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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:

Very few people have not made up their mind about this election, but there is one issue -- Measure 37 -- that may fly under the radar.

The measure actually has a Sisters pedigree, since its supporters claim a couple on Cloverdale Road who were told they could build prompted drafting of the measure. (In truth, the measure is the successor of Measure 7 that was on the ballot in 2000, and is a long-time project of a radical right-wing group, Oregonians in Action, based in Portland.)

The road signs you may have seen on the measure that claim it would "restore fairness" are completely false. I have taught property law for over a quarter of a century and I can tell you that measure would "restore" nothing.

In fact, no jurisdiction in the history of the world has ever authorized landowner compensation on the conditions the drafters of Measure 37 envision.

The result will either be a huge tax increase ($300 million merely to process claims, let alone lawyer fees -- which the measure authorizes -- and unknown amounts of taxes to pay landowners) or the end of zoning and land use controls.

If you like taxes and lawsuits, and want to see unregulated development between Sisters and Bend, vote for Measure 37. If you want to preserve farm and forest land and maintain local land use controls, please vote no.

The livability of our community is at stake in Measure 37.

Michael Blumm

* * *

To the Editor:

We attended last Thursday's night planning meeting with great interest and would like to congratulate Bill Adams for keeping the meeting on track and thank the planners for approving the construction of a McDonald's in Sisters.

There were numerous people attending the meeting that were in favor of the project and could have spoken, however, after the first gentlemen spoke there was little left that could be said without repeating the same things and take more time in the meeting.

We have had the opportunity to visit many parts of the United States and foreign countries and have gone to many McDonald's because we knew what we would be getting and they are clean. Unfortunately, the one we didn't get into was in Russia because the lines were too long.

This small community should be proud to have a McDonald's coming and be glad that a local person is doing the project.

Ernest and Alinda Dunn

* * *

To the Editor:

In response to the recent letters and article about stopping McDonald's: Lets get real folks...

Residents of Sisters do you really want a few people to dictate to you on who can open a business here and who can't? NO! What's next, who dictates what kind of people can move to Sisters? Hogwash!

If the planners have the site design made to the city standards look and feel, what's the problem? What happened to our freedom? What happened to the rights of those people to build a life?

I suggest that if the Sisters community really wants to have a voice on this matter and keep the basic rights we all take for granted... then put the issue to a vote... Let all the residents decide if this is good for the economic development of our community.

You business owners in town consistantly complain about slumping sales... well, isn't new business moving into town bringing in new income? If you think not, then stop complaining about slow sales unless you are willing to do something about it, like staying open later, especially during events.

You others who agree that new business is good for our community, say something. Send a letter to The Nugget or the city planners.

If you say nothing, then you have lost your right to choose, and those who want to make your choices for you have power over you. Like someone else said, if you don't like McDonald's, don't go!

My vote: McDonald's welcome!

Jay Moore

* * *

To the Editor:

After years of trekking to Bend for groceries because Ray's refused to carry the products most of us were used to, they are finally building a store to accomodate the needs of our growing community.

But let me see if I got it right. The present store of 30,000 square feet will be rebuilt to a total of 42,000 square feet to allow Ray's "to carry all the items customers request and allow for additional check stands for busy times of the year."

The additional space will include an expanded wine department, full bulk food department, rotisserie, olive bar and expanded deli. Also included will be a pharmacy, a bank to compete with the existing three local banks, and a conference area for community events and cooking classes.

I am assuming the existing bakery, video store, book racks and floral section will also remain. Wow! That must be a really BIG 12,000 square feet! Where's the gas station and T-shirt shop?

Gosh, guys -- all we wanted was the basic groceries we've had to travel an hour away (round trip) to get each week at a reasonable price. We have an excellent pharmacy, whole foods store, banks and community events centers. What we need is great produce, meats and the aisles filled with a large variety of high-end foods.

I am an advocate of shopping locally and as such believe that new businesses should add what is missing in our small community not duplicate already successful existing businesses. It is not easy to make a living in a limited population and there is so much we really need, why destroy those faithful businesses that we have grown to appreciate and who have stuck it out through thick and thin -- instead build on what we don't have like a theater, a retirement facility, etc.

Vicki Webber

* * *

To the Editor:

As chairman of the Tollgate pedestrian/bike path committee, I want to thank each of our many Tollgate residents who worked on and voted for the establishment of a safe alternative to walking and riding on our roads.

Our volunteers spent the last year and a half compiling the concerns of our property owners, crafting a proposal to meet as many of these concerns as possible, and going door-to-door to explain our proposal and encourage its' passage.

Additionally, I want to express my appreciation to all of those who voted on this measure. The turnout was impressive and I hope that every resident will be pleased with the final product.

There are few projects that truly have the potential to save the life of a child or an adult. This pedestrian/bike path is one.

Again, my thanks to all who worked for and voted on this issue.

Steve Mathews

Tollgate Board Member

* * *

To the Editor:

I am writing to advise you of Bend Memorial Clinic's strongest possible support for Measure 35. We are acutely aware in our day-to-day operations of the expense to the clinic and eventually to our patients of medical malpractice coverage.

In the last two years, our costs for malpractice coverage have increased by almost one half million dollars here at the clinic. These are real costs paid by all of us. This is in spite of the fact that both the clinic and the Central Oregon community have an extraordinary record in providing safe healthcare.

This is not an insurance issue; this is an issue about access to care. I am in charge of recruiting for the clinic and am now frequently asked by doctors about the crisis in Oregon's medical malpractice. Some candidates are flatly refusing to consider Oregon as a place to practice due to the rapidly escalating costs of malpractice and the threatening environment.

We strongly encourage you to vote in support of Measure 35.

This measure recreates an insurance limit for pain and suffering only. This was a limit that existed until 1999 here in Oregon and worked well for more than 10 years.

Since its removal, the costs of malpractice suits have escalated rapidly but the safety for patients has not been improved one bit by the law change.

We continue to lose providers on a regular basis as they limit their practices and refuse to cover risky care situations. The people directly affected by the current malpractice crisis are you as a patient and us directly as physicians.

We continue as a clinic to be dedicated to serving our patients and providing safe state-of-the-art care. We are asking you to please thoughtfully consider this issue and vote to support Measure 35.

James C. Ritzenthaler, MD

Medical Director, Bend Memorial Clinic

* * *

To the Editor:

I must respond to a letter in your October 20 edition advising a "no" vote on Measure 35. Unfortunately, the last few days before voting we are bombarded with misinformation intended to sway undecided voters.

It is a fact that the cost of medical liability insurance ("malpractice insurance") is so high that we are seeing decreasing access to medical care as physicians limit their practices to less risky procedures or quit practice altogether.

The reduced access to care may be most acutely felt by Medicare patients as physicians pressured by increasing insurance costs limit their number of low reimbursement patients. But everyone will ultimately be affected when we find our doctors limiting their practices or retiring and the availability of care in emergency rooms diminished.

Measure 35, which would limit the amount of non-economic damages in medical liability cases to $500,000, is long overdue. California passed such legislation nearly 30 years ago and the result was a prompt reduction in insurance premiums and a significantly reduced rise in insurance costs without reducing the ability of injured patients to bring suit and gain compensation for actual economic damages (medical and rehabilitation costs, loss of income, etc.).

Insurance premiums reflect the costs of litigation and the amount of the awards. So long as "the sky is the limit" in awards for non-economic damages the cost of insurance will reflect that unpredictable risk.

It is no surprise that trial attorneys have been able to prevent passage of such legislation and, with Gov. Kulongoski's help, may well kill this measure again. But consumer groups who have been persuaded to oppose this measure are being duped by the propaganda claims of reduced access to legal action.

Donald Harner

* * *

To the Editor:

To Steve Bryan: My heart goes out to you my unsigned friend, but our signs are only mute testimony to our politics. I say, live your Kerry sign!

You were overhasty in replacing the first sign. You should have polled your neighbors and waited for multilateral agreement before acting on your personal interests. Had Kerry been president on 9/11, he would have stepped forward on 9/12 with a tearful appeal to the UN to please tidy up the mideast.

Now, as to your property being lifted by some unthinking Bushite hooligans: Kerry, a self-proclaimed ex-you-name-it, has extensive experience in law enforcement and would surely rush to the scene, grasp your shoulder, grin broadly for any photo-ops, look at you with those overslept eyes, and assure you he has a plan to prevent this in the future: a tax credit for the middling classes to send their overzealous youngsters off to liberalized colleges where they can be brainwashed.

He may even tell you that he submitted just that plan years back, but not a soul in the legislative body had the foresight to vote it into law!

So, by way of imitation, what's best is for you to stand by your sign (or the site on which it stood) come what may and grin broadly at the future, confident that in a Kerry world considerably fewer automatic weapons will be available to sign thieves and in a Bush world those young, uncompassionate conservatives will all be drafted off to unilateral wars.

Now, Steve, as you consider the purchase of that fourth sign, be generous. For it's possible pro-Kerryites are the perpetrators. Some out-with-Bushers may have robin-hooded your signs, knowing you had the wherewithal to replace them. Maybe Kerry signs were needed in some poorer areas in the county, where those who caught up on debts with Bush's tax refunds are now insisting on returning their money, with interest, to the government. Maybe the best course for you is to install a handy sign dispenser!

Finally, make no statements regarding your signs or any other matter that you cannot later equivocate on in order to save face. It's the Kerry way.

Brian Thomasson

* * *

To the Editor:

If Mr. Bush knew his American history he would not denigrate the word Liberal. According to the Oxford Dictionary, it "pertains to a free man, generous, open hearted; favorable to change and reforms in the direction of democracy; free from narrow prejudice."

It is derived from the Latin, "libertas," meaning "liberty."

In studying the history of the American Revolution and the events leading up to it, all of our children are familiar with the rousing speech of the young patriot, Patrick Henry, urging the delegates to the second revolutionary convention of Virginia to take a militant stand against the British and to arm the Virginia militia, ending with the famous words:

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

To prostitute our great language in the service of sordid politics is shameful. It sounds as though Mr. Bush would feel more comfortable with a one party system. He is becoming everything that we are supposed to be fighting against.

Mr. Kerry is a fine Democrat, and a liberal one, with the good sense to change his mind when he sees that a course he originally backed turns out to be wrong for our country.

As our Commander-in-Chief he will develop strategies to get us out of the war in Iraq, that disastrous war into which our present Commander-in-Chief dragged us, with no strategy at all.

The country is paying a terrible price for having George W. Bush in the White House. My prayer is that John Kerry will be elected to bring sanity back to our nation.

Katherine S. Livingston

* * *

To the Editor:

I have read many letters to the editor for the past few months. Letters that are pro-Democratic far outnumber those that appear to be pro-Republican.

What I believe we are witnessing is an exhibition that has been going on in the Democratic Party since the year 2000. It has been unable to produce a viable candidate since Bill Clinton and in an effort to overcome this fact they have been using tactics that were first observed in the children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes."

This tactic is used to tell people something loud enough, long enough, or by the right person or group, until it appears to be the truth.

The Democratic Party, with the help of easily led and deceived sheep, tried to portray Al Gore and are now trying to portray John Kerry both as great leaders with the background and experience to lead this country.

Honestly, close your eyes and visualize Al Gore as president on the morning of September 11, 2001. Don't be surprised by that cold shiver that ran up your spine. That was a perfectly normal reaction to a very alarming thought.

Now they present John Kerry. Here is a real gem. He brags of defending his country as a young man and vowing to do so again as our president, but what does his record show? It shows four months of questionable service in Vietnam, earning medals that he possibly didn't deserve, throwing away those same medals in protest of his service, going to Paris and meeting with the enemy while some of our soldiers suffered the consequences in North Vietnamese prisons.

This is topped off with 20-plus years as a senator with very little to show for time spent except a disproportionate amount of absenteeism.

Take off the blinders. Like kittens a few days after birth, open your eyes. Awaken to the realization that the emperor did not have any clothes and likewise, John Kerry has no leadership abilities or experience to lead this country. Vote your mind, not your heart.

Wayne Rowe

* * *

To the Editor:

Leaving Vice President Dick Cheney out of the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet is the slickest piece of skullduggery yet pulled by the Republican Party. That lame-brained excuse of "saving a thousand dollars" that Mannix came up with is pure nonsense. What, in all that is sacrosanct in the Republican Party, is a thousand bucks to them?

No, in my opinion, the reason Cheney was left out of the voters pamphlet is that we can't scrutinize Cheney's past and business affairs in black and white. The finger points too clearly to his conflict(s) of interest with Halliburton, oil and electrical power interests.

Perhaps the most illuminating evidence of the way the Republican propagandists are pulling the wool over our eyes is that foo-pah Cheney pulled during the "debate" with Edwards, trying to say that that evening was the first time he had ever met Edwards.

Cheney knew it was a lie from the word go; but as with everything else the present Administration is pulling he thought it too could be shoved down our throats -- like the growing national debt, WMD, Iraq's links to terrorism and President Bush's whereabouts while "serving" in the "Air Force" during Vietnam.

We are being hoodwinked (again), good friends; be sure to vote and do it right! As our President, John Kerry will do it right!

Jim Anderson

* * *

To the Editor:

Cheney may shift the election to Bush if he can stimulate enough fear among the electorate.

He saw the effects of 9-11 when support for the Bush administration had been heading down fast, but after 9-11 a fearful public "rallied round the flag" and produced support for Bush.

Cheney knows it would be worth it again to get the electorate worried, probably excessively, about vague fears of terrorism. He is being known as the chief "fear monger."

Though public fears should be focused on environment, job insecurity, and mounting debt, Cheney is clever enough to avoid directing the public to those real political issues.

William Boyer