Letters 04/07/2010

To the Editor:

I have the following comments regarding back-in angle parking.

Back-in angle parking will be problematic for a large number of reasons and will discourage people from stopping in downtown or, if a new visitor does stop, will discourage them from returning.

1. It is always easier to back out into a larger space (the street) than into a smaller space (a confined parking stall).

2. The crown of the street slopes toward the sidewalk. Thus, the street falls away as you back into your parking space. This will substantially reduce your visibility as the street is falling away from what is typically rear-window visibility.

3. Backing into a stall between cars will be a trial-and-error method potentially subjecting the parker to multiple attempts, meaning multiple times of pulling into the street to back properly into a space.

Imagine trying to back a Ford Excursion or a Chevy Suburban/Tahoe into an angled stall. Imagine trying to do it at night, in the rain or snow, and getting it right the first time so that your passengers and you can get out of the vehicle.

4. Back-in parking puts the exhaust pipes at the sidewalk, spewing exhaust fumes into the pedestrian area, sidewalk benches, store fronts and into open doors. Sidewalk seating or open storefront doors will not be feasible. Storefronts would require more cleaning and maintenance.

5. Many people still drive their vehicle into a space until the tire hits the curb. Most vehicles have a shorter distance between the front tire and the front bumper than between the back tire and the back bumper.

Oh yes, add on trailer hitches. What about hitch-installed bicycle racks?

6. People will damage their vehicles, light poles, waste cans, bike racks and other sidewalk amenities that they cannot see or they misjudge as they back up. Or they will leave their vehicle extended into the street, not being able to judge the distance they should back up.

Those concerns being expressed, can the City/ODOT point to municipalities where this has worked successfully?

Nicholas R. Veroske

•••

To the Editor:

The drive behind canal piping?

According to the USGS, the very water irrigation districts love to claim is lost by canal leakage is actually an important recharge of groundwater. Hydrologists' opinions differ over this delicate balance, worried about negative impacts on domestic wells and some stretches of rivers.

What's driving canal piping is irrigation districts and easy grant money. Tens of millions of tax dollars are granted with absolutely no oversight. Instead of hiring professional contractors from the community, farmers are paid stimulus money to make a mess, destroying trees and roads on public and private lands. The lack of competent construction management on TSID's highly pressurized pipeline is particularly frightening.

For eight years McKenzie Canyon landowners tried to work with TSID's contentious manager, Mark Thalacker, in efforts to exchange easements to place the pipe in their private roadbed rather than destroy the canyon's watershed. But even the wildlife ponds specified by the EPA were ignored once Thalacker got the money.

Thalacker makes lots of claims, but there's been no communication from TSID attorneys. They've had a month to produce easement records like those recorded in all other Central Oregon districts. Pressurized water will save Thalacker approximately $30,000 annually on his farm at the end of the pipe, so last week he took the law into his own hands and bulldozed the ancient streambed across my land.

We've been taught to feel ashamed of our private rights if they run contrary to the party line, but somebody needs to study the facts and stand up for the law. Thalacker could have had a deal years ago. Without easements, TSID's legal costs won't be covered by insurance, and ultimately Thalacker's bullying approach will harm everyone involved.

Jan Daggett