Pat Owens, mayor who led Grand Forks through historic 1997 flood, dies at 83

posted in: Adventure | 0

GRAND FORKS, N.D. — Former Grand Forks Mayor Patricia “Pat” Owens, who led the community through the historic Red River Flood of 1997, has died.

The face of Grand Forks, N.D. mayor Pat Owens shows the strain of trying to manage her city during the April 1997 flooding. Owens’ resilience became well-known during the crisis. (John Doman / Pioneer Press)

Her daughter, Robin Owens Flurer, announced the news in an email Tuesday afternoon.

“Today, Pat passed away of natural causes at 83 years old,” Flurer said.

Owens is known for her work as mayor of Grand Forks during its greatest crisis, when the waters of the Red River rose past sandbag dikes and devastated a community that had grown used to floods but none that compared to 1997. And as much of the town succumbed to the growing waters, fire broke out in sections of downtown.

The images of the fire, in the wake of the flood, were broadcast on national television. Owens was featured prominently in that coverage, remembers Keith Lund, who is now the director of the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corp., but at the time was a staff member at the Grand Forks Urban Development office

It was a “really stark image” that was presented to the nation, Lund said, and “she really did represent the community well.” He said her ability to connect with important decision-makers on a national level — including then-President Bill Clinton — helped direct resources to the city.

“I recall she was a great ambassador for Grand Forks during a very difficult time,” Lund said. “She had a great relationship with our congressional delegation and state leaders and was coined ‘America’s mayor’ for a period of time while we were going through this horrific event.”

In 2017, the Grand Forks Herald published a retrospective edition that marked the 20-year anniversary of the flood. In it, she noted how she was faced with a difficult decision.

In Grand Forks, N.D., President Bill Clinton toured the flooded area via helicopter on April 22, 1997 and then held a joint press conference with Grand Forks mayor Pat Owens. (John Stennes / Grand Forks Herald / Forum News Service)

“I always remember Howard Swanson, our attorney, and Ken Vein, our city engineer, looking at me and I’m sitting down, and they said, ‘Pat, you have to decide whether to evacuate the city,’ ” Owens recalled in the 2017 Herald interview.

Her response: “Oh, my goodness.”

“I was tired, and my brain went from one side to the other,” Owens said. “I thought, ‘If I make a decision to evacuate and we don’t have a flood, they’ll impeach me.’ But I thought, we have to save lives at all costs, so I signed the form to start evacuating the city.

“I think that was one thing I did that I was really happy I had done because, boy, everything started breaking loose after that.”

Amid the devastation grew a friendship with Clinton. In 2012, the Herald reminisced about that relationship.

Owens remembered that Clinton promised to help the Red River Valley cities rebuild in a speech at Grand Forks Air Force Base, which at the time was serving as a camp for those displaced by the flood. The Herald noted in 2012 that Clinton kept his word through federal Community Development Block Grants, disaster recovery assistance and funding for the flood control project.

Former President Bill Clinton is cheered on by supporters following his speech in downtown Grand Forks on March 17, 2012, at the flood obelisk. Former Grand Forks mayor Pat Owens and other city officials from the flood of 1997 in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks joined Clinton on stage. It was Clinton’s first visit to Grand Forks since the 1997 flood. (Eric Hylden / Grand Forks Herald / Forum News Service)

“He basically looked at the crowd and looked at me and said, ‘I’ll be with you to the end.’ And he kept his promise,” Owens told the Herald at the time.

And then, she said, Clinton kept a door open to local officials at the White House after his visit.

“Almost every time we went to Washington we’d see him,” Owens said.

Clinton came back to Grand Forks years after the flood and spoke at a ceremony at the flood obelisk, a marker near the Sorlie Bridge that notes years of high water — including the record 54-foot mark that occurred in 1997.

Owens was there, too; she took the stage with Clinton.

Related: When hell and high water came: A look back at the 1997 Grand Forks flood

Owens only served one term as mayor — a tumultuous term, after dealing with the flood itself and then directing the recovery, which at times proved controversial. In 2000, she lost a three-way race to Michael Brown, a local doctor who himself served as mayor until 2020 before being unseated by current Mayor Brandon Bochenski.

Bochenski never personally met Owens but he said she reached out via email, noting that she was watching city developments from a distance and that she wished him well.

“I thought it was amazing for her to take the time and reach out to give me well wishes,” Bochenski said. “She didn’t have to do that.”

He, too, noted her status as “America’s mayor” during the flood and commended her for “getting the community through the flood, which was obviously the worst time, at least in recent history, here.”

East Grand Forks Mayor Lynn Stauss, left, and Grand Forks Mayor Pat Owens answer questions from the media after announcing an anonymous donation of $2,000 each to flood-stricken families within their city limits Tuesday. (John Doman / Pioneer Press)

He said he feels she remained “well-loved with staff members.”

Prior to being mayor, Lund recalled that Owens served for years as assistant to the mayor. After her time as mayor ended, Owens moved to Florida.

A pedestrian bridge over the Red River — connecting Grand Forks to East Grand Forks, Minn. — bears Owens’ name.

“In grateful recognition of her extraordinary service as mayor of Grand Forks during and after the Flood of 1997,” reads a nearby sign.

Asked what image he sees of Owens when he recalls her time as mayor, Lund said it is a vision of a person who assumed leadership on the cusp of a historic community crisis.

“The image I see of former Mayor Pat Owens was that she was struggling herself with what the community was going through but stepped up in the moment to represent the community and advocate on our behalf, ultimately putting the city on the path to recovery,” he said.

Related Articles

Local News |


Team of Midwestern women leads home-grown fight against Missing and Murdered Indigenous People crisis

Local News |


UND great Greg Johnson posthumously diagnosed with CTE

Local News |


The plane is ready, the fundraisers are booked: Trump’s VP search comes down to its final days

Local News |


Stephen L. Carter: Debit card fees get a deserved hit from the Supreme Court

Local News |


‘Fox & Friends’ visits West Fargo diner as Gov. Doug Burgum lands on ‘short list’ for Trump’s vice president pick

Thomas Friedman: Netanyahu: A small man in a big time?

posted in: News | 0

When I think about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address on Wednesday to a joint meeting of Congress, the first thing that comes to mind is the famous dictum “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” This is one of those weeks for Israel, America and the Middle East. A decade is teed up to happen — or not.

By pure accident, a set of profound war-or-peace tipping points have intersected this week that Tolstoy could not have made up. In the wake of President Joe Biden’s decision on Sunday to put his country ahead of his personal interests and cede power, Netanyahu — who has consistently put his personal interests ahead of his country’s to hold power — comes to Washington. And he comes facing two intertwined decisions that could provide Biden a huge foreign policy legacy and transform Netanyahu’s own legacy at the same time — or not.

It’s as if the writers of “The West Wing” on NBC decided to collaborate on a script with the writers of “Fauda” on Netflix — and they’re now wrestling over whether to make a series about a new dawn or a new tragedy for America, Israel and the Arab world.

Thanks to the frequent-flyer travels since the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7 of Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA Director Bill Burns and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Netanyahu has two huge decisions sitting on his desk that could both pause the fighting in the Gaza Strip — and Lebanon — and lay the groundwork for a new U.S.-Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran.

We are talking about the most consequential opportunity to reshape the Middle East since the Camp David agreements in the 1970s.

The first: Cease fire, hostage return

The first decision, though, requires Netanyahu to agree — right now — on a phased-cease-fire deal tentatively reached by U.S., Israeli, Qatari, Egyptian and Hamas negotiators that would trigger, in Phase 1, a six-week pause in the fighting in Gaza and the return of 33 Israeli hostages (some dead, some alive), including 11 women, in return for several hundred Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

In June, Netanyahu signaled his support for the basic parameters of this deal but since then has been toying around with certain aspects of it — dialing up and down their security importance to an Israeli public that does not always know the details — to buy himself time before signing off and possibly alienating the far-right extremists in his Cabinet, to whom he has promised a “total victory” over Hamas in Gaza.

Netanyahu has focused on three security issues. One is the movement of Gaza civilians from southern Gaza, where they have taken refuge, to northern Gaza City, where many had their homes. Netanyahu had been seeking some kind of inspection system to prevent armed Hamas members from flowing back to the north, but with tens of thousands of people who will be moving, the Israeli army knows that it will be impossible to prevent a few hundred Hamas fighters from coming back (plenty are there already) and believes it can deal with them later.

The second issue is the control of the border between Gaza and Egypt, where Hamas built tunnels and smuggling routes from which it brought in many weapons. The Israeli army, according to a source, believes it has identified or destroyed most of the tunnels and that Israel and Egypt can ensure no one is passing above ground for now — and they can build a more permanent barrier over time. The last issue is the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza, which Israel says Hamas must never again control and where it insists on some inspection oversight — in partnership with non-Hamas Palestinians and some international party.

As Israeli and U.S. security officials explained to me, none of these issues should be deal breakers — unless Netanyahu wants to inflame one of them to get out of the deal — even though Israel’s top military and intelligence officials all reportedly support it now.

On Monday Haaretz quoted retired Col. Lior Lotan, a hostage expert and a close adviser to Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (who is the only serious adult in Netanyahu’s Cabinet), as telling Israel’s Channel 12 News on Friday: “Now is the money time. There’s a unique opportunity in the negotiations, but such opportunities pass if they aren’t utilized. The terms of the deal include risks that the defense establishment can tolerate. All the heads of the security services say this. To counter them with a hypothetical, as if it were possible to get more through more military pressure, would be wrong.’’

At the same time, Israel’s Mossad chief David Barnea, the country’s top hostage negotiator, reportedly told Netanyahu and his far-right Cabinet “that the female hostages don’t have any time left to wait for a new hostage deal framework.”

Hamas, whatever its lingering reservations, also seems to want a deal now too. It has grown steadily more unpopular in Gaza (the most underreported aspect of this conflict) for having started a war with no plan for the morning after and no protection for Palestinian civilians. It is not clear to me who will try to kill Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar first, if and when he emerges from his hiding place — the Israeli army or Gaza civilians.

Another huge benefit of a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel is that it would be likely to pave the way for a Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire, so tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the Lebanon-Israel border could return home. Given the increased use of precision rockets by both Israel and Hezbollah, U.S. defense officials now believe that the biggest danger to the Middle East is a widening Israel-Hezbollah war.

Second: Relate with Saudi Arabia, isolate Iran

And now for Netanyahu’s second big decision. On a parallel track, the Biden team has worked out virtually all the details for a U.S.-Saudi defense alliance that would also include normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia — provided that Netanyahu would agree to embark on negotiations for a two-state solution. The Saudis are not asking for a hard deadline for a Palestinian state. But they are demanding that Israel agree to start credible, good-faith negotiations with the explicit goal of a two-state solution, with mutual security guarantees.

Such a negotiation, in tandem with a cease-fire on the Gaza and Lebanon fronts, would be a diplomatic coup. It would isolate Iran and Hamas. It would normalize relations between the Jewish state and the birthplace of Islam. It would give Israel the cover to enlist Palestinian and Arab support for peacekeeping troops in Gaza. And it would give Israel the cement for a more formal regional defense alliance with Arab partners against Iran.

Finally, and most important, it could create a long-term pathway for a Palestinian state once the fighting in Gaza is over and everyone on all sides grasps what I believe is the most important lesson of this war: none of the parties can afford another one — not when everyone is getting precision weapons.

As David Makovsky, director of the Washington Institute’s Project on Arab-Israel Relations, put it to me: “With two decisions — yes on a hostages-for-cease-fire deal now and yes on the Saudi normalization terms that would end the Sunni Arab states’ war with Israel and consolidate a regional alliance to isolate Iran — Netanyahu would create a win for Israel and for his partner President Biden.

Will Netanyahu rise to the moment?

“The Abraham Accords would be succeeded by the ‘Joseph Accords.’ Two legacies for two leaders: Biden and Bibi. It would be a bitter and tragic irony if Netanyahu — whose self-image is one of a strategic thinker — would miss this moment due to Israeli domestic politics and fear of his far-right coalition partners.”

Indeed, we are going to find out very soon whether Netanyahu can live up to his grand Churchillian self-image or is, as writer Leon Wieseltier once observed, just “a small man in a big time.”

Up to now Netanyahu has been clinging to power to avoid being thrown in jail should he be found guilty in any of his ongoing trials — for breach of trust, accepting bribes and fraud. As such, he has been unwilling to do anything daring on peace with the Palestinians without permission from the crazy far-right members of his Cabinet, who are demanding the “total victory” over Hamas that Netanyahu himself promised. But with the Israeli Knesset about to adjourn from July 28 until Oct. 27, Netanyahu could agree to both the Gaza and Saudi deals without fear of his government being toppled, because that is virtually impossible to do when the Knesset is out of session.

So, the world waits, the hostages wait, Biden waits, the Palestinians wait, the Saudis wait, the Israelis wait. Will Bibi, once again, be just a small man in a big time or surprise everyone and be a big man in a big time?

Thomas Friedman writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Bruce Yandle: Biden’s effort to bring housing relief with price controls: Easy to conceive, hard to deliver

Opinion |


Greg Meyer: Too often, police shootings show the perils of ‘de-escalation’

Opinion |


F.D. Flam: Guns maybe aren’t as good for self-defense as America thinks

Opinion |


Other voices: Hiding medical debt won’t make it go away

Opinion |


Nir Kaissar: Vance’s rise debunks myth of trickle-down economics

Bruce Yandle: Biden’s effort to bring housing relief with price controls: Easy to conceive, hard to deliver

posted in: Politics | 0

Calling for price controls to bring down inflation is like having a baby — easy to conceive but hard to deliver.

In an ironic but understandable turn of events, given that it is “crazy season” when desperate politicians try almost anything to get elected, Joe Biden has announced a White House effort to impose IRS-administered controls on rents charged by landlords in major markets across the United States.

Let’s face it, the idea of just outlawing price increases to limit inflation has superficial appeal. But the Biden proposal should be dismissed for what it is, a clumsy election year attempt to attract some more votes by appearing to quench inflationary fires that Biden himself ignited.

The Biden proposal intends to limit rent increases to no more that 5% per year and applies to landlords nationwide with 50 or more rental units in their portfolios. One can expect to see lots of portfolios with 49 properties. Those who fail to comply will lose valuable income-tax depreciation write-offs. But, of course, the mischief comes in managing the price-control nightmare that follows.

During the failed Nixon/Ford/Carter wage-price control efforts of 1974-1978, I was a senior economist on the staff of the President’s Council on Wage & Price Stability. There were hundreds of analysts involved in managing the controls. Of course, an escape mechanism had to be provided for situations where economic shocks would raise costs that somehow had to be covered. Aggrieved parties could appeal to the secretary of treasury.

A much-discussed appeal involved Girl Scouts of America who faced rising costs for their cookies. They won. But did it make sense to have the U.S. Treasury Secretary dealing with Girl Scout cookie prices, or now, to have the President of the United States telling landlords how to price their services?

There is no doubt about it. Rising housing prices are a real issue. As noted in the Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent June 2024 Consumer Price Index report: “The index for all items less food and energy rose 3.4 percent over the past 12 months. The shelter index increased 5.4% over the last year, accounting for over two-thirds of the total 12-month increase in the all items less food and energy index.”

Interestingly, though, just a few days prior to Biden’s rent-relief announcement, Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen in congressional testimony never mentioned greedy landlords but indicated that rising housing costs are the result of efforts by the Federal Reserve (Fed) to reduce inflation by way of higher interest rates. After all, the Fed tightens, mortgage rates rise, and housing becomes more expensive.

Yellen stated: “Elevated prices and the high interest rates designed to fight them have made housing prices rise over the past few months.” She had earlier announced administrative changes designed to facilitate improved access to housing finance.

It can be argued strongly that the inflation spiral that delivered higher priced housing resulted from Biden’s 2021 decision to send $1.9 trillion of newly printed dollars to U.S. citizens to ease their unhappy COVID encounters. Very quickly, the new dollars started chasing a limited supply of goods and services. Inflation increased, and the Fed responded.

Calling for price controls to remedy the situation will likely bring less housing and more mischief than improved wellbeing.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, dean emeritus of the Clemson University College of Business & Behavioral Science, and a former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission. He wrote this column for Tribune News Service.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Greg Meyer: Too often, police shootings show the perils of ‘de-escalation’

Opinion |


F.D. Flam: Guns maybe aren’t as good for self-defense as America thinks

Opinion |


Other voices: Hiding medical debt won’t make it go away

Opinion |


Nir Kaissar: Vance’s rise debunks myth of trickle-down economics

Opinion |


David French: Works of fiction from the Republican convention

Greg Meyer: Too often, police shootings show the perils of ‘de-escalation’

posted in: Society | 0

Recent reporting has highlighted the prevalence of shootings by police of people wielding knives and other edged weapons. These cases, often involving individuals in crisis, show two deadly problems: There are limits to what “de-escalation” can accomplish. And officers too often hesitate to use nonlethal force, allowing standoffs to spiral out of control.

Across the country in recent years, officers often seem reluctant to use legitimate force to end a standoff incident when verbal attempts fail to inspire the subject to give up. This hesitation to use even nonlethal weapons — in situations that clearly call for them — often leads to a police shooting, because at some point as de-escalation efforts drag on fruitlessly, suspects may suddenly attack.

People outside law enforcement sometimes have the impression that if only officers would consistently try to de-escalate standoffs with disturbed individuals, shootings could always be avoided — as though de-escalation were a miracle cure. But there is no miracle cure.

To be sure, de-escalation is a crucial tool for police officers. It is one of the first things I learned as a rookie cop in 1976: Talk instead of fight, if the situation allows the choice. The hope in engaging the resisting subject in effective communications is to lower the intensity of the incident and persuade him or her to submit. It works when it works (which is the norm), and it doesn’t work when it doesn’t. This is where the deadly mistake often lies: recognizing that de-escalation is not working, but being reluctant to use nonlethal force because of fear of the administrative, legal and media aftermath.

One sees the pattern when police are in a standoff with someone who is armed with a knife. The norm would be for officers to keep their distance, to talk to the individual and listen, to keep communication going as an effort to resolve the situation peacefully. Instead, with the best of intentions, officers “talk the person to death.” When police fail to recognize that talk isn’t working, then officers decline to use nonlethal means such as Tasers to subdue an armed individual, the result often goes the other way: The individual grows more agitated the longer the standoff drags on and charges with the knife at officers or bystanders. This is when shootings occur.

If only officers had abandoned de-escalation on their own terms instead of waiting for the suspect to end it by attacking. If only the officers had used a Taser or other nonlethal option and saved a life — not to mention avoided an expensive shooting investigation and litigation — instead of “talking the person to death.”

As a longtime consultant on police use of force, I believe that officers should use talk in most situations but must assess each case on its own merits for how long they will talk without acting. It seems likely to me that officers have become gun shy because so many colleagues have faced backlash after shootings, but no one’s interest is served by extending this attitude to nonlethal force. Don’t let an overemphasis on de-escalation put civilians’ and officers’ lives at risk. Don’t hesitate to use tools such as Tasers and other force options when appropriate. Fewer and less severe injuries from nonlethal weapons are preferable to avoidable shootings.

A hope that all police standoffs could end with talk is unrealistic. But can most end with talk or nonlethal means? Absolutely — and in fact most standoffs already do. The exceptions that become shootings are the cases that make the headlines. We can make those exceptions more rare with better policy and training and a cultural shift that encourages use of nonlethal weapons at the right moments.

The public and the media have a role to play. Just as public pressure and equipping officers with a variety of nonlethal weapons have contributed to reducing the frequency of police shootings compared with decades ago, public support can make a difference for officers and departments that use lower levels of force — before a standoff situation becomes a shooting.

Greg Meyer, an expert on police use of force, is a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain who conducted the department’s nonlethal weapons research, testing and training in 1979-80. He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Bruce Yandle: Biden’s effort to bring housing relief with price controls: Easy to conceive, hard to deliver

Opinion |


F.D. Flam: Guns maybe aren’t as good for self-defense as America thinks

Opinion |


Other voices: Hiding medical debt won’t make it go away

Opinion |


Nir Kaissar: Vance’s rise debunks myth of trickle-down economics

Opinion |


David French: Works of fiction from the Republican convention