News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.
To the Editor:
I am writing to voice my support for the annexation vote on the proposed school site. I believe it is important to clarify my position because some folks in the community may have misconstrued my vocal stance on the bond interest money as a lack of support for the annexation vote.
This is incorrect. I fully support a "yes" vote on the annexation for these important reasons:
First, a democratic vote on whether to build a new high school was already held last May. Each voter in the school district was allowed to participate. The time for spirited debate was prior to this vote. The vote passed, and the bonds (have been) sold to investors.
To attempt to "undo" this process by using the annexation vote of just the city residents has the potential for being very divisive to the overall community of Sisters.
Secondly, like most of you, as a taxpayer I demand the most product for the tax dollars spent. Delaying the construction of the school by voting against annexation, means the residents of Sisters will get less school building for the same dollars invested.
A favorable bidding climate, legal costs for delays, inflation on building materials, and interest costs are all good reasons to proceed now. Also, it is important to remember that the school board's promise to return the interest money to the taxpayers was conditional. If they can not begin construction this summer, rising costs will make it impossible to return this money. A $1 to 2 million dollar rebate to tax-payers is reason enough to vote "yes" on annexation and not delay.
The school board has also formally committed to an aggressive cost savings process. Any money not required to construct the school will be returned to taxpayers. With heightened citizen and school staff participation in this process, I believe the community will ultimately receive the best school for the dollars invested.
Respectfully,
Steve Wilson
* * *
To the Editor:
Specific facts about growth and enrollment were NOT given during the November 2000 or the May 2001 school bond election. Why weren't they?
During both bond elections few facts were provided. School officials ran a campaign with the message "Trust Us and Support our Kids". So we have a $20.5 million bond passed on emotion NOT facts.
Fact: the middle school capacity is 260. In September 1995, enrollment was 295 students. It's been over capacity ever since. More facts: the high school capacity is 600 (auditorium 550 maximum). January, 2002 high school enrollment is 422 students.
More facts: average high school growth since 1995 has been 11 annually. Figure it out; 16 more years to reach capacity at the High school! Yes, the middle school has a problem. Fix the right problem and $6.5 million can be saved.
Our facts are from school district enrollment. All our information is specific to Sisters School District No. 6. School officials' facts relate to the "region."
It's not about "regional." It's about Sisters School District. School officials use whatever supports their position. Example: "regional" 10 year population increases of 53.9 percent demonstrates growth. We're criticized for not looking "long range."
In January 30 Nugget the board uses a single grade (ninth) for a single year (2001/02) to illustrate growth.
The facts: during the last six years and five months district enrollment has grown net 14 students (K-8 dropped 56, high school added 70). Did you know our "new" 10-year-old high school was designed for expansion to 1,200 students?
The board has now turned to threats. Alternatives which would not be approved by ballot. The citizens don't have control over site selection, understanding enrollment and cost. Poor board planning is okay? Voters' questions are not?
I used strong language reported January 30 after learning of another private board meeting decision. The board decided "This project is going ahead ...with or without annexation."
Their response is troubling! Webster defines arrogant: "full of or due to unwarranted pride and self-importance; overbearing; haughty." How else can the board actions be described? This isn't the will of the voters. Let's insure our children benefit from our best efforts.
Jim Mackey
* * *
To the Editor:
As the SOAR District Board of Directors we encourage City of Sisters residents to vote for annexation of the school district property that is slated for the new high school.
Annexation of this property not only benefits the school district, but also SOAR and all of the taxpayers in the SOAR District, especially those in the current Sisters city limits.
SOAR is facing relocation of several of its programs, including Taekwondo and after-school latchkey and tutoring programs.
We are very enthusiastic about building a SOAR activities center along with recreation and sports fields on the property to be annexed. This property will be available for this purpose because the county gave this land to the school district for the intended purpose of schools, parks, recreation and other public facilities.
SOAR is presently working with service organizations and agencies to raise funds for new sports fields and the new SOAR complex, all at no expense to the local property taxpayer. This would certainly enhance our community.
As for the new high school, annexing the land will mean a faster completion schedule, costing less money in the total construction costs. This means more money earned from interest on the bond dollars that have been reinvested can be returned to the local property taxpayers.
Delayed construction schedules or building septic and water systems (because the property for the project is not annexed) will be more expensive in the long run. The city will benefit by collecting fees and the community will benefit by not having overlapping services, thus reducing overall costs.
A SOAR and school campus coordinated by annexation is the most economical and practical approach for everyone involved, especially the taxpayer. Please vote "yes."
The SOAR District Board of Directors
John Bushnell; Marie Clasen; C.B. Davis; Ben Ehrenstrom; Bonnie Malone
* * *
To the Editor:
I am writing to ask the citizens of the city of Sisters to vote "Yes" in the coming annexation vote.
The new comprehensive high school will be built in accordance to the community's vote in the last election. However, the actual amount spent to see the project through completion would increase if the annexation were voted down.
This would mean that some of the funds targeted for the actual building will be taken out of the building and used for other costs. The school district buildings act as the recreation facilities for the children of our community through our SOAR program and any money taken from the building will most likely be facilities that double as the community recreation centers.
Additionally, it is difficult for me to read and listen to the continued attacks on our school district's leadership that they do not care about affordable housing and increased taxes or that there have been conspiracies to create personal wealth.
These accusations are inaccurate, mean spirited and create a cloud over the actual issue of annexation.
The actual voting issue centers on the question; is annexation good for the city of Sisters? The answer is yes. The city will receive a benefit in the vicinity of several hundreds of thousands of dollars in SDC fees. The total monthly cost of the sewer will spread to more users thus lowering the cost to individual users.
The community of Sisters held public meetings for months on the issue of the appropriate bond to put before the public. "Do we build a middle school or a high school?" This was the question at the center of the debates.
This would have been the appropriate time for the anti-annexation group to voice its current concerns.
The anti-annexation group did not like the communities' vote and has since set out to change the results of that election.
Bob Macauley
Editor's note: Bob Macauley is the Dean of Students at Sisters High School
* * *
To the Editor:
A couple of weeks ago, one of the largest ponderosa pine trees left standing on Cascade Avenue was removed to make way for a few more feet of commercial space.
This followed by only weeks a parallel loss of trees on Hood Avenue.
It seems a pity to me that more creativity was not invested in designing the adjacent buildings to work in harmony with these stately old-timers.
Oddly, Sisters prides itself on its Western/Victorian architecture and breathtaking scenery -- while allowing some of its most valuable attributes to be erased by business owners, without the slightest input from fellow residents.
The idea that these trees were taken down for the safety of all who pass nearby appears a bit thin. Perhaps expediency was the more likely motive.
After all, if we were to cut down every tree that has lost a large limb in the past six years, Sisters would be devoid of conifers taller than 10 feet and the Village Green would be a clearcut.
Saving Cascade Avenue pedestrians from perils of one ponderosa pine did not require great intuitive leaps to visualize. One needed only to notice the covered sidewalks bordering numerous buildings in town -- even next door.
Obviously, nothing can be done about these particular losses. However, we can hope that in the future each of our business owners and community leaders will feel an obligation to more carefully consider every alternative to the destruction of the very assests that make Sisters so uniquely appealing.
Steve Mathews
* * *
To the Editor:
During the past 14 years, families of young children in Central Oregon, along with those in Lane and Jefferson counties, have had the opportunity to participate in Together For Children, a program especially designed for families with children from birth through three years old.
Unfortunately, because of state budget cuts, this program is about to be eliminated.
I am writing in the hopes that parents who know of this program will contact our governor and legislators and beseech them to reinstate the funding for Together For Children.
The special session begins on Friday, February 8.
Please do this today!
Together For Children, an experienced prevention program, costs a mere $400,000 of the $372.27 million proposed cuts that affect pre-natal to 18 year olds programs. This is not enough money to make a difference in the overall picture of cuts but definitely enough to make a huge difference to the families that are served.
The questions we need to ask are:
Together For Children's sole purpose is to give families of young children the opportunity to build skills that help them become healthy, happy, strong families.
Central Oregon serves approximately 150 families each year. Parents who learn to parent well in the beginning retain these skills and continue to have better relationships with their children. In order to have young people who reflect what we value we need to start early.
Sincerely,
Edie Jones, Director
Together For Children, Central Oregon
* * *
To the Editor:
School superintendent Swisher's comment in the January 30 Nugget that the school district won "a pretty resounding victory" ("Court turns down local residents' appeal," page 1) sounds like something a Super Bowl participant would say.
I would expect a school superintendent to be more respectful of the views expressed by neighboring residential property owners who feel that Swisher's "victory" is at the expense of their property values.
Gloating is not in order.
David V. Douthit
* * *
To the Editor:
I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank all the students, teachers, staff and administration of the Sisters School District for the awesome job they do for the members of our community, especially during our Sisters Starry Nights Concert Series.
Often times the committee is thanked publicly, but without our school district volunteers we wouldn't be able to put on such grand productions. I think it's amazing that the students and staff are willing to give up their time and energy toward this huge fundraising event, and they do a fantastic job!
Thank you,
Shelley Cristiano
* * *
To the Editor:
I was very sad to hear of the death of Dave Haynes. He was a good friend, and I believe he served the City of Sisters quite well in his capacity of police chief.
He will be missed.
Sincerely,
R.L. Garrigus
* * *
To the Editor:
I would like to thank the residents of Sisters for the privilege of being their Postmaster. I regret that I will be unable to continue due to health reasons.
The residents in Sisters are the most enjoyable customers I have ever had the privilege to serve. I have been Postmaster in four different offices and by far Sisters has been the most enjoyable.
The residents have been kind, considerate, and very understanding. I trust you will treat Carol, the Officer In Charge in my absence, with the same kindness and consideration you have shown me. You are a great community and you should be proud.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
H. Ed Wilson
Postmaster
* * *
To the Editor:
The recent decision by the Oregon Supreme Court to strike down term limits because the intial measure was too broad may be interpreted by some voters as a blow to our democratically elected, citizen legislature.
Surely Oregonians will have an opportunity to revisit term limits with a new initiative, but in the meantime, Central Oregonians need to view this decision as an opportunity to return to Salem one of the most effective legislators: Ben Westlund of Tumalo.
Representative Westlund has distinguished himself as a strong advocate for Central Oregon, and has teamed up with Senator Bev Clarno and Representative Tim Knopp to form a team that has far more influence than their three votes.
As Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Westlund has placed a high standard on exactly what the state authorizes for spending for all services provided by state.
His skill and political savvy, along with others, brought Central Oregon the Cascade Campus and even when threats to its existence emerged he stood up for our region.
He has championed social programs for the very young such as the Oregon Children's Plan and also valued programs for our seniors such as Project Independence.
Now when dollars are very tight and cuts are required in every service area, Representative Ben has applied a prudent approach to selectively cut programs that will adversely impact as few Central Oregonians as possible.
While many Oregonians support term limits let us not rebound against those who in this unique period of Oregon's legislature (post the Supreme Court decision and probably prior to a new initiative on term limits) have a one-time benefit from this decision.
Let us return to Salem one of Oregon's most effective legislators who lives in our back woods and relates to everyone in the new district that includes Sisters, Tumalo, Redmond, La Pine, and Sunriver.
T. Allen Merritt, M.D.
Reader Comments(0)