jail, Forrest Work Camp, and Community Corrections) to meet its pre and post trial confinement needs. It currently has less then 1% of that number and the 84 beds everyone is talking about only represents an additional 0.5%. Further as Lane County is releasing between 8-10 prisoners a day those 84 beds will be full in less then a month after which we will go back to releasing prisoners at the current rate. It is not clear that the $3.2 million would not be better spent on Parole and probation officers.

In addition to a inadequate jail, the Sheriff’s Patrol and Investigation Divisions are woefully under staffed as are the District Attorney’s Office, Adult Parole and Probation and the Juvenile Justice System. Currently misdemeanor theft (Car and home burglaries, bike theft and bad checks under $750) are not prosecuted. Equally underfunded are Lane Counties Drug and Alcohol Treatment, Mental Health and other necessary Crime Prevention Programs and that is before any cuts in State funding that may be imposed by the current legislature in its attempts to balance the state budget.

In short the Criminal Justice System in Lane County is so under-funded as to be almost ineffective. And the cause of this lack of funding does not rest with on again off again Secure Rural Schools but rather with Measure 50 which fixed Lane Counties tax rate at $1.275 per thousand while at the same time restricting assessments to the point that we are collecting taxes on about half of the Real Market Value of property in the County. This lack of funding is also the will of the voters who have voted down every Public safety Levy put on the ballot in the last 15 years. It could be argued that the voters of Lane County are getting the Criminal Justice System they want.

As to the action of the County Budget Committee, it was the only fiscally prudent action to take, given the total lack of reliable information on what cuts the legislature will make in funding that goes to Lane County so it can provide important services to Lane County residents. Once that information is available, after the final State Budget is passed, the Committee can go back and in a supplemental budget use some of the County Reserves to back fill necessary programs cut by the state and if money is available, keeping in mind that these same reserves will be needed to maintain the current level of service after the Secure Rural schools ends in 3 years, fund additional items like the 84 jail beds.

The reality is a modern Oregon County cannot be run on a $1.275 per thousand.

Carla, this is an interesting and timely topic. Thank you.

Of course the people of Lane county "should" have the ability to spend their dollars as they best see fit given their current situation. It is a problem to cry about jails and then not do something about re-opening them if that was the selling point. The problem could well be that there should be NO reason for federal subsidies in the first place. When one accepts federal dollars; unfortunately the implication is that they can not spend the money in the manner they deem best.

The easy answer is to get the feds the hell out of over regulating timber cuts on federal forest land. Had the cut ever approached the agreed upon amounts in the Clinton agreement, there would be no issue for Lane or the other counties in Oregon, Washington, Northern California and Idaho that depended on the timber revenue.

That is not to say that they wouldn't be facing some issues right now given the current recession, but they would not be dependent on the federal government for their handout with strings attached.

Let's make some sense (and "cents") with this crime picture that hasn't worked for over 200 years. Focus on proven principles. Reduce crime re-offenses, greatly reduce the costs of crimes to taxpayers and victims. It can be done if we really care about safety in our communities and having better control over our state costs. Visit www.crimereform.info to review proven principles, and then take steps to make responsible choices. There are dozens of suggestions of what we can do to bring about overdue changes.

Hey Truth - those of us who live or work in Lane County could care less about the police and guard unions on this issue. I am a lifelong pro-peace, anti-war on drugs, anti-police state liberal, and I don't want violent, convicted criminals released back into my community way before they should be.

I can't remember DeFazio or Wyden ever weighing in on a local government budget matter before, so I am taking them at their word. From reading the Register-Guard and listening to local officials over the past 4 years, I can tell you that Lane County government was constantly playing the public safety card in their lobbying efforts to get DeFazio and Wyden to pass county payments. We were constantly being told that without county payments funding prisoners would have to be released early and sheriff's patrols in less-populated parts of the county would go way down.

So what happens? DeFazio and Wyden get county payments passed after a several year battle, and Lane County refuses to use a penny of that money on public safety. DeFazio isn't one to say the sky is falling for no reason, so if he says Lane County is going to make it damn near impossible to get county payments renewed, I believe him.

As for defeating Wyden in 2010 in a primary, that's a good one. The guy is pretty damn popular here, pretty much on par with DeFazio in Eugene. Who are you going to run against him - Pete Sorensen?

Hey Truth - those of us who live or work in Lane County could care less about the police and guard unions on this issue. I am a lifelong pro-peace, anti-war on drugs, anti-police state liberal, and I don't want violent, convicted criminals released back into my community way before they should be.

You're a fraud bradley, sock-puppeting on Blue Oregon.

1. I seem to recall Carla and many other progressives advocating for rainy day funds statewide. Seems to me that saving a little for an emergency is wise politically and personally. Why should the county be different from the state in that regard?

2. Not all of the money not allocated to jails is going to just sit in reserves. My understanding is that more than half is going to education and social services, including partial compensation for cuts that we KNOW are coming at the state level. This, too, seems wise to me. Most people, including Democrats, if you ask them, don't think too much of violent crime and would rather see criminals paying for their crimes than not. But when you consider that that money is taken from somewhere else, and you might have to rank priorities among jails, schools, social services, libraries, parks, etc., suddenly jails aren't the highest priority. Not only would most people rather have their kids get a decent education than spend money on jails, but schools are also more bang for the buck and help to prevent crime to boot. It costs less to give an Oregon citizen one year of education than to give that citizen one year of welfare assistance, and it costs less for the year of welfare than for one year of incarceration.

3. The commissioners on the five member body who said that they wanted the money for jails are NOT the same commissioners who diverted the funds away from jails. Last year, the board had a bare majority of three conservative members, who put jails over education and services over the objections of Commissioners Sorenson and Fleenor. Then in November, one of the conservative commissioners was voted out of office and replaced with a progressive, who now votes with Fleenor and Sorenson. Sorenson, BTW, was also re-elected in a landslide at the same time, after publicly stating that his priorities did not rank jail funding as high as the conservative commissioners. The three commissioners who allocated the funds the way they did are acting consistently with the positions they have always held, and in accordance with the will of the people as expressed in the most recent election results as well.

4. It seems to me that the Lane County Jail's biggest problem is not space but priority. It is true that they are letting some violent people out when they should not, but they are also keeping in many nonviolent drug users and first time thieves, and misdemeanor defendants awaiting trial at a time when they are presumed innocent. Some of these misdemeanor defendants, if convicted, will have already served more time in jail than their likely sentence. If acquitted, they will have unfairly served time that they should not have served. Some people with jobs lose their jobs due to being locked up pending resolution of charges that would likely have resulted in a road crew sentence that would have let them keep their jobs. Employed people are less likely to re-offend than the unemployed. If a violent criminal gets out early and commits a new crime, people ask with perfect 20/20 hindsight why that person was let out. They should also ask why the jail decided that person deserved the cell less than some of the other people who did NOT get out.

For these reasons, I support the Commisioners' decision. They are serving the people of Lane County well and deserve the support of progressives countywide and elsewhere in Oregon.

Really, "Truth?"

On what planet, exactly, are DeFazio and Wyden "backbenchers?" DeFazio has become one of the more powerful subcommittee chairmen in the House, and Wyden is all over the NY Times, national television, and serves on very prominent committees. I assume you are a Pacific Green Party shill, and more power to you, but that doesn't make these guys backbenchers and it doesn't make me a fraud. Yes, Merkley is a backbencher - he just got there.

As for their staffs being toadies, I don't know if you have ever seen Karmen Fore, but she's no toad, and that's the TRUTH.

Carla---Commissioners Sorenson, Fleenor and Handy did NOT ask for the money for jails. The ones who did that were Stewart, Dwyer and Green (before Green was voted out and replaced with Handy, thus changing the board's majority). As far as I can tell, not one commissioner has changed stance on the issue.

Another thing I didn't mention before. Every election, as far back as I can remember, Lane County puts up a "more taxes for jails" local measure. Every year the local government and the Register Guard trumpets from the rooftops with pictures of scary meth people and how we need the more taxes for jails measure or else we'll all have our throats slit in our beds while the police can't stop it. And every year we vote it down. Conservatives don't want the taxes, and liberals don't want the "lock everybody up" approach, supporting instead treatment funding and education for all but the most incorrigible offenders.

Also, the violent crime rate in Lane County has been steadily decreasing since 1988, in spite of the end-of-the-world inadequate jail funding.

A majority of Lane County consistently votes to allocate our funds elsewhere, and the violent crime rate is dropping. Seems to me forcing the Board to go against both the will of the voters and the crime trends JUST because the old majority foolishly chanted jails-jails-jails when asking for fed money would be less than sensible.

Carla, I suggest you protest too much. Whether prisons or schools or whatever was used as the poster child, the money was given out under the idea of replacing federal timber dollars. Therefor, few strings were attached.

That of course is the problem with constantly running to daddy and mommy for money. They want to attach strings to said money and are disappointed when the recalcitrant child doesn't use the money they way the parents, erh federal government, wants it used.

If Kurt C. is correct, then you can pretty much count on mom and dad cutting off all future such revenues next time around. Maybe that's best.

Funny how no one wants to fund a jail until the crime rate goes way up...kind of like not fixing the roof until it ruins the interior of the house.

On what planet, exactly, are DeFazio and Wyden "backbenchers?" DeFazio has become one of the more powerful subcommittee chairmen in the House, and Wyden is all over the NY Times, national television, and serves on very prominent committees. I assume you are a Pacific Green Party shill, and more power to you, but that doesn't make these guys backbenchers and it doesn't make me a fraud. Yes, Merkley is a backbencher - he just got there.

Actually, bradley you apparently don't know what a "backbencher" is, at least in practice: That is, a legislator who lacks the power to make or break the nationally most important legislation. None of these guys have that level of clout and they never will. That is completely different from getting action on legislation of provincial interest because that's just a matter of vote trading and being a dependable vote for the leadership when called upon.

And they are not all over the press nearly to the degree you try to imply, because they just are not big "gets" in media parlance. They are from a small state and their base constituencies are viewed as just a bit nutty by the vast majority of the country, including even the liberal power core. They mainly are useful as al little bit off-kilter NW color characters when the media needs them. (Not that I appreciate being seen that way any more than other Oregon Democrat, but that's the hard, cold, reality because of the kind of people we have let become the face of the Democratic Party in our state).

You want one key factual example instead of the empty meaningless generalities that you throw: Oregon's share of public health dollars is below the national average solely because these guys, and their Washington and Idaho colleagues, don't have the combined interest and clout to change that. Just ask their lead staff people who use this as excuse #1 when they are called out in public on how these guys always whine "they work behind the scenes", yet never seem to deliver.

DeFazio is only a minor exception to the latter point because from time to time he delivers on transportation issues of provincial interest (It just seems to be his personal character that he drives a little harder bargain for his votes at times and is rewarded for it. I applaud and support him for that.) And in fact, he has said more than once, including in a public setting where he and I were talking face to face in the presence of many nutty Pacific Green witnesses and pathetic minor DPO functionary types, that this is pretty much all he aspires to as a Congressperson. He has said more than once he is foregoing other political office to preserve his seniority on the House Transportation Committee because he just likes planes, automobiles, and most especially trains (which I like too.) One has to both genuinely admire the essential modesty of this view, while not admiring the legislative compromises he makes on behalf of us all in accordance with that.

And no bradley, I am not a PG because I think most of them are as irrelevant as the irrelevant, sad core left in the DPO who are doing their best to render meaningless the proud traditions of what we Democrats stand for. I don't think Wyden, Merkley, or DeFazio tremble in fear at the thought of the DPO exercising any independence anymore in backing other Democratic candidates for their seats, even when those candidates espouse DPO values more solidly than these three do.

Basically, the Lane County Commissioners appear in this case to be a group of very dishonest brokers, in my view.

Carla, although you clearly believe otherwise, the facts as others commenting here have started to bring out show you don't know much and your opinion is worth less. I'm betting the Lane County Commissioners who are there on a day-to-day basis know more about what the majority of people, and Democrats specifically, in Lane County actually want then Merkley and Wyden, and even to a some degree DeFazio, do. The dishonesty here may be on Merkley, Wyden, and DeFazio's side if they made representations to their colleagues that it shown they had no reason to make and for sure had no ability to deliver.

Effectively dealing with misdemeanor offenders is not a waste of time or money. Criminals continue with poor behavior and get worse when unchecked. Intervention is jail in some cases, but that alternative has to be available for judges when needed.

Recorded crime rates don't always drop for the right reasons. When citizens know there is little chance for any justice or consequences for the criminal, they stop reporting crimes to the police. This in turn creates more tolerance and acceptance for theft, drug abuse, and mischief in our neighborhoods. The "reported" crime rates drop.

Minor offenders are not kept in jail when arrested. Sheriffs however spend a truckload of money chasing down those who continually fail to appear in court for those minor crimes. What are they supposed to with crooks who continually dodge the system. Each time the perp fails to show for court our prosecutors, tax funded defense lawyers, and witnesses (who took time off work for court) have all wasted their time and money. Jail needs to be an available consequence.

Who is to be let go when the jail is full and/or understaffed? The car theft suspect who will just never come to court, the habitual drunk driver that will kill eventually, the murder suspect pending trial, the already sentenced crooks not deserving of yet another break?

I don't presume to know any or all of Lane County's financial issues, but it is clear our representatives in Washington are very concerned about the choices they are making with federal monies intended for the purpose of public safety.

Yeah, they should have used the money for it's intended purpose. On the other hand, we live in strange times. If you think things are bad now, wait a year or two...Lane County did the right thing. There are more important things than incarcerating petty criminals...I could mention incarcerating the non-petty criminals that are running this country into the ground but that would be off-topic.

PS, its not like they spend the money on something stupid like light rail. :)

Truth, I think it's you who doesn't understand fully what a backbencher is, or your standards are pretty ridiculously high. By your definition, every member of Congress who isn't a committee chairman or Speaker of the House or Majority Leader is a "backbencher." But generally, when applied to Congress "backbencher" refers to members who toil in obscurity, filling potholes back home and working on appropriations earmarks for the home district. Hooley was a backbencher, as is Wu. Blumenauer is not - he has earned his way on to the most prominent committee in the House and is a reasonably prominent player within Pelosi's circle of supporters and friends. Wyden did the same with the Senate Finance Committee and with Reid, and won a battle with Pelosi to deliver about another billion to Oregon in county payments - something a backbencher could never do. I agree with you that none of them are a big media "get." You have to have a lot of seniority or run the show to be sought after to that degree.

Truth, I think it's you who doesn't understand fully what a backbencher is, or your standards are pretty ridiculously high. By your definition, every member of Congress who isn't a committee chairman or Speaker of the House or Majority Leader is a "backbencher."

No bradley the problem here is that you are representative of the kind of people with limited critical thinking skills who don't have a clue about how you spout utter nonsense and can only argue by making claims others have said what they haven't said. First, technically at least one definition of a "backbencher" found in the online dictionary at www.dictionary.com is:

any of the members of a legislature, esp. of the House of Commons of Great Britain, but not including the leaders of the parties.

I was actually being a little more generous and referring to people like Wyden, DeFazio and Merkley as typifying the impotence that goes along with being a "backbencher" in practice: Namely, being a legislator w ho lacks the power to make or break the nationally most important legislation. In their cases it's because they are relatively undistinguished leaders who primarily owe their ascendency to an ignorable core of their base.

There are plenty of legislators who have the clout due to their intellectual and political competence to impact the national dialog, and therefore the outcome, of legislation who aren't committee chairs or the Speaker or the Majority Leader. In fact, it's Democrats who are whining how something less than 30 Republicans, none of whom hold a committee chair seat or are Majority Leader in the Senate, are able to control the process to the point the Democratic majority can't do what they want and have to reach unacceptable compromises, but somehow Wyden and the rest of those same Democrats weren't capable enough to do that (or even threaten a filibuster) when they were in the minority.

Ron Wyden in particular, is not one of those kind of legislators, DeFazio seems to not be one more by choice and the millstone around his neck of the national image of Oregon Democrats these days, and it's seems likely Merkley will be much more like Wyden if his insubstantial record in Salem is any guide. Of course, we should continue to hope Merkley will surprise us until he doesn't.

I don't presume to know any or all of Lane County's financial issues, but it is clear our representatives in Washington are very concerned about the choices they are making with federal monies intended for the purpose of public safety.

Frankly, McAvoy you're just a typical idiot who doesn't know much of anything but that doesn't stop you from fully proving it. Personally I, like torridjoe, will go with the views of the majority of the Lane County Commission about what's best for Lane County on all issues including the shibboleth of "public safety", rather than egotistical politicians in DC who really are most worried about their own re-election.

Maybe you missed the post from Jack Roberts. Not only did DeFazio, Merkley and Wyden weigh in, but so did Representative Barnhart, Senator Walker, and Mayor Piercy. Most importantly, if DeFazio, Walker, Barnhart and Piervy - all great liberals and longtime locals - decided to "butt" in, there must be a good reason and the county's voters are actually far closer to where they are then where the 3-2 majority of commissioners is.

"The Council is not the same Council as that which pled for public safety dollars"

This is the same record I have heard over and over again. Bureaucrats decide to spend our money needlessly, or make promises for the future only to have new bureaucrats change it all when the next election cycle occurs. Very convenient, very costly, and very dishonest. It happens on both sides, every time.

Truth, I hear sour grapes screaming from your posts. Better luck in the next race.

http://www.kval.com/news/local/46135707.html -- Video and a story from KVAL. DeFazio makes the case for his and Wyden's involvement.

From the Register-Guard: "The jail has made more than 3,700 early releases since July. The reopening of 84 jail beds — only 78 would be operational due to federal restrictions on inmate population levels — would reduce early releases by about 700 annually, or about 15 percent, the county said."

More than 3,700 early releases since July. The Lane County DA is on record saying that some of these are violent offenders. Can we release them in your neighborhood, torridJoe?

That money was asked for, allocated and given to Lane County for a specific purpose. If they choose not to use it for that purpose, they should forfeit the money.

Are you SURE that that money came with strings attached? I don't know for sure, but my understanding was that the actual legislation did not specify that Lane or any other county MUST use the money for jails. The fact that the old majority had cited jails as a major reason they wanted the money does not necessarily bind the new commission.

You're talking as if three very good and progressive commissioners are CRIMINALS, and they're not. Pete Sorenson, especially, is one of the most popular and intelligent politicians in Lane County. He may well one day be our party's nominee for Governor, or seek to be DeFazio's successor in the 4th district, and wouldn't be surprised if you, Carla, decided to back him. From down here the whole kerfluffle looks like Lane County's pro-development interests are just looking for an excuse to make noise to try and hurt Sorenson and the rest of the progressive commissioners. Their arguments, as usual, are transparent and feeble, and I'm disappointed that you're feeding them.

They aren't being "soft on crime". They're being strong on education and services. Give the money back when our schools need it? That's just silly.

I agree with you that the commission did make a mistake. Tahat mistake was made by the OLD commission when they focused on jails instead of on the whole community. It was because of that mistake that the one member who went along with it who was up for election in 2008 was booted out by the voters. And in fairness even to to them, their presentation was done BEFORE last September, when they didn't know the economy would tank so badly.

If you're so worried that the funds will not be renewed, consider what would happen if they just handed the money back, all of it, and said they didn't need it after all, not for any purpose. In fact, the funds ARE needed, just not primarily for jails as the highest purpose.

Who is to be let go when the jail is full and/or understaffed? The car theft suspect who will just never come to court, the habitual drunk driver that will kill eventually, the murder suspect pending trial, the already sentenced crooks not deserving of yet another break?

Start with the one who is only pending trial and who has a job that will be lost if she doesn't come to work because she's locked up. And the parent whose children need him. And the student who needs to go to classes. After that, release the first-offenders. It's not as if they aren't monitored on the outside. The deputies at the jail make defendants sign release agreements with conditions that they check in from time to time. When apropriate, thy have ankle bracelets and are under house arrest, allowed to leave their homes only when the custody referee says it's ok.

And yes, there ARE people in jail right now who shouldn't be there. And if they let Tommy the Toddler Twister out early to make room for a transient first time thief or a kid with blond dredlocks who mouthed off at a cop and got busted for resisting arrest, it's not the fault of lack of funding.

More than 3,700 early releases since July. The Lane County DA is on record saying that some of these are violent offenders. Can we release them in your neighborhood?

This is my neighborhood we're talking about. And I've noticed it's become safer, not less safe, over time. If any meth head wants to come see me, I'll be right here with my big dogs and my gun collection to meet and greet them, but they're not as scary as the prosecutors and police say (and prosecutors and cops are great people who do a public service I'm thankful for, but don't you think they have at least a little self interest when they say they want the money for their own departments?).

It's an interesting issue. I agree that Lane County has far, far too few jail beds for their population, which will eventually result in increasing crime rates and lower public safety. Indeed, the latest date from the Criminal Justice Commission shows rising crime rates in Lane, contrary to the general trend elsewhere. So, in the abstract, there absolutely should be more money spent on jail beds...

BUT, is this the right money? It is "one time only" money, so it would have to be replaced with money raised locally when it runs out. The Lane County voters have consistently voted against taxes for that. Compare that with Linn County, where the voters reliably vote in a public safety levy every 4 years.

So, let's say that the Commissioners change their minds or find some money. Nothing changes, and in a few years, the money runs out and they're in exactly the same place. The voters won't vote more money for jail beds, and the jail goes back to the way it is now.

Call me cynical, but I say let the voter reap the consequences of their decision to underfund public safety - increased crime rates and horrible stories like the one in the Register Guard. Maybe then in a few years they'll change their minds and approve a levy to support law enforcement. In the meantime, the Commissioners should keep putting such a levy on the ballot in each general election. When the voters have had enough, they'll get smart.

An even better analogy: You've been getting water from the public utility for decades, and they suddenly decide to shut off service to your neighborhood, as a cost cutting measure. The neighborhood calls a public meeting to raise hell about it, and among several dozen angry speakers you give one of the more eloquent and memorable rants, about how your organic vegetable garden is dying for lack of water. The utility eventually gets around to turning the water back on. Im the interim, the economy is gone bad, you've taken a cut in pay and have taken a second job in part to afford bottled water, and you no longer feel like you have time for gardening.

Then someone sees your garden still being neglected and calls you unethical for "breaking your promise to the water utility", which turned the water back on in your area just because you wanted your garden, and suggests you shouldn't use their water for any purpose now.

Torrid Joe is correct, the county Payments were in effect until they sunsetted under the R's watch. Those payments were a boradscale payment to counties in lieu of timber payments those same counties had recieved for years. Those same counties had relied, no, built their county budgets on timber eceipts and the resulting revenue from timber activities.

Lane County's paltry $2-$3 MM is a drop in the bucket when compared to Coos, Josephine and other counties. However, the use of the dollars WAS encouraged for a large amount of county services. Public Safety was just one such service. Other needed county services funded by these payments were: libraries, public health, mental health, schools and roads. Each county had the opportunity to decide how best to spend those dollars. Nothing has changed.

Carla is tilting at windmills if she thinks that a mere 1 on thousandth of one percent of the over-all TARP money does not go to an alleged intended source will upset the federal money cart. If she wants to do an in depth report perhaps some better sunjects might be Douglas, Coos, Josephine and Jackson counties. Find out and report what they are doing with their federal timber payments. I belive that Jackson county is not spending the bulk of these dollars, rather adding to their reserves.

The answer to this whole county payments issue is glaringly obvious, although not without costs.

Since the payments are necessary to compensate for lost tax revenues on publicly owned forest land, the federal government should sell that forest land so that the County can start collecting tax payments on it.

Keep the environmentally important stuff. But the rest (at least 50%) of the National Forest Service lands should be sold to the highest bidder.

With easements and covenants that prevent the land from being converted to residential use.

Except that you asked for the water specifically to help your garden and your family. Instead, you sell the water to pay for other stuff..like a guy to mow your lawn, for example.

It's not "neglecting the garden" that's the problem. It's not doing what you said you were going to do that's the problem.

Or maybe your spouse was the gardener who made the big speech, and you were for using the water for drinking and washing all along, and maybe a holding tank for in case the water went off in a disaster, your family would have some to live on.

The thing is, the board's current majority are not the ones who said they'd fund jails at all costs to other necessities. In fact, Sorenson and Handy campaigned and won in 2008 on a platform of different priorities. Bobby Green, who was part of the old majority, ran for re-election on a platform of jails, and lost. The rest of the board is up next year and we'll see how the two other pro-jails commissioners and the one other pro-education and services commissioner do. Sorenson and Handy never demanded money just for jails, and Sorenson objected to the old majority's emphasis on jails. Why should they be held to the priorities of interests that they defeated in the election?

Additionally, except for Carla, most of the people trying to use this issue to hurt Sorenson and his allies on the board are the pro-development, pro-Mannix, interests in whose side Sorenson has been a thorn for a long time. Seems to me, to the degree he's at fault (My God, a politician not doing what he supposedly said he'd do! Has such a thing ever happened before?), it's for the equivalent of exceeding the speed limit on a straight stretch of I-5. I have a hard time getting worked up about it, and would rather give a break to our loyal, hardworking progressive leadership on small things. If you don't see it that way...we may just have to disagree.

I'd be curious to see how many of these unincarcerated criminals in Lane County are due to family law cases, child support and the like.

However I am fairly certain that those who refuse to help support their spawn even at the cost of a suspended drivers license and their credit rating hovering near double digits would change their ways after being supported by the taxpayers in a small cell for a few weeks...

It may be of some help to consider some of the financial facts.

In general, I don't believe Sorenson, Handy or Fleenor have presented an argument or plan as to why holding back SRS funds to put off the "cliff" (as they often call it) for a year is critical -- what do they propose will happen over FY 2012-2013 (the extra year) that can't happen by the end of FY 2011-2012 (with the beds re-funded)?

As far as SRS funds (or whatever the successor might be called), according to Wyden and DeFazio, not using the funds to restore jail beds while dangerous criminals are being "capacity-based" released will make it MUCH harder to get other members of Congress to support further funding.

It doesn't matter that SRS dooesn't legally require spending the money on public safety, and it doesn't matter whether there was some "moral" obligation, either. What matters is: Sorenson, Handy and Fleenor have significantly reduced the chances for renewed funding. That makes the chance of a "cliff" at the end of FY 2012-2013 MUCH greater than the chance of a "cliff" at the end of FY 2011-2012 would be if the SRS money was spent for the reasons used to get it.

As far as local revenue goes, the history on revenue measures is complex and can be argued to the cows come home. One thing is clear, however -- the way that Sorenson, Handy, and Fleenor have dismissed the critical problems arising from lack of sufficient jail beds and other actions to undermine the public confidence in the Commissioners' "leadership" are making it harder and harder by the week to educate the public and ask for financial support for the minimal public safety system we need. (And I include prevention, deterence, incarceration, treatment, and alternative release programs as essential elements of public safety.)

Again -- where is the Sorenson, Handy and Fleenor plan? There is none.

It may also be useful to see some numbers...

Despite the three commissioners' representation that defunding the jail beds is necessary because of a "financial crisis," the County Administrator's budget, including the 84 jail beds, would result in the County heading into FY 2010-2011 with over $21 million from the combination of the carry-over reserves (above the required "Prudent Person Reserve") and the FY 2010-2011 allocation from federal SRS funds.

At the same time they cut funding for jail beds, the same majority voted to add almost $400,000 to fund personal assistants for the commissioners, a "listening tour", video recording of off-site meetings, and an $82,000-plus patronage position for a special "analyst" for the commissioners.

In a further development, the Eugene Budget Committee has voted to support a "net zero" funds swap with the County that would make an additional million dollars available to fund the jail beds.

Thus, if the Commissioners will eliminate the unnecessary $400,000 for assistants, etc. and accept the $1 million funds swap with the City, only $1.8 million of available SRS funds would be required to re-open these jail beds.

This is a tiny fraction of the roughly $270 "true adopted budget." The "financial crisis" is greatly overblown, especially when contrasted with the very real, local public safety collapse.

Finally, as far as I can tell, ALL the local folks in treatement, transitional release, etc. , who have weighed in on this issue say that the lack of beds is making it very difficult for them to get offenders to enter treatement and other programs. Ron Chase of Sponsors is a very credible source who indicated in last week's Eugene Weekly that he supported restoring the jail beds.

These views seem consistent with the research on the effects of jail capacity, as well. While there's a very legitimate argument that we may be sending too many drug-related offenders to prison, that's not what's at play with the Lane County jail issue. By any comprable standards, Lane County is critically below a minimum capacity.

The only limitation in the Secure Rural Schools Act is that the portion designated for roads be spent on roads. There are no restrictions on the general fund portion. I cannot speak to what was said behind the scenes in Washington DC as the second version of the Bank Bailout bill was drafted or what a County Commissioner may have said to an Oregon Senator or Congressman, but the language of that section of the TARP does not contain any other limitations. And given the form of the Bank Bailout Bill it is likely that the only question the bill’s authors asked Oregon Senators and Congressmen is what would it take to get their vote, though possibly in a less blunt manner. In short the County Commissioners can lawfully spend or not spend that money as they see fit.

Further, the Secure Rural Schools is not a subsidy, but rather a replacement that Lane and the other O&C Counties get instead of timber payment from the sale of timber harvested from O&C lands. That replacement is the result of changes in Federal Timber policies that have reduced production of timber from O&C land. It is interesting to note that current federal law requires that the O&C lands be managed for sustainable timber production and 75% of the proceeds from the sale of the timber be divided between the O&C counties of which lane is one.

In many ways Lane County’s financial problems can be traced to the decline in O&C revenues. Because of those timber revenues Lane County did not need to impose high property taxes, so when Measure 47/50 established a permanent property tax rate it was $1.275 per thousand assessed value. With the decline of the timber harvest Lane County does not have enough money to provide for all essential services.

Which gets us to the final question, would the addition of 76 jail beds make any detectable difference in criminal activity in Lane County? And is that difference worth cutting other needed social services either now or in the future? Given the reluctance of Lane County Voters to support any public safety levy, I doubt it.

Paul

At this time the amount of cuts the State Legislature may make in other moneys Lane County gets to provide other public services is unknown. Predictions as the severity of those cuts and where they are likely to be made are changing daily. Until the County Budget Committee knows what these cuts will be, the budget needs to contain a large reserve so money is available to back fill those services the Committee believes are essential. Part of the problem the County faces is that it is very likely that they will not know what cuts the State Legislature will make until after 30 June the date the County has to have a balanced budget by. So maintaining a large reserve is the fiscally prudent thing to do at least till the State Budget is passed and signed.

I agree with you that the entire Criminal Justice System in Lane County is criminally underfunded. But since the passage of Measure 50, it has been the voters who have refused to approve ballot measure to provide necessary funding. A county Lane County’s size should have a jail system with a capacity of between 1100 and 1500 beds. Currently it operates around 100 beds or less then 1% of what it should be. I question if increasing that to less then 2% by adding 76 new beds would have an detectable difference in crime rates, particularly if the data is adjusted to reflect an under reporting of minor crimes by residents who know that the police will not respond and the DA will not prosecute if the offender is caught.

Rather then fighting over the funding of 76 beds, what we should be doing is pressuring the Commissioners to put a group of Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention levies on the ballot so the voters can decide if Lane County should have an effective justice system or not.

David,

I can follow your rationale, but I think there's a "wrong turn" at a couple of points.

1. The beneficial impact of adding jail beds is higher at Lane County's (deficient) levels, and becomes less as the levels approach a reasonable amount. That fact tilts the decision towards funding now.

2. Eugene has offered a MILLION DOLLAR match, but conditional on funding the jail beds. The Council will vote on the budget and will likely reject this deal unless the County Commissioners act before the CIty Council has to vote.

3. No credit at all is due to the three commissioners' "fiscal responsibility" until they reverse the $400,000 wastefully spent on admin assistants, the patronage position, "Listening Tours," etc.

I will try to be "well-behaved" and not get into a pissing match about the fact that none of the three commissioners mentioned the State budget at all for the many months they justified not funding the jail beds so they could push the "financial cliff" out one more year. In fact, until the specter of State budget cuts gave them desperately needed political cover, Sorenson and Handy wanted to cut funding even further to attempt to extend the "cliff" for TWO years, not just one.

1. You are absoultely right about the commissioners showing leadership to get public safety revenue measures adopted. Unfortunately, the rhetoric by the three commissioners has been extremely counterproductive. (To me, one of the most telling expreiences was watching Commissioner Handy lecture Peter DeFazio about the importance of social servicese. I could see Peter, rightfully, doing a slow burn at Handy's "Dan Quayle" moment.)

2. Forecasts for the State budget are that State public safety funding is likely to increase and other cuts not be so dire as Sorenson has tried to create the fear of.

3. Regardlesss of the level of State cuts (if any, and within the likely range), the $1.8 million that's needed to open the 84 jail beds isn't a pivotal amount. Recall from my previous post, that the County will carry forward a huge surplus -- even with the 84 beds funded. We are simply not facing a financial crisis for FY 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, no matter what the State does.

4. The true crises we face are: a) A current crime crisis. b) A critical need to secure funding for FY 2012-2013 and beyond. By far, the funding that is most likely and very large is the follow-on to the SRS funding. Wyden and DeFazio are steaming about the three commissioners' thumbing their noses at the way Wyden and DeFazio expended significant credibility and political capital to get SRS renewal, and it is no hypothetical that Sorenson, Handy and Fleenor's political -- I would like to say, "miscalculation," but honestly, "stupidity" is the only appropriate term -- has diminished chances for post-SRS funding.

Look, EVERYONE who knows anything about the situation is saying that the right thing to do is fund the 84 jail beds NOW. And a good portion of those folks are really disturbed by the three commissioners' actions. The amount of good will that these three have lost with our Congressional delegation, our State representatives, circuit and federal judges, public safety officials, treatment providers, and most of all, the public, is beyond calculation.

And, what have they accomplished for themselves, in addition to all the havoc they've caused among the larger community?

If they don't reverse course quickly: -- Fleenor will be beaten in 2010 -- Sorenson has no chance at becoming 4th district congressman. If he's the Dem candidate, we'll have our first Republican in decades. -- And Handy will either be a one-termer; or, more likely, recalled.

I really don't think in my 30+ years in Lane County that I've seen three elected officials cause so much harm to the community and themselves in such a short time, amd based on such stupidity.

AdmiralNaismith: "Sorenson, BTW, was also re-elected in a landslide at the same time, after publicly stating that his priorities did not rank jail funding as high as the conservative commissioners. . . Pete Sorenson, especially, is one of the most popular and intelligent politicians in Lane County. . . " I guess you don't pay attention to Lane County Commissioner meetings. Sorenson introduces bogus resoltions that have had no public notice, no public hearing, no legal review. He literally pulls them out of his suit pocket and then his other 2 cronies vote for them because they had a back room conversation about it ahead of time. He also waits for legal counsel to leave the public meeting and then does stuff like sign a letter of support for something he personally supports, without the full Board voting on it, representing that the full board did vote on it in the letter. On the budget, he literally waited until a few minutes before the end of the meeting, then pulled out a spreadsheet cutting the jail beds and adding 3 assistants and a position for Handy's campaign manager. The public couldn't tell because of his crafty sleight of hand. Yes, pretty smart. I guess if you blindly agree with his agenda then this fascist way of doing business is no problem, right? That's the "progressive" agenda in lane county these days. The only reason he's popular is because his south eugene constitutents are inside the city limits and they like you "admiral" are apathetic about county government and don't have a clue about the shenanigans he's pulling.

I forgot to mention, Sorenson did not win by a "landslide". There were 16,724 "under votes", compared to the 23,658 who did vote for him. There were also over 400 write-in votes for another candidate. So over 42% of the people who did vote did not vote for him, although he ran unopposed.

There is an analysis on who in the community is impacted by this issue. See it at FundtheJail.org

Carla,

You probably don't know that Senator Wyden and Representative Defazio are closely connected with the Association of Oregon Counties on the Secure Rural Schools money.

The AOC has lobbied behind closed doors for years to shut-off funding for SRS in favor of big timber interest.

Only the work of progressives prevented that from happening a few short years back, just so you know. My guess is the Oregon lobby has very little credibility on the SRS issue and the program is history, kapoot, anyway.

I just don't understand the premise of your arguments, it seems to me you actually believe the reason behind the funding was public safety.

I think it had to do with pro-environment public pressure and the big timber interest losing big if they did not step back and rework the game.

But thanks for the thread, it is interesting.

<h2>It’s a good post indeed. According to my point of views, Merkley, Wyden and DeFazio have a loan from their seats to the block of Lane County Democratic votes as much or more than any other CMSA in the state.</h2>