Letters, letters, letters

* * *

To the Editor:

Betty was right! The late Betty Marquardt was well informed, articulate, studied issues carefully, and knew the laws of land use planning.

Time after time in public hearings and in letters she brought up points of law on what could and could not be done. These were pointed out to the city council, to the planning commission, to Deschutes County, to the Sisters Planning Department, and just as often ignored or swept aside.

One of her favorite sayings was, "Hey, I didn't write the laws. I am pointing them out to you, and if you don't like them, you should change them."

A woman of conviction, I think she would be smiling today over the headline in last week's newspaper: "County hammers Sisters comprehensive plan."

Betty did not brush aside points of discussion by saying that "...a lot of their concerns are misunderstandings." She did not rely on her "philosophy" or "interpretation" to justify decisions; she stuck to the law and the rules as they exist and asked only that others do the same.

It is not too much for the citizens of Sisters to expect that our comprehensive plan be plain speaking, easy to understand, accompanied by valid statistics, and reflect broad input.

As you may know, many of the objections of the Deschutes County Development Department were brought up time and time again in public hearings and brushed aside or ignored. Betty was too much of a lady to do it, but she could well be saying, "I told you so."

Sincerely,

Shirley Petrie

* * *

To the Editor:

It was no big surprise to see The Nugget headline, "County hammers Sisters comprehensive plan." The county is now telling City Planning Director Neil Thompson what local residents have been saying for two years.

In the 11page letter, the county criticized every section of the plan but were most critical of the data in the technical appendix. These concerns are identical to those raised by citizens during the public hearing process. Unfortunately no one listened.

Let's keep the original 1979 Plan (with a few amendments) and junk the worthless rewrite - it's beyond repair!

Howard Paine

* * *

To the Editor:

The chickens have come home to roost. We have tried for the last couple of years to get the planning commission and city council to avoid all the errors in the new comp plan.

But since it was shaped by local developers and since the city council, the planning commission, and the planning director were largely rubber stamping developer proposals instead of following land use law, we now have a very bad comp plan.

Citizens were tired of being ignored and changed the city council in the November 1996 election. The planning commission is still part of the problem, ignoring its responsibilities in quasi-judicial land use decisions.

If the planning director and the planning commission continue as they have been, endless conflict and large bills paid by the City of Sisters to defend themselves in LUBA are likely to occur.

A totally new plan was not even needed. It was used largely to accommodate developer proposals, which is not what responsible land planning should be. It is so full of holes it may be unsalvageable.

There are new openings on the planning commission and training sessions are being planned. This is good time for new people to help create a responsible commission.

William Boyer

Chairman, Alliance for Responsible Land Use, Deschutes County

* * *

To the Editor:

Sisters is very fortunate to have had the county review our comprehensive plan at this time as the county found mistakes that could have been disastrous in the future.

We now have the opportunity to write an excellent plan which will use correct figures and data so that it will work well for us.

Citizen input is a must while we write this plan, and we expect city government to listen this time and take appropriate action.

Virginia Groom

* * *

To the Editor:

(This letter was also addressed to the Sisters Ranger District.)

This letter is in regard to the article in The Nugget dated June 25 ("Metolius residents fight fire danger"). As a home owner and a 28-year resident of Camp Sherman I am opposing your plans as listed in the article.

Your use of catastrophic fire to raise the fear in people is not fair. The reason the people have moved to this area is because of the forest setting.

The area you are referring to is 20 acres boundary Metolius Meadows. That is also bordering my property. How deep does this go to the south and how far east and west?

Most of this land is like a park now as the Forest Service has logged this several times over the years, The underbrush that you are referring to is food for the deer. The fish and game says that they have to sell doe tags because of lack of food in the area. So why get rid of any more of the deer food. The dead trees are the nesting trees for the birds and bugs.

If you are concerned with crown fires, they will jump from one-half to three quaters of a mile. Does that moan that we have to remove all trees for a mile away from these homes? If you are so concerned about crown fires why did you remove the bunkhouse at Allingham guard station?

Why do you late-comers all ways have to change the forest and rivers to what is was like where you came from? Some of us like to have the deer in our yards and in the forest around us.

The wild flowers and fauna are just starting to return after your logging. If you persist in this proposal, I request an Environmental Impact Study to be made for this endangers plant and life species of this area.

Lawrence W. Loar, Sr.

* * *

To the Editor:

It has come to my attention that the Deschutes National Forest and the other western forests in Oregon and Washington have decided to charge a user fee to the public to use our forest.

If I am not mistaken, the federal taxes we pay out of every day we work are supposed to pay for all federal programs. Is this not a form of government waste? So now we are paying twice to use something that is ours by law in the first place. I do not think just because the Forest Service is mismanaged and/or because of the loss of timber sales in the Northwest that the people should have to pay.

If the Forest Service is trying to upgrade and maintain the trails and trail heads (parking areas), should they not ask the people first since it is our land? Did the Forest Service even bother to ask the community in these areas to help? There are many local groups (i.e. Boy/Girl Scouts, 4H, boys/girls clubs, church groups, work programs with local law enforcement just to name a few) that would be more than willing to help maintain the natural beauty of these trails and trail heads.

Another concern that I have is for the many people and families that may not be able to afford the cost of these fees. What was once a budget-conscious outing is now becoming unaffordable to the families whose spending the weekend in the forest may be their only form of recreation.

Now that has been taken away if they are unable to afford the fees. Everything else you do in the woods these days requires some sort of costly permit (hiking, fishing, hunting, watercraft, sno-park).

How much more government control do we need? Whatever happened to the "land of the free" and "by the people, for the people"?

David Young

* * *

To the Editor:

Tollgate homeowners were recently asked to vote for a special assessment of over $500 for road repair. The assessment did not pass. They will ask for another vote on the assessment within 45 days. What will the homeowners decide this time?

What do other homeowner's associations do to pay for road repair? Crossroads pays for it out of their homeowners dues. They pay for as much as they can afford each year and keep the roads in good repair. Indian Ford has several different homeowners associations. Their dues pay for road repair and snow removal; Black Butte Ranch repairs its roads from dues and association funds.

Tollgate has monthly homeowners dues. They have a new road grader. Instead of using it to remove snow, they bought a new pickup and blade for plowing snow. They have the equipment needed to patch cracks in the road. Last time the cracks were repaired, they contracted out to someone else.

Maybe they should budget for the road repair and pay for it out of the dues. Maybe they won't be able to afford to repave all of Tollgate at once. If they only repair what they can afford, it won't cost the homeowners any more than the monthly dues.

I vote no again.

Ali Geraths

* * *