I do not disagree with the Source assessment that my campaign can be called, "campaign light" or that next time I will need to raise money to be able to better get my message out to Congressional District ("CD") 2 voters. However, I do not feel that my campaign has lacked effort. Rather, I would say I have not run a traditional campaign.
Before I got in to this race I looked at the past races against Mr. Walden and I saw he has always received between 61.5-74 percent of the vote. I also looked at how much money he had on hand (it was about $1,500,000 with no debts). So, I decided that unless I could raise at least $3,000,000 I really had very little chance against him in a "traditional" campaign. To me a "traditional" campaign is one where lots of money is raised (except in Bernie's campaign) from special interests and the rich with the goals of generating name recognition, negative ads and speaking only in broad general platitudes which initially sound good but really mean nothing (e.g. "I want to cut government waste" but they do not identify specific cuts). Instead I decided I would run, not a "traditional" campaign but one of issues and solutions.
The reason I chose not to accept money from anyone this time around is because I do not like waste of any kind so, I really did not want to take someone's hard earned money and then waste it on a traditional campaign where my chances of winning were so small. So, I instead opted to spend my own money and to go to as many places in CD 2 as I could; introduce myself and make contacts for the next time. I have to say I have learned an incredible amount and have met lots of wonderful people throughout CD 2. When I run again in 2018, I will raise money from the people in CD 2 (but no special interests or people outside of CD 2) but I will spend it as effectively and efficiently as possible. So, I respectfully disagree with the "F" for effort.
As far as attacking Mr. Walden's voting record in order to sway many voters in this district. I again, for the most part, have taken a different path (I have criticized him for not supporting the Klamath Basin Water Agreement last November). That different path being, laying out the issues that are important to me and how I would propose to solve them. I really do not think that who might be in the stall next to me in a public bathroom is the most pressing issue for our Country. I wanted to instead talk about Campaign Finance reform, climate change, income inequality, fixing Social Security and the other issues on my website and, in that, I think I have succeeded.
Again thank you for your endorsement and I hope I will be able to earn it again in 2018.
My husband and I have lived and worked in Bend since 1995. We feel betrayed by the city we love.
In 2000, we purchased a house at 241 SE Airpark Dr. in Bend. We were aware we were onseptic and had a metal septic tank. We were also aware that the city of Bend had recently installed a sewer line down the private airstrip behind our house with the intent for residentsalong the airstrip to eventually hook up to sewer. We figured we would hook up to that line ifand when our system failed. Our system never failed, we never had a problem with our septic tank or drainfield.
In April, 2016, we put our house on the market. We could sell our house at a good profit and not be required to pay Capital Gains due to our ages. We were blindsided when we were made aware of Oregon's "300 Foot Rule." Since we purchased our home, Hollow Pines subdivision had been built and had brought in a sewer line to within 300 feet of our property line. The city no longer allowed us to hook up to the line in the airstrip since it was a pressurized line. We were never informed of this change in thought by the city. We were required to hook up to the line in the street...200-ft. and uphill from our home. Since we were downhill from the sewer, we had to purchase a pump and tank. We had to pay nearly $10,000 to the city for permits, including a System Development Fee of $4745.47!
We were required to tear up our deck to trench from our backyard to the street. We were required to dig a seven-foot deep-hole for the sump and pump. This procedure took twice as long as expected. We received a rough permit on the sewer line, filled the trench and then were informed a code had changed and we needed to dig the trench again to install a vent line. We also were told we didn't need to repave the entire with of the road since it wasn't in very good condition, then after the project was completed, the city changed their mind and required the paving at an additional cost of $3,000.
It is obvious that the city of Bend has no plan developed for people caught in similar situations. We were not told complete details about how to proceed. We were not told of a reimbursement district program offered by the city until we accidently heard about it and asked. The purpose of this program is so that others in the neighborhood would not benefit from our expense. We were told there was a program, but the process needed to be started before construction began...There is no plan in place to help citizens pay for the required installation. For some this would be a tremendous financial burden making it impossible for them to sell their homes. This was not a terrible burden for us, but certainly not how we planned to spend $60,000 from the sale of our home. That is correct—$60,000!
—Pamela and Joseph Moritz
Pamela and Joseph: That's rough. Thanks for bringing it to the attention of our readers. Come on down to grab your gift card to Palate! And Jim–thanks for writing in. We support you–we just would have liked to see you be able to spread your message further by using some elements of traditional campaigning. A simple radio or newspaper ad highlighting the contrast between candidates, maybe?