Letters to the Editor 03/26/2008

To the Editor:

Our development, The Rim at Aspen Lakes, adjoins the land that would become a huge housing complex if the Cyrus family is successful in converting Golf Course Estates to a destination resort.

Back in 1989 when the Cyrus family claim that they discussed such a future conversion with "county staff" (see "Aspen Lakes plan destination resort," The Nugget, March 12, page 1), they were given permission by the county to develop two adjoining clustered subdivisions.

These were The Rim and Golf Course Estates. The requirements that the Cyruses legally agreed to in 1989 state that the land designated as "open space" was to remain open space "in perpetuity" and that the developments would "preserve rural values."

Now, the Cyrus family unilaterally wants to put a large number of additional houses and a hotel on parts of the open space at the Golf Course Estates subdivision, even though the subdivision is almost fully developed. Apart from the fact that this is a betrayal of their original agreement with the county on which many of our property owners relied upon when buying their land, this would create a large urban development close to Whychus Creek and further overload the roads leading into Sisters.

Our homeowners association strongly opposes the proposed destination resort. In addition to our loss of rural surroundings, there would be a large increase in traffic on Camp Polk Road (with very dangerous curves and grades near the creek), years of construction noise and possible effects on both the quantity and quality of our water supply from such a major development.

Derek Cornforth.

President, The Rim at Aspen Lakes Association

•••

To the Editor:

It is unfortunate that The Nugget has positioned itself against the clearly stated preference of the Sisters community that is not associated with and does prefer unrestricted development. The "news article" by Joseph Duerrmeyer regarding the planned Metolious development stands in stark contrast with what might be considered journalism. It can be classified at best as a press release for development interests. "Eco-destination resort"? Really?

What is the value to the community when its local news outlet clearly panders to special interests by spreading unbalanced fluff under the guise of news or journalism? You can and must do better. You have a special trust and obligation to do so.

Ed Protas

•••

To the Editor:

The Sisters area is exceptionally fortunate to contain a number of outstanding natural jewels that relate to our quality of life. The Metolius River and its watershed are among those and are recognized internationally.

We take this jewel for granted and don't see the slow deterioration taking place, which will be exacerbated by the proposed destination resorts in Jefferson County.

Often the deterioration is hard to observe since it grows slowly by accretion or involves pathways like groundwater that are out of sight and out of mind. Or erosion on disturbed soils during rainfall or snow melt and the downstream sedimentation damage to aquatic habitat.

Most residents are addicted to these natural jewels, but some are also addicted to ever-more development and the concomitant deterioration of our natural assets. Unfortunately, we sometimes have to choose between our addictions. That's bitter medicine, and many will refuse it, but the same cause-effect relationships reoccur in place after place after place.

Understanding this dilemma requires effort on the part of many. The local news sources have a special responsibility to bring all aspects of these issues into public awareness, so it was surprising to see another one-sided presentation of the Metolius destination resort issue in The Nugget.

The paper usually covers issues well, but the serious and unavoidable effects linked to the two developments have never been presented. These involve erosion, sedimentation, groundwater, surface water, native trout, salmon currently being reintroduced after 40 years, traffic, service infrastructure, schools, tax equity and overuse of the river. Instead we get articles that are free advertisements for the developments like the one in the March 26 issue.

The City of Sisters and the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council supported SB 30 that opposed the developments. So do all fish and environmental organizations that have taken a position. Whether The Nugget agrees with these positions or not shouldn't eliminate the responsibility to cover the issue objectively.

Tom Davis

•••

To the Editor:

I applaud the attempt to improve the health of the Metolius ("Littering for the health of the Metolius River," The Nugget, March 19, page 6).

Most of the local users of this great natural resource will encourage and support it.

But! The river has developed a reputation as a kayaker's adventure. These adventurers like the free flowing sections and bring chain saws to open waters that are blocked by "litter."

I hope the Deschutes Watershed Council will have support of officials that can enforce the maintenance required to keep the litter in place. The Metolious flow was blocked by litter ( e.g. logs) in Canyon Creek Camp.

It was one of my favorite fishing spots. Last year the logs were cut to clear the flow in the section. Expect these sorts of actions to continue, and plan to continue the littering project, or it is sure to fail.

Thanks for the article and the "littering" efforts.

Fred Lindsey

•••

To the Editor:

In Jim Anderson's column on traps and poison (The Nugget, March 19, page 32) he states that it is illegal to trap without signs or notification that there are traps in the area. Unfortunately, this is not true.

Most animals have their trapping season in the winter, but coyote season is open all year. This issue comes up every time someone's dog gets hurt by a trap. It may be time to review the trapping regulations in Oregon, but that will only happen if the legislature hears many, many complaints.

Bruce Berryhill

•••

To the Editor:

The mayor "explained calmly that the city council was not opposed to having a flag"? Many people saw the meeting quite differently. You forgot to mention that.

The mayor began by calling the Memorial Day services a "demonstration." That he wants to protect people who want to "burn the flag" as much as those that want to fly it. And that someone was concerned about exposing children to the memorial in the park. This was certainly inflammatory language if not disrespectful to the audience.

The council president sat red-faced and teeth clenched during the meeting, while the audience gave their opinions. Then, he lectured the audience about his service, volunteerism, etc. and why he knows better than any of the other citizens and/or veterans about what, where, when and how a memorial should be. He appeared angry, condescending and arrogant.

The mayor or the council president did NOT appease the veterans in the audience - we were being polite. The mayor was on the Lars Larson show on Friday, March 14, (can be heard at larslarson.com) and hung up on Lars when he couldn't answer the question "Why can't they put the flag pole there?"

The existing "Veterans Park" is a 150-foot landscape strip (created with the realignment of the McKenzie Highway connection to Highway 20) on the west end of town, owned by ODOT and USFS - not the city.

I served in the military 24 years. My husband has served 39 years (returned from Afghanistan last June and still serving). He mentioned that it might take the merchants in the community to remind the council that their livelihoods depend on veterans visiting, staying and shopping in the community. Word will continue to spread about the council's actions, and the impact to Sisters could be significant as a result.

The other way to get the attention of the city council is a recall. I understand that this idea is gaining traction, and individuals are going to pursue this avenue.

Betsy Leighty-Johnson

•••

To the Editor:

Why is it "inflammatory language if not disrespectful to the audience?" Look up the word "demonstration" in the dictionary. It has multiple definitions. "A public display of group opinion, as by a rally or march."

Oh... were you offended by the mayor saying he was there to protect people who would burn the flag as much as those who want to wave the flag? There is something called "free speech." These freedoms that vets have fought for include the freedom to wave or burn the flag as one chooses. That is what freedom is about, the ability to agree and the ability to disagree.

Yes Merrill was angry. He was not condescending or arrogant. He was upset by some people saying he was unpatriotic. He didn't suggest that he knew better than others. That was your interpretation.

I was in the audience. I was not offended at all by the city council. I was, however, offended by the "polite" actions of the veterans and supporters who chose to interrupt the council when they were speaking.

I have (a) friend who is currently in Iraq right now. He reenlisted while in Iraq knowing he could stay there another four years. He agrees with me about there being a number of other causes that need support, not just giving multiple monuments to vets in this tiny town. I hope there isn't anyone who would dare describe him as un-American or unpatriotic because of his view that there doesn't need to be two monuments in a town so small.

"He mentioned that it might take the merchants in the community to remind the council that their livelihoods depend on veterans visiting, staying and shopping in the community. Word will continue to spread about the council's actions, and the impact to Sisters could be significant as a result."

That to me sounds like a threat. You are saying "if we don't get our way, then a lot of people will suffer." Remember it is the people in this town and area who will suffer if your suggested implication (of a store boycott) were to happen. Many employees are people from Sisters.

Why not go before the county commissioners and ask them for some public land outside the city to put a memorial for vets if you feel one more is needed in this area. Why force your views and ideologies on others and partake on the side with name-callers in personal attacks on those who disagree with you?

Better yet... why not get together the money to buy a piece of property in Sisters and put up another memorial paid for by donations on private property?

Joe Marquez

•••

To the Editor:

As this issue over the flag has gotten more attention, things seem to be presented out of context.

First of all, the memorial for placement in Village Green Park was approved and is being installed. The only issue seems to be about a flag pole. It first started with "should it be lit or not." We feel it should be lit 24/7. (See workshop meeting notes from September 6, 2007.)

So the big issue still lies with the flag pole.

We were asked to contact the Rotary over how they felt about another memorial going in and if they would combine the two. We stand on the belief that the Rotary Veterans Park should stay as is. Two memorial sites would be great to have, one at the west portal of the city as a welcome to all and one dedicated to those that have lived in the Sisters community. This memorial will have the names of those veterans.

So did we contact the Rotary? We, through Rotary members that are also members of the VFW, did, and there has been no dissension or concerns over having two memorials.

Village Green is a great place to have this presented to the city and its citizens. A memorial here can be enjoyed by all and is in the most visible place in the central park of our city. Should the memorial have a flag pole along with it? It would be the first flag pole to be installed in any of Sisters current five parks. It would be the only flag pole in our parks, and it would stand vigil over the current memorial that is coming near its completion. It will be a registered memorial in the State of Oregon.

Let's put it in! The flag pole will be lit 24/7 and not disturb anyone by its lighting. We will care for the memorial and the flag pole, and if the city would like we will take care of whatever needs come up.

Maybe the citizens should speak out for what they want, not just the veterans.

For the veterans of Sisters,

Phil Gale