Letters, letters, letters

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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:

John Rahm made a correct point in his comment on my letter -- the high school is adjacent to McKinney Butte Ranch, but he ignores the most important matter -- the conflict of interest question.

He says that the school "was solely and entirely responsible to provide a sewer line to the boundary of McKinney Butte Ranch, sized appropriately to accommodate whatever might be developed there."

Can Rahm be serious? He is saying that the school board "is responsible" to set up an expanded sewer line for private adjacent land outside the city that is now zoned as forest land. He knows the land would be greatly increased in value (the "windfall") if it were annexed to the city and upzoned for development.

So the public school board is "responsible" to assist in private real estate development? Do school board members believe that?

The November 28 Nugget points out that Bill Reed, chairman of the school board, and the superintendent arranged to have an expanded sewer which would lay the groundwork for development of the McKinney Butte Ranch.

The ranch is partly owned by Bill Reed. The school board has no responsibility to aid real estate development, especially when a member of the board might profit by it.

Also superintendents are hired by and under the control of the school board. Conflict of interest can be either direct economic conflict or the appearance of impropriety. Take your choice. Is this the way people want public decisions to be conducted in Sisters?

William Boyer

Editor's note:

Mr. Boyer's letter distorts the school sewer issue.

Neither the existing high school nor the new high school were included in the original sewer project. The main sewer line to be installed through town was not sized for that use.

The school district determined in 1999 that it wanted the existing high school, and new high school if built, hooked to the sewer. The City of Sisters said the main line through town would need to be upsized from 15 to 18 inches. The cost of the upgrade was $44,900.

The school district looked for help with this bill. McKinney Butte Partners, one of whom was school board chair Bill Reed, offered and paid half, knowing they could someday benefit if allowed to develop their property.

There was a cloud over the transaction, because the developers made their contribution through the Sisters Schools Foundation, instead of directly to the city, and school board members aside from Mr. Reed did not know of the contribution.

However, that controversy does not change the fact that private developers paid $22,450 of a $44,900 bill that the school district would have had to pay in any case.

* * *

To the Editor:

In July 2000 the Tollgate owners defeated a special assessment that would create the financing of a multi-use path for a safe place for walkers, bikers, roller-blading, runners, horseback-riders.

Now it has been decided to put this up to another vote because a few homeowners did not get to vote or have changed their mind. (Why beat a dead horse?)

Imagine, now we have condensed this multitude of users into a narrow pathway that the walkers and dogs on leashes will have to contend with speeding bikers and roller-bladers and runners. And how about the horse poop? Who's going to maintain this pathway, especially in the winter?

For all this Tollgate owners are expected to cough up $157,000. For each homeowner, $357. We just got through paying $400 plus assessment for paving of our roads.

Maintenance is reputed to be minimal. In the winter we will have to have a special snowblower and operator (the regular snowplow will not fit the pathway).

Why are we creating all this expense and problems? Because of a few speeders. Why not pay the sheriff a little extra for a deputy to spend more time patrolling Tollgate and every homeowner take the license number of the speeders and turn them in to the sheriff?

Make a choice, vote "yes" for the "aspirin" and spend a bundle and still have problems or vote "no" for the "cure" and eliminate all the problems.

Mel Collum

* * *

To the Editor:

In the eight months that I have lived in the Tollgate neighborhood, I have witnessed three instances of children on bikes almost being hit by speeding cars, and have found myself almost struck as well while walking my dogs.

There is a posted speed of 20 mph, which is routinely ignored by residents of all ages. The roadway is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass one another safely. Add foot or bike traffic to this and you have the opportunity for serious accidents to occur.

The Tollgate board sent out notice to all homeowners that there would be another vote occurring for a new footpath/bike path. The notice was also clear that while the path will be on Lariat only (that is the main roadway) that all homeowners will share in the financial burden and responsibility for this new path.

I have been both amazed and perplexed at the attitudes and letters surrounding this issue. The pathway will be off the road by approximately six feet and in the current common area. Yet people are complaining of losing their privacy, and stating the bike path would not itself be safe.

Neighborhoods in Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver have bike pathways on all main roadways.

I would happily give up "six feet of my privacy" to ensure that someone's child would be safe.

Are homeowners here willing to wait until someone's child or pet is struck and killed before installing safe pathways for pedestrians?

Dottie DeSelle

* * *

To the Editor:

Property owners in Tollgate are voting on a multi-use path in some common areas. This pathway will benefit some at the expense of many other property owners.

When I originally purchased property, the owners were encouraged to plant trees and landscape common areas between their property and the road. The multi-use pathway that is currently being voted on will go through some of that landscaping.

Common areas were designed as a privacy buffer between the properties and the road and were not designed to also hold a pathway.

The reduction of the buffer will have a large effect on the privacy of the homes along the side of the street where the pathway will be located.

The board has now put meanders in the pathway to preserve trees. However, these meanders swing the pathway closer to some homes. In my case, I have a group of trees between my home and Lariat. The pathway will swing toward my house, between the trees and my home.

Had I known about the pathway when I purchased this lot, it would have been a factor in my decision to buy and in the location of my home. The pathway will certainly reduce the enjoyment of my home, as it will for many other property owners along it.

This pathway will be a large change in conditions for property owners along it.

Property owners along the pathway have not been involved in this proposal.

I urge Tollgate property owners to vote "no" on the pathway.

I also urge the board to involve property owners who will be affected by the pathway in any future discussions about this issue.

Sincerely,

Karen Withrow

* * *

To the Editor:

Thank you for your front page story on the piping of the Fryrear irrigation ditch.

The Sisters area is fortunate to have a progressive conservation-driven irrigation district, cooperative landowners willing to improve their ranch operations as well as restore stream flows in the Squaw Creek basin, and strong community leadership.

That leadership includes Carlton Yee, newly elected director of the Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District and newly appointed member of the Oregon Soil and Water Conservation Commission.

The conservation district will play a key role as the Fryrear pipeline begins construction. The $270,000 in grant funding for the pipeline was secured through grants acquired by the Deschutes SWCD.

Directors Yee, Patricia Gainsforth, and R.L. Freeborn, plus district staff have met with local landowners to address their concerns regarding the Fryrear project.

The district, guided by Sisters area directors (emeritus) Ray Curry and Robert Brockway, have dedicated years of service to this rural community and to watershed restoration in the entire Deschutes Basin.

Sincerely,

Jeff Rola, Operations Coordinator Deschutes SWCD