Letters to the Editor 02/24/2010

To the Editor:

Re: "Public weighs in on development code," (The Nugget, February 17, page 1):

I went throughout the town and found 45 businesses that will be hurt or affected by new sign law code changes (not current laws).

The subject was regarding banning A-frame signs and blinking signs or limiting the number of neon signs per business.

This is not the time to gamble with our businesses futures to appease the few.

As a retailer that is experiencing the worst sales in the past 12 years, every dollar counts.

It is time for less government, not more.

Maybe it is time for businesses to look carefully at how the city is spending their money.

Maybe it is time for the city to stop spending and cut back like almost every business owner I know has been cutting back.

I do appreciate their hard work, but times are very hard for many.

Please be careful with our future and the ability to provide food on our families' tables.

Jeff Haken

Owner, Garden of Eden

•••

To the Editor:

Re: "Public weighs in on development code," (The Nugget, February 17, page 1):

It sometimes is easy to approve changes when times are rough that would not be acceptable in good economic times.

It is important to be able to look way down the road when deciding on these proposed changes.

Paula Kaye

•••

To the Editor:

Well, the ballots have arrived.

After serving on the city's budget committee for three years, I can say with conviction that we need to pass the gas tax in order to establish a fund for proper maintenance of all our streets.

Our streets have been given the least necessary maintenance for years because the city could only transfer a minimum amount of money from the general fund to the street fund without hurting the other requirements it must properly pay for.

Yes, the street fund does receive money from the state, but it is not enough to pay for all the annual maintenance needed. A thorough analysis was done last year on all the streets, and many are in bad shape or soon will be. The cost to tear out and rebuild some of these roads later on will cost us much more than beginning proper care now, before it's too late.

If you drive 15,000 miles a year (that's 288 miles per week!) and your car gets 20 miles per gallon, you will pay $22.50 more per year than you pay now. The cost to each of us is that low because many visitors also purchase gas here as they are visiting or driving through.

The other alternative is for the city to charge all the homes and business properties here a fee to raise the same amount of money for the streets, which was estimated last year to be around $9 per month!

Most cities in Oregon already have a gas tax, and Redmond also has a three-cent gas tax on the ballot this time. This tax will add only 1.07 percent to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Considering the city's only alternative, it seems a small price to pay for the maintenance that truly must be done.

Please vote yes.

Virginia Lindsey

•••

To the Editor:

As long-time business owners and Sisters residents, and having seen the area evolve into a tourist-based economy, we urge you to vote "yes" on the gas tax initiative.

The gas tax will provide funds for street maintenance. With all of the other demands on the general fund it will stabilize street maintenance funding with visitors as well as residents sharing in the costs.

John and Jean Wells Keenan

•••

To the Editor:

As a nurse in our American health care system, I feel the need to step up and lend my voice to the current health care debate. I am concerned that because of the political climate in this country, any health care reform may be stymied.

As I see it, our health care system has two major problems. First, it is morally bankrupt. It is estimated that nearly 37 million Americans have no insurance, and that many more are underinsured. 22,000 each year die from treatable medical conditions due lack of adequate health insurance. No other industrialized country has these statistics. Why is it acceptable to us that many of our citizens are not covered, and that there is not fairness in our current system?

Second, our system spends more on health care per person than any other industrialized country (even though not everyone is covered), and yet we have poorer health outcomes in many areas such as life expectancy rates and in infant mortality. We are not getting what we pay for.

True health care reform can only take place if every part of the system is addressed: insurance, hospital practices and charges, ER/procedure overuse, physician reimbursement and education, medical malpractice, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, government regulations, our health care tax system for businesses, our emphasis on illness instead of wellness/prevention, and many other areas.

I give credit to the President and Congress for taking this issue on and support anyone who in good faith admits that our system is unethical and inefficient and needs reform. All Americans, whether they are insured or uninsured, and those on government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, will benefit from health system reform.

It is interesting to look at other industrialized countries and their health care systems. Some are government run, some are private, many are a combination. Efficient systems can be run by both, despite the rhetoric we hear in this country.

I encourage all members of our community to write to your congressperson and senators and let them know that we appreciate their efforts towards reform and that we expect passage of a final comprehensive bill soon. If you favor one type of system over another, let them know that also. What we cannot do is maintain the status quo. I hope our country can rise above its politics and special interests and improve the health system for all of us.

Gwen Hanson, RN, BSN