Letters, letters, letters

To the Editor:

The Board of Directors of SOAR is floating a few inches off the ground these days because this community voted to keep SOAR.

There were many, many people and businesses who worked especially hard to bring this goal to reality and we hope that they can understand how grateful we are for their time, money and help.

Those of us who have been part of the process of SOAR over three years have been astounded by the willingness of so many volunteers who helped secure the success of SOAR on the ballot. To thank everyone in print would take another full-page ad. It is that great a community.

We would like to take special notice of some very active campaign volunteers, people like Lori Craig, who had just finished a very demanding Kiwanis presidency; Kathy Spezza, into whose busy life we added the huge headache of PAC bookkeeping and Warren Seaward, who appeared as in a wish or a prayer to paper the town and community in signs.

Thank you to Bill Reed, John Hughie and Bill Anthony for their on-going work within their own very busy community lives; and our greatest and most humble thanks to Bill Willits, who moved into the community and become a force for positive action, a driving, no-excuses dynamo of a force.

Finally, to Tom Coffield, our SOAR Programs Director, this has happened because of your dedication, your imagination and your ability to invent programs, create time and find solutions. Your joy in working with children may just be your genius.

The SOAR Board of Directors, Bonnie Malone, Vice President

To the Editor:

Richard Carson's publication, "Paying for Our Growth in Oregon," profiled in last week's newspaper, is deeply flawed.

Carson may be an experienced planner, but he is not an economist. The most basic error Carson makes regards economic analyses: You cannot conduct a "comprehensive cost benefit analysis of the public costs of new development." Cost-benefit analysis, by its very definition, looks at the costs and benefits on all parties, not just one (the government).

Carson's report also defines the "costs of growth" as a local government financing issue. This is shortsighted, as it ignores some of the most critical costs, such as increased traffic and noise imposed on community residents.

Yet there is some worthwhile information in the report. With a critical eye, readers can gain important knowledge while recognizing ­ and discarding ­ poor arguments and economics for what they are. For those interested in more complete critique of Carson's study, visit http://www.friends.org later this week.

Sincerely,

Evan Manvel

Planning Advocate, 1000 Friends of Oregon