Letters

I am writing to ask that you oppose the effort from out-of-state energy speculators to build Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import terminals on the Columbia River and Coos Bay. The goal of these projects is to ship gas to California, which has refused to allow the high risk LNG tankers even 14 miles offshore because of the serious environmental and safety risks of LNG. Because of these hazards and the serious threats to local economies, LNG import terminals have received bipartisan opposition across the United States.

Oregon should not be used as a backdoor for sending gas to California and I urge you to direct state agencies to forcefully implement Oregon environmental law by denying the water and air pollution permits these projects need to move forward.

The LNG ports proposed in the Columbia River Estuary would include high impact dredging in critical salmon rearing and migration habitat, industrialize areas that are key for salmon recovery in the Columbia, and require new construction of extensive gas pipelines extending from the Estuary all the way to Madras, Oregon. At an exorbitant cost, the coast guard typically shuts down traffic to bring LNG tankers into and out of port. Communities around the Columbia Estuary, such as Astoria, would sit right within the high-risk blast zone of LNG tankers and force residents to live under a constant cloud of fear and uncertainty for their safety.

Similarly, the proposedCoos Bay LNG project would put the unique salmon and wildlife habitats and the people of Coos County at serious risk. The pipeline from the project would extend directly into California and create a 23 1-mile long clearcut that is 100-feet wide across hundreds of streams and wetlands.

At a time when Oregon is already feeling the effects of global warming and working to increase our energy independence, it
does not make sense for Oregon to support construction of facilities to import large quantities of foreign fossil fuels.

Elected leaders from across the United States have stood up for their states in the fight against new LNG ports, and we believe the serious public safety, environmental and economic impact on local communities makes it very important that you do the same.

Thank you for considering this request.
--------- your name here and unequivocal right as an Oregonian.

(P.S. I’ve copied this letter to my U.S. Representative and Senator, as well as the Directors of state agencies. To write this letter to the governor and all our elected officials in one easy step, go to Onward Oregon.)

Q/A

Clatsop Community College President Greg Hamann

Campus Replacement Project

by Dinah Urell

This week on hipfishmonthly.com CCC President Greg Hamann participates in a HIPFiSH Q/A interview short. Clatsop County spring election ballots have reached most mailboxes by now.  The big ticket item; the Campus Replacement Project and Measure 4-122, that if passed will support a $22 Million bond to help fund the campus project to be located in the city of Warrenton.

In two previous elections, campus bond measures were rejected by voters; in 2002 to refurbish the current Jerome St. Campus, and last year’s Astoria downtown campus location. The Astoria location was highly favored by a faction of voters supporting a campus located adjacent to Columbia Memorial Hospital, enhancing CCC’s medical curriculum and in general the value of and benefits an urban campus offers. 

However, in a survey conducted by CCC after voters turned down the last bond measure, results of the study indicated that the main reason the bond measure failed had to do with location, even more than cost. And the study information showed there was enough consensus to unite a majority of the county to support a Warrenton location bond.

Respondents were less supportive of a smaller $10 Million bond measure that would help to refurbish the existing Jerome campus. In the interim, a group of area residents formed the Clatsop College Information Group (CCIG). Taking a conservation stance, CCIG supports renovation of the current campus, citing estimated renovation costs at $11 Million. This includes the renovation of the two main buildings, Towler and Patriot Halls. While CCC President Gregory Hamann and college officials agree, that these buildings could be renovated, the Campus Replacement Project is a long range plan designed to serve the growing needs of Oregon students in the county. The campus project mission encompasses much more than “plumbing and mechanical.”  Strikingly apparent, The Campus Replacement Project and the CCIG have very different goals.

Professional engineering studies conducted by CCC have shown that rehabilitation of the present campus isn’t cost effective, nor can it meet the needs of expansion. The new campus makes room for a 40% increase in enrollment. An additional 50,000 square feet will be utilized to include parking, student life space, double the science labs, and classrooms with up-to-date technology, a sports facility, a playing field, solar efficient buildings, to name a few of the significant improvement features.

Providing quality education, retaining qualified faculty and staff and meeting accreditation standards are continuing CCC priorities. Paul Gillum CCC Board member said, “a new campus would ensure CCC continues to meet those standards.”

Clatsop Community College is one of the counties top resources, economically and as an educational entity that can and should be better positioned to play a strong part in developing vocational career opportunity in the region.  The college spends approximately $7 million in Clatsop County every year; in addition the county experiences approximately $92 million in increased economic activity due to the accumulated impact of CCC.

With urban growth coming to the region - Home Depot, the relocation of Costco, and a 144-acre affordable housing subdivision, all adjacent to the new campus location - Clatsop Community College will serve as a strong anchor to this development expansion. It’s time as voters that we take stock of our resource Clatsop Community College, to consider what are the economic and educational needs of the county, and what will be the best investment of our tax dollars. The health and welfare of Clatsop County and the role Clatsop Community College plays in its future should not be an opportunity forgone.

Following, President Greg Hamann answers a selection of questions presented in the CCC Bond Measure article (pg. 11), in this month’s issue of HIPFiSH (also available on this site).

INTERVIEW

HIPFiSH: What is the one message to “the divide” of Clatsop County voters on the college bond measure?

GREG HAMANN: We need a new campus.  Whether we address this need by making due with what we have had in the past and with whatever resources we currently have in hand, OR we gather our collaborative energies and resources in order to make a lasting investment in facilities that can serve us and our students well into the future is the question we are all faced with.  The College's Board and I, their President, believe that our collaborative investment in the future is the better choice.

HF: With the bond measure passing, CCC plans to sell the Jerome St. Campus, which will provide 9% of the $60 million in costs on the Campus Replacement Project.   Framed atop Astoria’s hill, the Jerome St. Campus has served as a geographical “sense of place” since the early 1900s. The loss of the property and its role as a cultural/educational “place” to the private sector is a significant issue with many local residents. What are the considerations to the usage of this property and how it will be developed, and is there consideration of establishing an adjoining community public process in the redevelopment?

GH: There are a variety of ways in which responsible redevelopment of the current Jerome Ave campus can be assured.  First, the College’s Board, as elected members and representatives of our community, are committed to responsible use of this public asset. Second, the City of Astoria exercises considerable control over the development of this property through zoning regulations and permit issuance.  It is also possible that the College and community might collaborate on the development of an RFP (request for proposals) that further defines the uses to which the current campus could be put.

HF: As State funding for community colleges faces imminent budget cuts by Oregon’s legislature, could these cuts affect issuance of the college bond’s State matching funds?

GH: I think it is premature to think that the community colleges and other higher education institutions in the State face imminent cuts.  It is true that some of the budget numbers being discussed in the legislature contain lower levels of support for the community colleges than we are requesting, but the legislature is far from reaching consensus on this matter and there are many in the House and Senate who support greater support for all the community colleges, including Clatsop.

It is important to note that all 17 community colleges, the State Board of Education, the Governor, the Majority Leader in the House (Rep. David Hunt) and almost every education capital construction funding bill currently being considered by the legislature includes Clatsop Community College at the #1 community college project.

HF: If the bond measure doesn’t pass, what will be the next step for Clatsop Community College? Is there a timeline on matching bond monies? Is there a timeline on current cited campus deficiencies by the Northwest Commission for Colleges and Universities?  How due these issues play out for CCC?

GH: While it is the Board’s decision to make, I believe that failure to pass the current bond ballot measure would leave us with few options other than to use whatever resources we already have to try and address facilities deficiencies on the current campus on a priority basis.

HF: Can the State matching money already distributed to the college be used for the Jerome St. campus renovation if the new campus plan could not be implemented?

GH: We have done some research and, while renovation was not their intended purpose, we believe it would be possible to use these for some renovation of the current campus.

HF: With almost 40,000 more square feet of usable space in the new campus plan, the Campus Replacement Project cites it is enough to support a 40% enrollment in the coming decades. Can the college draw from a student base outside the immediate county area, transforming it to a regional college?

GH: Much of the additional space is what we call “student space” – space that provides students with opportunities for not just classroom experiences but also study, social, and recreational experiences that combine to make a full “College experience.”  Better facilities will make our programs more attractive to students both within our county and elsewhere, and more students will provide us with both the impetus and the resources for expansion of the programs we offer.

HF: While the future vocational mission of CCC is to strengthen the regions workforce, is there a vision for regaining and building a Performing Arts program including music and theater; on a level that would serve a university electives program as well as secondary community education, as the college will retain the performing arts center facility.

GH: It is our goal that our educational programs develop, grow, and sometimes grow smaller, in direct response to community interest and need.  Performing Arts programs and instruction are no exception to this.  New facilities will significantly contribute to our ability to be responsive to today’s and tomorrow’s community interests and needs.

HF: In addition, there is general community interest in the development of an Environmental Science curriculum, with a focus in oceanography, estuary preservation and fishing conservation.  Is this a possible direction for CCC and could the MERTS campus play a role in this direction?

GH: Clatsop is already looking at possibilities in the area of Environmental Sciences, with special emphasis on oceanographic research and hands-on maritime skills.  Again, the development of this program will depend on business demand (i.e. employment opportunity) and community interest and need (i.e. student enrollment).

PORT COMMISSIONER SPEAKS OUT

I read your article about the Port vote on the transfer of the Skipanon Property from Calpine to Leucadia. There were some problems with your article. The one that stands out the most was how it said that the Port Commissioners had a choice to either transfer the lease, or bring the whole nightmare of LNG on the Lower Columbia to an end. Well, it really didn't go down that way. Truth is, the Port and Clatsop County taxpayers would have been saddled with a guaranteed $25,000.00 bill for the lawyers to contest the transfer, and then another $25,000.00, and probably more. And then if a lawsuit would have been brought by Leucadia, we would have had to go to court, with very little chance of stopping the transfer, according to a lawyer we hired to give us commissioners advice.

It was this information that decided the matter for the Port Commissioners. Whether LNG was right for the Lower Columbia or not, was not a factor in this vote. Your article made it out that we could of stopped it then and there. I, and I know the other Commissioners, feel your article was way off base.

Bernie Bjork
Port of Astoria Commissioner