Letters to the Editor 08/22/2007

To the Editor:

Once again The Nugget, through Mr. Duerrmeyer's articles, seems to be siding with development interests in criticizing the Sisters City Council.

In the article entitled "Jefferson County snipes at city," Mr. Duerrmeyer sets the tone with: "Jefferson Co. has stepped into the growing lineup of those who don't like the way the City of Sisters does business."

There is consistency in this "lineup:" primarily pro-development interests who see Sisters' policies impeding profits or revenues in the case of Jefferson Co.

I am disappointed in the unproductive stance of Jefferson Co., threatening Sisters with statements to the effect that they will "limit cooperation" with Sisters if Sisters continues to oppose Metolius development. I for one am glad to have a city council with backbone to act in the best interests of our community.

It is hard to pull together as a community when the reporting policy of Mr. Duerrmeyer and The Nugget consistently denigrates the city council.

It is not the current city council that failed to attend Jefferson Co. hearings. It is not normal protocol for municipal and state agencies to initiate communications on an issue through public hearings. It is appropriate for municipal and state agencies to communicate directly, as initiated by the City of Sisters. It is inappropriate for municipal or state agencies to reply with threats of non-cooperation, as done by Jefferson Co.

I stand behind the Sisters City Council on this and am very disappointed that The Nugget and Mr. Duerrmeyer do not.

Robert Albrecht

•••

To the Editor:

I have used the new passing lanes west of Sisters several times. All it gets me is being stuck behind another slow-moving vehicle.

Why doesn't ODOT work on the real problems? We need turn lanes on Cloverdale, Fryrear, Plainview, etc. Instead we get a turn lane on Cold Spring cutoff. I can only hope that the Cold Spring cutoff turn lanes are part of the plan for the bypass.

Bruce Berryhill

•••

To the Editor:

Oregon law defines the $2.1 million full faith and credit obligations sold by the Sisters School District as limited tax bonds: ORS 288.150(9).  This debt is secured by the taxing authority of the district up to the maximum property tax rate allowed by the Oregon Constitution: ORS 288.162(1). 

Bonds are different from other forms of borrowing because they obligate taxpayers. The Sisters School District would like us to believe that Oregon law allows it to sell bonds and obligate taxpayers without asking for voter approval.

This makes no sense.  Property taxes can increase: ORS 288.162(2)(3).  Taxpayers must pay bond debt or the district will be insolvent, class sizes will double, teachers will be laid off, etc. 

Oregon law is clear. Voters must approve school bond issues before bonds are sold: ORS 328.213(1).

Mike Morgan

•••

To the Editor:

My wife and I were riding our bikes down from the Dee Wright observatory a few weeks ago and saw a coyote a few miles from the top. We were amazed how bold it was, loping for many yards in front of us. We slowed to watch it, only moving off a few yards from the pavement to watch us go by.

It appeared just like what is shown in Jim Anderson's photo (See The Nugget, August 8, page 1). I certainly believe Ms. Banks.

Pat Hughey