Fairness matters

Common to Americans across the political spectrum are the shared values of equality and fairness. We don't like a seeing a double standard being applied, no matter who the recipient might be, and when we do we feel a sense of violation. This is the way I feel about the treatment that Ky Karnecki, who owns the Wild Mountain Jerky roadside stand, has received in his dealings with the City of Sisters.

In the name of full disclosure, I don't really know Ky; we met for the first time just a few weeks ago when I became interested in what seemed to be his uphill battle with the city. As a former member of the planning commission, I was also deeply offended last September when a free-flowing discussion among several commissioners clearly indicated a prejudice toward Ky and/or his business. It became apparent to me that Ky was facing a losing battle. The cards were already stacked against him.

Ky's battle is drawing to a close. It will likely end in the next few weeks with the planning commission ignoring all proposals to accommodate his business model. They will adopt a development code without any changes relevant to Karnecki, and the city council will approve whatever the PC sends their way. In other words, it will be a non-event, and Karnecki will shutter his business and leave when his permit expires. I see that as a loss.

With all the prejudicial statements being made by members of the council and commission, you have to ask yourself why is Karnecki being singled out? At the opposite end of town is another temporary-use vendor, Richard's Produce. This "temporary" business sells great fruits and vegetables and many of us shop at Richard's during the spring to fall months. He provides a valuable asset to this community, and as such we continue to support him with our purchases. Few would be happy if the city made things so difficult for Richard that he left town and went elsewhere.

During most of the 10 or so years Richard's has been in business, the city, specifically the current planning director and senior planner who have been here the last four years, have simply looked the other way when it came time for Richard to remove his "temporary structures," as required by his permit, or continue running his business (selling Christmas trees) beyond the permit timeframe.

His building stands there now, in clear violation of the permit, while the planning commission and department tell Ky his building must go, that "he knew the rules," that we don't want to have the town littered with these "eyesores," and that perhaps there should be a bond required to insure his building's eventual removal.

Under the guise of "difficult economic times" and the need to stimulate economic development, the city is willing to rezone a part of the town to help a school locate here, provide free water to help another business hoping they locate in the industrial park, create an enterprise zone that provides taxpayer-funded incentives, extend permit applications so that applicants don't have to spend extra money (thus keeping the projects alive), and is willing to overlook code violations for certain individuals, but for others, like Karnecki, it is not.

The city attorney has already provided sample language to the PC and staff allowing reasonable changes to accommodate Karnecki's request. And Ky, to his credit, has made numerous efforts to work with commission members to come to any reasonable compromise. But he continues to run into one stone wall after another.

Could the city, with little or no cost, accommodate Karnecki and help save a business? Absolutely. Reasonable development code changes could be drafted in an afternoon. Is that going to happen? Absolutely not. In the city of Sisters, It's not how you play the game that counts, it's who keeps score.