Letters to the Editor 08/10/05

To the Editor:

Usually I enjoy our little local paper, but this week I was disappointed.

How could you think of exposing us, the public, to your private issue with Mark Kershner. How could it possibly be our business, especially when a young child was involved.

It would have been correct and compassionate to take care of a situation like that privately. Shame on you, too.

Gudrun Kibak

Editor’s reply:

Mr. Kershner allowed or encouraged his son to submit false information which was published in our newspaper. It was necessary to correct the false information and acknowledge that we failed to follow procedures intended to prevent this situation.

Eric Dolson, Publisher

•••

To the Editor:

I have been contemplating the guest editorial by John Rahm in the August 3 edition of The Nugget. Though I agree with much of what he said, I am especially addressing his mention of consensus building in the community.

It seems to me that this is exactly what the development of a city’s Comprehensive Plan is meant to be. When the first edition of the Sisters Comprehensive Plan was developed, there were many people involved. They spent hours coming up with a homegrown community document which was a statement of goals for the future.

Since then, the Comprehensive Plan has been revised and reworked, but to me most of the overall goals of the first document have been retained.

If it doesn’t now serve as a good guide, why doesn’t it? Or does it, and a few people who have their own images of the town and their own goals just don’t want to accept it? Maybe people just don’t know what it does have in it. Maybe it does already contain a consensus which agrees with the goals of today’s citizens.

Who will the consensus builders be? Most people already have enough to do. Such discussions need a variety of people to sift through the rhetoric from all sides of an issue. And then to present goals for being the best Sisters possible for all of the people, not just a few individuals who volunteer to be on a committee because they have an agenda they wish to promote, or for those who shout the loudest and longest.

Over the years, a variety of issues have come up. From the Transportation System Plan to the Comprehensive Plan and others. There has been no secret that these issues are being reviewed. Yet few people appear to discuss them in a consensus-building manner. Only after some piece of any of these plans disagrees with one or more person’s plans and ideas, are people heard from. And then we are off on yet another shouting match which ends up in anger, and hurt feelings, etc.

Can all that energy, caring and concern be directed to resolving issues before that point is reached? I hope so. Good luck to John and the community, too, in finding ways to build consensus before the shouting instead of after.

Maggie Hughes

•••

To the Editor:

I’ve been a citizen of Sisters for over 12 years and I am saddened and angered by the the recent crime of arson in our town. It is truly a sanctuary violation, a hideous crime.

Some people fear change, even more they hate transition. Mr. Rowe (Letters to the Editor, July 27), mentioned in his letter the influx over the years of senior citizens, Californians and now the folks interested in the Jackson Hole-ification of Sisters.

Progress is not defined by simple motion. In our free society, people go where they want and do what they want but it must be within the rule of law. It is understandable to want to preserve Sisters the way we first found the town and its friendly people. People come here for many reasons — some to acclimate, others to bulldoze and develop.

If we regulate the process we should balance planning and zoning with a local’s right to open a small business. Some of these businesses that will confront us may be offensive to some and perhaps not in our town’s perceived image. So we will discuss, debate and if residents elect to refine the process, remember, this is a Jeffersonian democracy, the only one on earth.

You can see the difference in parliamentary democracies such as Great Britain, Israel and India suffer. We may not always get what we want in the political or capitalist arenas, however there must be no violence in our streets.

Al Qaeda will bring that soon enough.

Steve Coltin