A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Stover E. Harger III / The South County Spotlight
ADVERTISEMENTS
The St. Helens paper mill’s legacy in south Columbia County is already fixed: It’s been in operation for more than 80 years, and during most of that time it has provided stable, family-wage jobs for the community through economic eras both thick and thin.
One year ago, south county residents were grappling with the reality of Boise Inc.’s mass layoff of more than 300 people at the mill, a huge curtailing of its historical pulp and paper production activities that started on Dec. 21, 2008 – just in time for the holidays.
There had been no more significant blow to the county workforce short of the Trojan Nuclear Plant closure in 1993, which shed more than 1,100 jobs out of the local economy and triggered a scramble among county leaders to conjure new job opportunities. Some of those efforts – such as the Port Westward development, which recently saw the collapse of ethanol producer Cascade Grain – are still trying to gain a foothold.
In the case of the St. Helens mill, the layoff occurred as the national and global economies were crashing. The mill is the most immediate local example available to us as measure of how the economy has changed over the past year. It had direct ties to the doomed housing market – its pulp-creating capabilities were dependent on the availability of lumber scraps, principally resulting from housing starts – and had been heavily dependent on white paper production to feed white-collar employees, a stock that has also gone into freefall.
As a business, Boise Inc. took drastic, unsavory steps to remake itself. Company executives consolidated pulp production at its Wallula, Wash., mill, dropping that component from the St. Helens facility. They dramatically reduced white paper production, instead moving in the direction of flexible paper grades, such as those used in fast-food wrappers, that tend to do well regardless of how the broader economy is faring. They have aggressively attacked every aspect of operations at the St. Helens mill, including incorporating fierce energy-saving measures and scaling back machinery and components to more accurately reflect today’s production levels.
Of the one Boise Inc. machine still in operation – paper machine number two – Mill Manager Jim Gosnell says it has been tweaked and tuned to do things some said it was not possible to do. While the St. Helens mill is only one part of a larger strategy, Boise Inc. has reduced, revised and improvised to stay alive, which in this case means posting positive gains for its shareholders.
From a community perspective, it’s hard to grasp the significance of Boise’s “restructuring” beyond the simple fact that 130 workers remain employed at the St. Helens mill in the area of paper production. That’s still a worthwhile figure, though only a shadow of the 700 that existed in decades past. It’s also clear that Boise Inc., while focused intensely on its internal plight, has little energy to spare for the community as a whole. We anticipate that the days of the St. Helens mill manager serving as a key community player have passed their sunset.
But the layoff has, in several senses, served as a wake-up call for community leaders to work together to diversify the economy. An effort is occurring now to construct a new economic development commission that would galvanize all of Columbia County’s civil players to work as a team for economic development. That would be a monumental accomplishment that is far too long in the making, and we applaud the effort.
On other levels, the layoff has propelled some workers to try new skills and seek out new, rewarding careers. While it’s challenging to be thrust into a new workforce against one’s will, many have come through the last year admirably. And, for that matter, so has the community, and it is stronger for it.
"An effort is occurring now to construct a new economic development commission that would galvanize all of Columbia County’s civil players to work as a team for economic development. That would be a monumental accomplishment that is far too long in the making, and we applaud the effort"
At one time, we already had an "economic development commission". Only back then, we called it, "free enterprise".
Aren't you the same guys who thought it was a great idea to turn corn into ethanol?
These "civil players" you mention can show us what they've got by getting a real job for THEMSELVES in the private sector.
Nobody, in the history of civilization was ever "galvanized into action" by any commission.
Tell me something, Do ALL OF YOU GUYS at the Spotlight drive Volvos and sip latte's--or is it just the people in charge of the pen?
One thing that always amazes me is how very successful your paper is in selling advertising to small businesses when you clearly have so little faith in what small businesses can do. You should ask the head of your accounts receivable department his/her opinion of which has been most helpful to YOUR bottom line--small business or "economic development commissions"?
Will there EVER be an advocate of the free enterprise system and what it can do to address our problems writing for this newspaper?
I haven't YET given up hope.
(email verified)
Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 10:02 PM
> Aren't you the same guys who thought it
> was a great idea to turn corn into ethanol?
I'm wondering, Richard: where you against this idea *before* it was implemented?
Or only after?
I suspect the latter. That is, you're just trying to find fault and thus score political points, and not solve any problems.
Corn-to-ethanol was worth a try. The energy problem is a very serious one and we need to try all kinds of things. Some will pan out. Most will not.
Many will reveal their shortfalls only after they are implemented. This is the cost of progress, and always has been.
So perhaps you should exhibit less snark and more help. Because right now you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
David
--
http://trueslant.com/davidappell
(email verified)
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:26 PM
David,
Thank you for having the integrity to sign your name. As you know, many don't.
To answer your question-I'm opposed to all subsidies of any kind from the government to the private sector. No, I don't believe corn based ethanol WAS "worth a try" because it would not have occurred without government interference. Anyone IN government with a different opinion needs to get OUT of government and into the private sector where they belong and show us all how it's done.
"So perhaps you should exhibit less snark and more help. Because right now you're part of the problem and not part of the solution."
I have actually addressed this in another part of this paper. I'll summarize the "help" I can give you.
1)Make as a requirement for commission membership that one either is or has been an employer. Please, no government re-treads or county bureaucrat cronies.
2)Set real goals with a time-line (6 months sounds OK) the penalty for failure would be the same as the penalty in the "real" world--that is "de-commission".
If it don't work--stop doin' it.
I don't anticipate the Spotlight intends to rely upon any "employment commissions" for THEIR OWN "economic development".
Free enterprise has much to offer by way of solutions and I'm saddened and amused that the only champions of free enterprise at the Spotlight work in the phone room of their advertising sales department.
You should be too.
PS.the volvo driving latte sipping really stung ya huh? I stole it from Mark Steyn.
(email verified)
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Richard,
If you're opposed to all subsidies of any kind from the government to the private sector, why aren't you complaining high-and-low about the 10s of billions of dollars a year in subsidies and tax breaks given to the fossil fuel industry? It dwarfs anything given to the ethanol industry.
Corporations aren't interested in energy efficiency, only profits. They are content with exploiting the common good and not paying for their external costs, until government makes them.
And, in any case, what is wrong with subsidizing a nascent industry? Such subsidies & support gave rise to, for example, the Internet, via DARPA. That was a nearly incalculable rate of return. It is not at all clear that the "free market" (which does not exist anyway) would have developed it, or, if it did, it would have been 20 years later.
What about the huge agricultural subsidies given out by our government to large Ag companies?
Govt has a role to play by spurning R&D in areas that are not clearly profitable but which have potential large payoffs. That was the case with ethanol.
> Free enterprise has much to offer by way of solutions
Then why did the free market need bailing out last year to the tune of about $300+B (TARP)?
Of course, all these big rich capitalists didn't fall on their sword in the name of their vaunted free market -- they went running to the government for help and to please, please be bailed out.
"Free markets" have never existed and never will. The purest thing to a free market the world has is Somalia -- and I don't see US corporations working hard to capture *that* market.
(email verified)
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 02:04 PM
David,
I said I was opposed to all subsidies. I meant all.
What's wrong with government subsidy is that the people making the decisions about who gets the subsidies and for how much are totally unqualified to make their decisions as evidenced by the fact that 99% of them show absolutely no eagerness to use THEIR OWN money to do so.
There is also a tendency for the people making those decisions to "subsidize" (read kick back to) industries that may be more "helpful" to their re-election campaign, if ya know what I'm sayin'.
Government has no role to play in making R&D decisions(outside of specialized weapons R&D) and anyone in government who feels qualified to do so is invited to do just that--with THEIR OWN money.
The market needed bailing out because of the housing market bottoming out due to prior government interference in the in the form of CRA (community re-investment act)first introduced by President Carter, then later strengthened by President Clinton. The fact that the Chairman of the House Banking Committee Barney Frank was put in charge of regulating his boyfriend and chairman of Fannie Mae probably didn't help much. President Bush foresaw the problems with "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie MAC" and attempted to introduce reforms in 2003 but those reforms failed to clear the Banking committee. Yes, Republicans also share the blame for the debacle in the House Banking committee.
In any case, since you admit that we don't have a free enterprise system, it's difficult for me to see how our current economic crisis represents a refutation of my central point-that we got into this mess by ignoring free enterprise principles and can get out of it by adopting same.
You are correct that there will always be people-even in big business, all too eager to stick their hands out. It's wrong when they do it too.
Singapore and Hong Kong come much closer to free enterprise than Somalia. They're doing pretty well there.
I'm disappointed that you abandoned the discussion about the county's plan to waste 50,000 tax payer dollars to finance still another level of local government in favor of a boiler plate class envy rant but not particularly surprised.
(email verified)
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Richard:
It is impossible that Singapore or Hong Kong have freer markets than Somalia, since Somalia has no working government whatsoever -- therefore no government regulation whatsoever. What could be freer? And yet a glorious capitalistic revolution is hardly taking place there.
The notion that Hong Kong or Singapore are admirable free market are just absurd, given the drastic human rights abuses of their overlords. Is that honestly the kind of "free market" you want in America?
It's just not clear to me that (1) the US is any kind of "free market," or that (2) a "free market" is desirable. Europeans now live longer than Americans, have better health, work less hours, and aren't under attack by terrorists. They seem as free as Americans (though perhaps Germans can't display a swastika). What exactly are they missing?
--
Ordinary people do not invest their money in R&D because they are overwhelmingly interested in making money from their investment. Government has far larger concerns -- such as seeing that ideas that are not clearly long-term profitable be given a change, especially to solve society's large problems. After all, corporations themselves show no interest in solving these problems.
Government is not a business, and it's misleading to suggest its priorities should be those of one. They are separate entities with separate goals.
Sure, the current economic crisis was caused by President Carter. Talk about Monday-morning quarterbacking! You have a very selective reading of history.
> I'm disappointed that you abandoned the
> discussion about the county's plan to
> waste 50,000 tax payer dollars to finance
> still another level of local government in
> favor of a boiler plate class envy rant but not
> particularly surprised.
I'm sorry, I don't know what this refers to, or have lost track. Can you please point to it again?
Corporations once did much of this, although often with govt assistance. Institutions like AT&T Bell Labs, Bellcore, Xerox PARC, IBM, etc.... once has extremely respectable R&D outlets that often provided cutting edge technologies, like the transistor or the CCD.
But then investors started to insist that these companies focus on the next quarter's results, and as a result they had to dismantle their R&D arms. Who is supposed to take their place?
Most fundamental technological advancements now come out of academia, with the help of federal regulations like the Bayh-Dole Act.
(email verified)
Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 02:30 PM
David, (smile
Why are we talking about Somalia, Hong Kong, Singapore and I guess China?
We've gotten kinda far away from why it's a mistake to spend 50,000 Columbia County tax dollars on an "economic development commission" haven't we?
We could talk about the other stuff but on a local forum here who cares? I'm guessing anyone reading this should be a little more concerned about our fifty grand, if ya know what I'm sayin'.
You again explain that we do not have a "free enterprise" system and since I agreed with you the first time, I can't see why I wouldn't agree with you again.
To that you add that you can't see why we would want a free enterprise system and my response David, is, "that's OK, we'll just keep our free enterprise for ourselves and others who want one and you can keep doing whatever you are doing with others what you and they work out-- how is that??
You then make some assertions about European vs United States standard of living. Now I'm sure you have yourself some links on this issue and are ready to play a numbers game but it would seem to me that what European and US citizens are doing with their feet, is what really tells the story. That sounds right to you doesn't it David? What say we go look up THAT number, OK?
Then you ask me about my description of your previous letter as a "class envy rant". The best I can do for you David, is to urge you to re-read your own letter. You should be able to find what I'm talking about in there.
>Ordinary people do not invest their money in R&D
They do it all the time David. It's called a corporation. Ordinary people, joining together to make a profit solving problems. You need to get out more.
>Talk about Monday-morning quarterbacking! You have a very selective reading of history.
You asked me an historical question. I'm sorry you didn't like my answer.
If you reply to this letter, I hope there is something in there about government spending in Columbia County.
(email verified)
Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 11:33 AM
> what European and US citizens are doing
> with their feet, is what really tells the
> story. That sounds right to you doesn't it
> David? What say we go look up THAT number, OK?
No, I do not think that "tells the story," since people are limited in their possibilities. Middle-eastern people who can afford to move to France or England may not be able to the US. Poorer Mexicans clearly have more access to the US than to Europe.
So of what value is a comparison of immigration between the US and the EU? There are far more factors than one's ultimate wish involved.
> I hope there is something in there
> about government spending in Columbia County.
Frankly, I just don't have much interest in government spending in Columbia County. It's just not that interesting to me. Sorry.
(email verified)
Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:52 PM
David Appell says,
>Frankly, I just don't have much interest in government >spending in Columbia County.
Then perhaps you shouldn't form opinions about things that don't interest you. If you ever become interested in government spending, I would urge you to re-examine your attitudes about government subsidies of businesses.
(email verified)
Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:21 AM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The South County Spotlight
Opinion feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Boise teaches hard lessons
On the other hand, that horrid smell has left St Helens, and people can finally enjoy the fresh air.
"RedJet"
(email verified)
Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 09:42 AM