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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:

After the recent decision by the city council to uphold the planning commission's decision on the McDonald's application, now seems like a good time to talk about how decisions are made and who makes them.

During and after the hearings, I was described as an "advocate" for the development and that I "voted" for McDonald's.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

My professional code of ethics requires that I act in the "public interest." It also requires that I give fair and balanced professional advice to the city.

I believe I succeeded in meeting those professional standards. I want people to know that I don't take a "position" on an issue, but that I provide professional planning advice based on accepted planning practice.

My job is to give objective analysis on how a development meets or does not meet the city's requirements.

This brings up another point and that is, who makes decisions. The planning commission and the city council make decisions, and my role is to advise them -- I don't "vote."

If you are concerned about the McDonald's development or growth in general, please make your opinions known to city staff, the planning commission or the city council.

If you want changes to the city's Comprehensive Plan or Development Code, I will work with the commission and council to ensure your views get fairly considered.

In fact, all the city's staff are here to serve the public in a fair and impartial manner, so please let us know if you have any concerns about our services.

Sisters is a great community with a vibrant downtown and well-planned residential neighborhoods. The city's unique character is an asset. Let's work together to maintain and improve that.

Have a wonderful new year.

(The opinions expressed above are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the City of Sisters)

Bill Adams, AICP

Sisters Planning & Community Development Director

* * *

To the Editor:

I find the opposers of McDonald's so hypocritical.

It seems they like the uniqueness of a small town feeling... and that is just what it is: their particular "feeling," not reality, just their own perception.

We had a zillion kids playing basketball tournaments in Sisters -- not something an 1800s town should host. I mean, after all the kids were driven there in an automobile, they didn't come on horseback as far as I knew; they wore manufactured uniforms, not some homemade leather action from the Olson's Mercantile.

Maybe we should cancel those tournaments, too -- the traffic and all the kids in their name brand shoes and all, just like a big city.

It's not just sporting events, there is a whole array out there that the hypocrites are missing; it is not just a fast food restaurant idealism. 

Sounds like a personal vendetta to me. 

It's ridiculous to think a much needed fast food place will spoil the natural beauty of Sisters. If you think it does, don't drive here. Move away where you can be a hermit and not disturbed by the advances of the human race. Get a life, or go sharpen an arrow to kill that squirrel for dinner and finish knitting your socks -- but leave the real world alone. 

Looking forward to taking a team of boys to McD's between games...

Becky Aylor

* * *

To the Editor:

The jewel of Sisters backyard, Squaw Creek, is being trashed. Off-road vehicle use, ATVs, 4X4 motocross are creating their own roads in, around and through Squaw Creek.

It's happening all over our public lands. Walk a little deeper into the woods on your next outing and you'll likely find the results of these testosterone-driven individuals. Their attitude is, 'I can go anywhere my vehicle will take me.'

Yes not all off-road users trash it, many respect signs and stay on existing roads and trails, but a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch.

That's why I applaud the plan by Sisters Ranger District to protect areas of Squaw Creek with road closures. As Sisters grows those area of public land closest to town should be more highly valued for non-motorized use. With the irrigation districts very successful efforts to keep more water in our backyard jewel and the USFS plan for greater protection, Squaw Creek (or whatever it will be called) can be enjoyed by many for years to come. Sign me up for patrol!

Tim Clasen

* * *

To the Editor:

Imagine if an initiative in the next state voter's pamphlet proposed a highly regressive revenue measure, intended to net well over $300 million in the upcoming biennium.

In the proposed initiative, almost a third would be skimmed off the top and directed not to schools, roads, cops, or welfare programs, but to ... tavern owners?

With the current crisis facing school funding and inadequate resources for many other important programs, any sensible Oregonian would oppose such a proposal.

Yet if the Oregon Lottery Commission approves line gaming on January 26, without adjusting the current allocation of video gambling proceeds, the nonsensical "tavern subsidy" will take effect.

Our voters authorized state-sponsored gambling along with the constitutional mandate that the proceeds would be used "for the public good."

As things now stand, 29 percent of the profit from Oregon video gambling machines does not support the public good as the voters directed; it supports tavern owners and other lottery retailers.

In 2003 for instance, schools received $267 million from the lottery, but taverns and other retailers received $190 million in commissions.

Let's say that you feel that tavern owners should be compensated for their expenses operating such machines. Sounds fair (but let's keep in mind that these machines actually draw customers, and that in states where gambling is illegal some tavern owners actually buy video game machines just to prolong their customers' visits).

In any case, is 29 percent off the top fair compensation for plugging the machine into the wall and taking the money to the bank?

Just to compare, last year Caesar's Entertainment -- a $6.2 billion international gaming behemoth -- made only 5 percent profit on a gross margin of 16 percent.

If we cut the tavern subsidy by less than half -- to 15 percent -- we would free up an additional $85 million for Oregon schools this biennium. Without raising anyone's taxes.

Please make your opinion known to Bend-based Lottery Commission member Stan Robson ([email protected]