 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
New
Growth Money Ever wonder why the pro-growth/pro-sprawl forces always seem so influential at the city and county level? Part of the answer can be found in a rare glimpse into who funds local political campaigns, provided by The Register-Guard newspaper in a recent article titled "Old Growth Money" (12/21/03). Some analysis of the reported data shows that there is a second story that could be headlined: New Growth Money. The newspaper's report compiled all campaign contributions in Lane County, Ore. over the past five years and grouped them according to business affiliation. The newspaper took advantage of Oregon's campaign finance reporting laws requiring that the business affiliation of every contributor of more than $50 be reported. The affiliations of smaller contributions could not be identified and were therefore not included in the totals. The newspaper found that the "Forestry Related" category was the area's largest political funding influence, at 22 percent of the total. This was hardly surprising, since timber has always played a big role in the local economy. The real story, however, is revealed by combining all the land development businesses into a single category. This new "Land Development Industry" category includes those businesses that profit directly from new construction and land development, such as construction, gravel, heavy equipment, financing and real estate. As shown in the graph below, the Land Development Industry represents by far the largest political interest group — the source of 42 percent of all identifiable local campaign funding. The primary economic interests shared by this group are regional growth and unfettered land development.
In order to get the complete picture, the interests of the Forestry Related category must also be considered. This group includes many business owners who, in addition to selling lumber to construction markets, are also land developers and real estate investors. Therefore, a large portion of the spending in this category should actually be included under the "Land Development" category. While a precise total is not possible, a rough estimate is that half, or more, of all local political campaign funding is on behalf of land development interests. Campaign spending doesn't guarantee outcomes, but it certainly influences the results. This is especially the case when "pro-business" candidates can raise record amounts for their campaigns and outspend opponents five-to-one. With so much clout, the land development industry can virtually ensure that a majority of local politicians are "growth friendly." Typically these elected officials favor expediting and streamlining land development. They tend to support government subsidies and investments that stimulate growth, but think that government taxes and land use regulations are excessive and overly burdensome. No other single-interest group comes close to this degree of dominance in local politics. And the situation is certainly not unique to Lane County. Cities and counties across the country are under the thumb of the land developers and their coalition of growth profiteers. This campaign financing data illustrates what I have come to believe: The land development industry is the most powerful political force in America today, at the local level. This "behind-the-scenes" view of local campaign financing helps explain why citizens have to work so hard to achieve any reforms for responsible land use, growth management and environmental protection. It also shows why local campaign finance reforms are needed to restore true balance and democracy to the public policy process. Petition #53 is now circulating to gather signatures for limiting campaign donations ($100 for local candidates). To learn more about this important effort, see the Money is Not Democracy website (www.fairelections.net). Eben Fodor is a community planning consultant based in Eugene and author of the book, Better, Not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community (New Society Publishers, 2001).
The
L Word Unabashed women who love women have finally crashed the dominant culture's private party.The L Word is here. Hot throbbing dykes to watch out for have come out of the underground comics and onto the screen. Since Goddess Ellen first outed a lesbian character to TV-viewing America, we haven't seen much dyke life on the tube. We see gays, but they're all guys. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy slipped in (excuse the expression) because it makes straight guys more appealing to straight women. Will and Grace, after all, are a man and a woman. Even homoerotic Queer As Folk are mostly menfolk. The L Word is about lesbians — a whole, tight-knit community totally enmeshed in each other's lives, loves, and fashion choices. The women are implausibly well-off and urbane with more lesbian chic than any lesbians I know. The L Word is cheesy, predictable, and histrionic just like a soap opera should be. Lesbians have been so starved for a reflection of ourselves in the media, we don't even mind that these TV lesbians are played by non-lesbian actors, except for the one true lesbian who, ironically, plays a bisexual — she's kd lang's real-life ex, which only a few lesbians and very astute gay men even know (or care). Xenophobes (folks afraid of difference), and of Xena herself should be afraid of The L Word. Very afraid. The L Word lesbians definitely threaten the sanctity of sanctimony. None of the characters have booked flights to Massachusetts to get legally married … yet. But in one plot line the main couple needs some sperm and a man to supply it in a cup. These days, lesbian mom wannabes can buy the stuff from a cryobank. But The L Word lesbians do it the old fashioned way — get a guy-friend to donate sperm, then zip it across town at body temperature to the hopeful mother-to-be. In my hometown lesbian community — about nine months before the first big dyke baby boom — you could hardly encounter a lesbian armpit that wasn't warming a vial of fresh semen. I ran sperm for my friends Faith and Darlene. The donor was a good candidate — HIV negative and willing to butt out after making his contribution. He completed the anonymous questionnaire: height, hair and eye color, musical proclivities. Other than a few details, the moms wouldn't know who he was and vice versa. I was the go between. Darlene's temp had spiked that morning — an event we had come to call a standing ovulation — and she and Faith hit the freeway. As soon as my friends got to town they checked into the designated fourth floor hotel room, while the donor entertained himself two floors below. By 8 pm I was riding in the floral-carpeted hotel elevator with two billion spermatazoa. I tapped our secret code on the Room 406 door. Faith unlatched the lock and greeted me with a hug — long enough to convey affection, yet brief enough to sustain the motility of my little companions in a jar. Darlene was all set, and we hoped her egg was in the mood, too. Faith did the honors (one fateful squeeze of the turkey baster) while I chanted impromptu prayers and blessings along the lines of Go! Go! Go! The three of us hung out on the bed for an hour, time for even the slowest pollywogs to make it upstream. Darlene rested on her back with her legs propped against the wall, hoping one of the little buggers had the wherewithal to knock her up. Tina assumed the same position in the insemination episode of The L Word. In the televised couple's private moment, just like ours 15 years ago, a merry band of lesbian friends sits on the bed together, making a baby. Maybe next year we'll get a moment like that during the Super Bowl halftime show. For all the dirt on The L Word, go to www.sho.com/site/lword/home.do
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
