Letters to the Editor 05/24/2005

To the Editor:

I am in total opposition to the proposed Oregon Department of Transportation project to widen the scenic Highway 20 northwest of Sisters between Cascade Meadow and the Indian Ford junction.

My reason is very simple. On April 9, 1963, I came to Central Oregon and discovered the “gateway to the Cascades,” a seven-mile ponderosa pine-lined roadway from Sisters to what is now Black Butte Ranch. As I drove this road for the first time 43 years ago I felt I had magically returned to the land of fantasy from films such as “Trail of the Lonesome Pine” and “Rogue River.”

What a wonderful forested landscape! I still feel that way 43 years later.

Now in 2006, for whatever foolish or false reasoning, ODOT has proposed to make a four lane highway of this memorable scenic parkway.

The historic and scenic quality of this roadway, our gateway to Black Butte Ranch, the Metolius and the Cascades if one is headed west, or the gateway to Sisters and Central Oregon if one is headed east, must be preserved.

Byron H. Dudley

s s s

To the Editor:

Regarding ODOT’S plan to speed up the flow of traffic between Indian Ford Campground and the City of Sisters:

As it was pointed out in the public meeting, the corridor that ODOT wants to hustle vehicles through is truly one of the most scenic drives left in Oregon. The cathedral of ancient ponderosa pines and rich diversity of the forest ecosystem bordering the roadway is beautiful to behold. In their quest for so-called “safety” ODOT has missed the boat on what should be a balanced approach to managing traffic flow.

Encouraging drivers to go faster — and a large percentage break the law to do so (and use more fuel) — is bad enough, but to have them speeding into the fragile traffic zone surrounding the City of Sisters is in my opinion, a lack of good judgement.

However, what also bothers me is the way the magnificent trees that border that beautiful scenic corridor have been defaced. In an irresponsible rush to assist ODOT in destroying the scenic values of our highway, the Forest Service has left the cut mark of ugly blue paint on those magnificent monarchs of our forest.

I would support anyone’s desire to see the paint removed as soon as possible, or at least before the “tourist season” begins; it is not a compliment to what “management” is all about.

Jim Anderson, Naturalist

To the Editor:

I am writing to oppose the widening of Highway 20 west of Sisters. I drive this road frequently and the problem is not the width of the road but the speed that many of the vehicles go after coming down the hill east from the summit as well as approaching from the west.

Many people try to pass and with the increased speed the vehicle ends up off the highway. I have observed two wrecks on this part of the road and the problem was driving too fast given the higher elevations and road conditions.

Widening will actually make the road less safe as it will increase the speed of the traffic.

Rather than widen the highway and removing the beautiful trees that frame the road on the way into Sisters, why not simply make this a safety corridor? If this stretch of road was indicated that fines double for speeding and unsafe passing conditions I believe that many of the crashes would be avoided.

This will degrade the approach to Sisters and all of Central Oregon coming from the west. Since tourists account for a large portion of the traffic it could even have an effect on one of the main revenue sources of the entire Sisters/Black Butte Ranch area.

Rather than spend the millions of dollars that this project would require of public moneys a better use of the scarce highway improvement dollars would be better spent on Highway 20 between Sisters and Bend adding left turn lanes.

Kenneth Ehlers

s s s

To the Editor:

After reading in last week’s issue of The Nugget that the Crossroads property owners association decided to ban recreational camp fires after dark I felt the need to speak up.

I do not live in Crossroads, but do live in a similar area in Sisters, and very much enjoy sitting around a camp fire in my yard with my kids. In my opinion having a fire ring in the yard and enjoying a spring, fall, or winter solstice camp fire outside of my home in the woods is one of the great pleasures that attracts me to the area.

I can understand restricting campfires when the fire danger is high but banning recreational fires after dark all the time seems just a little paranoid. It makes even less sense when just across the property line on National Forest land when the fire danger is not high I can maintain a campfire legally all night if I choose.

At least at one of the homes you have running water and a phone if something does happen. Furthermore after dark one can see sparks and any other burning material that one can not see during day light. I thought property owners associations were created to help keep a consistent look or feel in an area in order to help maintain the quality of a neighborhood.

This seems like the association is trying to govern the actions of people. I believe that is up to the sheriff’s and fire departments. If someone decides to have a camp fire on his/her own property what action will the association take?

I support property owners associations pulling communities together to make improvements to an area but governing people on details such as campfires goes too far. What authority do these associations really have to tell us what we can and can not do on our own property? At the very least I think this regulation needs refinement to accommodate common sense.

Gabe Chladek

s s s

To the Editor:

Sisters has a major problem.

“I can’t believe how this town doesn’t stop for you!” is a resounding complaint from Sisters residents and tourists alike.

Our town has an established reputation for a sense of endangerment in regard to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countless comments and horror stories in regard to near hits or misses in supposed crosswalks abound. Strike up a conversation. Fear about specific locations among parents of children of all ages and among the general public are frequently voiced.

Failure:

• Constant lack of law enforcement of: a) state, county, and local vehicular speed limits b) pedestrian right-of-way state law. Vehicles of all types soar through town at 30 to 35 mph.

• Invisibility of the laws — nothing posted.

Recommended solutions:

• Posted speed limits on each end of town.

• Posted signs: “pedestrian right-of-way strictly enforced!”

• Painted crosswalks at every intersection. (I’m told by the mayor they are painted annually. Take a look. Which year?)

• Vehicular speed indicators.

• “Dummy,” empty strategically parked patrol car

• Citizen arrests.

• Striking orange flags on poles marking crosswalks. They are placed on each major corner for pedestrians to pick up and wave while crossing. (An enjoyable, eye-catching declaration of pedestrian presence).

With projected, rapid growth quadrupling of Sisters’ population and plans for a year-round economy, Sisters needs to engage in safety measures as Bend, La Pine, and Redmond are doing.

A local, caring, visible police force must be established. State laws must be strictly enforced.

Terry Terhune

s s s

To the Editor:

Dear Sisters Voters — Thank you for your vote of confidence. You have brought to light a long held dream shared by three Sisters families.

Our goal is for McKenzie Meadow Village to be an award-winning neighborhood that supports local trades and local suppliers. Tucked into the neighborhood will be 1-in-10 quality affordable housing units along with a senior center that will provide comfortable living space mixed with a gathering area for social events.

In the name of the Kallberg, Reed and Willitts families we thank you for your trust.

Bill Willitts