Letters to the Editor 04/04/2012

To the Editor:

In the story last week regarding Wild Mountain, there was an unusual statement that had no explanation. I quote:

"The recent discovery of Richard's Produce's permanent status exempts Greene's business from this requirement."

Really? A business is declared permanent with no proof that the owner ever applied for a permanent permit then made temporary is now permanent again even though they are currently operating under a temporary permit? Shazzaam, Richard's Produce is hereby declared by the City of Sisters to be a permanent business.

I have no complaint with Richard's Produce; my wife is a regular customer. My complaint is with news reporting that does not explain statements that on the surface are indefensible. Who told the reporter that a business that has been operating for years on a temporary use permit has now been determined to actually be a permanent business? This declaration was evidently made two weeks ago when a day before both the City and Richard Greene believed otherwise.

The city must publicly explain in this paper: 1) how a business operating on a temporary use permit could be made permanent without a new permit application and site review to ensure compliance with code applicable to a permanent business, and 2) how a permit allegedly applicable more than 10 years ago has anything to do with the current business operated by the same owner under a temporary use permit for the past 3-4 years.

Maybe the business never lawfully operated for some years, didn't operate at all, or never was operating under a permanent permit. The public has a right to know the facts, not just what someone said.

Mike Morgan

•••

To the Editor:

Nature is not a petting zoo. People who feed wild animals (other than birds of flight) risk the lives of every person and domestic animal that lives near. If it weren't bad enough that the "domesticated" wildlife hover near the home where they get fed, their presence invites the very natural predators who keep nature in balance. If a cougar sees prey lounging around a home, its fear of humans is also reduced. 

Another point of interest: The CDC determined in the 1990s that the nearly epidemic spread of Lyme Disease across the nation was the result of many deer herds populating the same areas of the forest, spreading tics through herds, then to people. They found this occurring in forest clear-cuts where many small deer "families" congregated, as grasses took over where there used to be trees. They also found it where people feed the deer and small herds become abnormally large herds. Do you who feed the deer think you're immune to this difficult disease? Good luck with that. 

What is it going to take? Will it take a child being attacked by either a predator or one of these "tame" deer to get you to stop? This is a selfish act, this need to make pets of wildlife.

Maybe there should be strict fines for the loss of the life of a cougar or coyote levied on the responsible parties who are causing this problem, just as there are consequences for killing an animal out of season. Poaching seems almost moral when compared to the pending consequences when people feed deer. (At least poaching does not threaten neighbors.) If you want to express your love for nature, respect it. Let it be.

Bonnie Malone

•••

To the Editor:

I encountered back-in parking while traveling in New Zealand and Australia. Yes, it takes a short time to get used to, but I now prefer it because it feels much safer for both the traveling traffic and the driver of the parked car joining traffic: pulling into oncoming traffic is safer if you can see the traffic and are making just one move.

Front-in parking scenario: driver wishes to park, so drives slowly with their blinker on, sees a space and pulls in.

Driver returns to car, puts items into their car, gets in, gets seat belt on, starts car, and now has no idea what is now approaching in the traffic lanes or which other drivers may be backing out, too.

Perhaps the driver can see traffic approaching from one or both sides, but more commonly, the driver's view is blocked by a larger vehicle on one or both sides, and/or vehicles with darkened windows on one or both sides.

So, the driver looks in their mirrors, sees that nothing is directly behind and slowly (sometimes not-so-slowly) backs out into oncoming traffic.

And just what percentage of the drivers through our town actually travel 20 mph or slower as we're trying to back out of a parking space?

Back-in parking scenario: driver wishes to park, so drives slowly with their blinker on, the driver evaluates the space and within a few seconds backs in. Very little time for surprises to happen in the parking space or traffic lanes. Driver returns to car, puts items into their car, gets in, gets seat belt on, starts car, and now has a great view of the oncoming traffic and other parked cars perhaps also pulling out, and the driver can pull out in either direction safely without striking any oncoming cars, bicyclists, pedestrians, children, dogs, skunks.

Yes, it takes a little more time to back in than pull in frontwards, but not much; it's much quicker than inching out blindly into traffic. If you're afraid someone is going to rear-end you, they would do that if they were not paying attention when you stopped to front-in park, too. Yes, drivers behind need to leave some room to allow cars to back-in or parallel park; use your signal. And, if you can't back-up your car well, you need to practice that skill. Try it, you'll like the possibilities it opens up for you. Or you could keep complaining that you can't back up your car; I'm sure DMV would be interested to know that.

Lynn Woodward

•••

To the Editor:

After Bill Moyers' recent interview with Andrew Bacevich, author of, among other books, "The Short American Century," I found my candidate for President of the United States: it is Andrew Bacevich.

In that one hour, he displayed more knowledge of the world's current problems, of our part in its wars of recent history, and our position in this world than anyone I have ever listened to.

I plan to immediately get his book.

I would like to give him an hour to tell us of his solutions to some of our current economic problems; to tell us how fast he would get our troops out of Afghanistan as well as our well-intentioned (?) policing of the rest of the world - how he would use them instead on a national disgrace: our drug wars.

In one hour I think he could reassure me that he has a handle on apolitical solutions to our quote-unquote "corruption" in our banking system.

Unfortunately, he strikes me as too smart and too honest to be classified as one of our current 500 (or even one of the 500 to follow; we aren't naive enough to think that an election will change anything in Washington). Mr. Bacevich, who has even the military experience to know whereof he speaks, is currently at Boston University. I am ready to campaign for him: Draft Andrew Bacevich!!!

Russell B. Williams