Rebuttal to Morgan commentary

Economic vitality or real estate development? It is not a one-or-the-other choice. We can have both. Let's start at the beginning of Mike Morgan's op-ed of October 6 (Morgan's assertions in italics): The current council advances real estate development without understanding that economic development must occur first. Actually, reasonably priced housing comes first. Without an ample supply of reasonably priced housing, industrial business will not locate to a community.

There must be a significant demand before lenders will fund new development projects. Actually, lenders will fund new developments if they have a high degree of certainty that they will get the loans repaid. Remember the days before Frank and Dodd, when borrowers had to prove they could repay the loans? Well, lenders are returning to that requirement.

This community does not need more homes, retail store fronts, or commercial buildings; there is little demand for improved property and to create more for a quick profit is shortsighted.

There is always room for new development; the problem is matching the need to the existing inventory. Lately Sisters has been converting industrial land to housing uses or mixed uses. Large parcels of industrial land are disappearing.

Developing excess inventory drives down all property values and invites unsustainable competition for existing businesses; everybody loses except the contractors, real estate agents, landowners and others that profit from real estate development

Competition is good; it lowers the price for everybody. Access to easy money resulting from the sub-prime mortgage market caused prices to go higher. Lack of an ample supply of any commodity actually causes prices to go higher. Furthermore, what's wrong with making a profit?

Economic development in this community cannot mean looking for companies to move their operation here; that's not going to happen.

Oregon is not a friendly place for businesses to move to. When the state's voters pass retroactive tax increases on businesses, is it any wonder that businesses are reluctant to move here and are actually relocating to other states?

Economic development in this community requires getting people to move here that are retired or can bring their job with them.

That's a great economic model based on retired people. Does that produce a lot of living wage or family wage jobs or just minimum wage service and support related jobs?

This is a great place for high tech companies to hide a few of their best scientist, engineers, and programmers.

Companies do not hide their best workers. Those people tend to thrive in

an open interactive environment that fosters creativity.

Once here they would create good jobs for the support services that they require.

Are we talking about minimum wage service industry jobs? WOW, that would be a good thing, more minimum wage jobs.

Economic vitality requires a council willing to consider the needs of the whole over the needs of the few.

At last something that we agree on. The council needs to develop a broad-based economy and not put all of their eggs in one basket or industry. Remember when we had a timber industry that produced living, family wage jobs? We could again. If we logged one percent of our timber land per year we would eventually have a never ending supply of 100-year-old trees.

There seems to be an anti-developer sentiment running through Mike's article. Why? Developers are risk-takers putting their dreams and resources into businesses and property development projects in the hope of making a profit. Those developments usually create jobs, both long and short term, that generally pay far more than minimum wages. Why is that a bad thing?

Dave Marlow is a Sisters resident and former member of the Sisters Urban Area Planning Commission.