Letters to the Editor 08/26/2009

To the Editor:

I don't like taxes any more than anyone else, but I do think that local people know how to spend local taxes better than the state.

In light of that fact, we better latch onto a local gas tax. Taxed locally and spent locally. No laundry fee attached like one originated by a state or federal agency's.

I really do not like some industry big shot oil baron who does not live inside the city, county, or state telling me, who lives in the city and has for 30 or so years, how I should be living.

It seems that those who live outside the city and drive on city streets should pay for some of the maintenance; a gas tax does that.

Anything else has only those who live here paying the whole bill, and those who do not live inside the city getting the benefits and not paying the bill.

David Culver

•••

To the Editor:

I have a copy of the 2009/2010 budget document which should be on the Sisters Web site next week.

Eileen Stein says: "This budget year finds the national economy in a severe recession... neighboring local governments have experienced significant budget shortfalls and layoffs... the City of Sisters is not in the same dire straits...in addition to the reserve fund, the General Fund contingency has exceeded $1 million over several years."

Where's the crisis?

The expected cash carry forward into fiscal year 2009/2010 is $7,086,637. The new budget includes $5,218,644 in contingencies against expected expenses of $5,111,620.

In other words, the city now has enough cash to cover 16 months of expenses and its cash position should continue to grow due to the budget contingencies.

Cash on hand increased $1,431,126 during the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2009.

There is no financial crisis.

What do city employees do? The city population increased eight percent from 2006 to 2009 while city employment increased 36 percent. The planning department has the same number of employees today as it did in 2006 when construction was still booming. What do they do now with virtually no plan reviews, permits or inspections? Public works increased 50 percent while the city contracted out garbage collection.

Is there really that much meaningful work; how long will it continue?

The facts don't agree with recent public rhetoric regarding the gas tax. The people of Sisters deserve an explanation.

Mike Morgan

•••

To the Editor:

I have witnessed many letters, commentaries, and discussions regarding the new gas tax now approved in Sisters.

I am insulted by the nonintellectual comment made by Bill Merrill regarding village idiots, while also understanding his perspective. What must be considered here is not as simple as determining if all local consumers would rather go into Bend for cheaper gas.

Look at the different markets Sisters offers, such as grocery shopping and household spending needs. The gas tax is just another reason the locals need to make such trips to Bend. I have rarely done my shopping at the local (markets) versus the price difference of Bend's markets. The money I save on food is alone worth the time and effort to drive the 25 miles.

Buying gas at the more efficient price is no exception. We are at a time in economic stress where we must cut needless expenses and find more efficient costs to living.

I must agree with councilor Sharlene Weed, the tax is an appropriate solution to the local road maintenance, but in this economy, is it the best option available? Must our only options be gas tax or utility tax? Taxes left or right?

I say let us locals decide on our fate. I impatiently await the arrival of those petition papers, and will personally aide Paul Romain in his 106-plus signatures if need be.

Adam Marcus

•••

To the Editor:

The president is proposing an energy policy that, if enacted, would be a far reaching expansion of government that will take our children and grandchildren many years to pay off.

I want to address just one segment of the ever-so-large act:

Renewable energy projects that are supposed to help offset and one day replace fossil fuels. This is a federal scam, and a complete waste of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. If solar and wind were such a great investment we would have solar plates and wind mills covering large areas of our great country now and their would be no need for huge incentives by government to build and install these devices.

Our government incentivizes to the tune of 30 percent of the cost if alternative energy projects. If you could cover all the available land area that would produce this alternative power it would only produce five percent of the kilowatt hours for our homes, buildings and factories.

Remember the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time.

The utility companies are beginning to balk at these projects because they must furnish transmission line coverage for 100 percent of the theoretical power, not the actual power produced. So transmission line capacity is being filled with projects that only produce a fraction of the line capacity.

Why you ask? Because when the project is producing it does fill the line, ironically, it is only an average of 25 percent to 30 percent. This means in Oregon that Bonneville must shut off projects like dams to allow wind power mandated by your government. Yes, shut off two-cent power for 35-cent power. That makes good sense.

So if you're one who thinks renewable is the only way to go, be careful what you wish for!

Bill Thompson, Crossroads