Letters to the Editor 04/25/2012

To the Editor:

The lack of logic in Jim Anderson's letter to the editor last week is astounding! A factoid repeated once again, is still a factoid. Now, let me get this straight. His letter claims deer come near our houses and eat our apples, gardens and lawns ... because they are attracted there by deer feeders. Huh? Come on Jim, deer come to eat the things they like to eat! With or without deer feeders. The farm I grew up on had many, many deer. And not a deer feeder for miles!

And why didn't Mr Anderson mention the dramatic increase in the Oregon cougar population during the last 20 years? I have read there are well over five times as many now. I suspect he avoided it because it would have rendered his "people/deer feeders are THE villains" worn-out factoid to the trash bin. More cougars + more people = more sightings. Pretty logical.

Also, could the primary reason he is seeing more deer year around be that we are generally having milder winters in Sisters Country, so they remain here all year long? More cougars + more people + more deer = more cougar sightings. Makes sense?

I'm not saying there is no correlation between cougar sightings and deer feeders. But logic tells me there is a very weak connection. Think about it ... a deer feeder dispenses a can of pellets a day. Golf courses, alfalfa fields, lawns and fruit trees "dispense" many times that much feed. Deer feeders = lots of cougars? Hogwash!

Finally to paraphrase, "Attracting deer WILL eventually lead to a cougar incident." We all see the deer herds constantly eating on the golf courses near town. If your statement is true, there should have been numerous cougar attacks there. And if it really is that dangerous, I ought to be able to buy a house at Aspen Lakes for about 500 bucks. Haven't looked in the real estate ads for a couple weeks, but I doubt that's what I'm going to see!

I read recently that there have been only two fatal cougar attacks on people in Oregon since the 1890s. Now if that isn't random, I don't know what is.

Barry Clock

•••

To the Editor:

In 2007, I purchased a hot dog cart thinking it could provide an income while I worked on changing careers. I knew I'd have to pass health inspections, maintain a business license, liability insurance, etc. and did a lot of research-asking questions of local business owners, police and town residents. I thought it would be a cinch.

After discovering Sisters charged a whopping $100 "transient vending permit," I was forced to reconsider.

Before giving up completely, I discussed things with another longtime store owner.

We agreed that my cart could be set up in his parking lot, without interfering with traffic or risking the safety of pedestrians, but I received immediate resistance from City Hall.

There were concerns that my signs would be inconsistent with Sisters' "Western" theme when, in fact, I had nothing but a menu.

Again, I was offered only the $100 per day TUP - a fee that would require selling an impossible number of hot dogs! Since the stand stood on private property, I thought it should be exempt.

No such option was available, so I decided to operate elsewhere.

Weeks later, I received a phone call from someone at City Hall. I say "someone" because I was caught unprepared and did not write down her name. According to her, I had been given approval but, shortly after I started operating, I was informed the cart was in violation. Confused, I went to City Hall - it was as if no one had even heard of me! I was shown the same old codes and offered the same prohibitively expensive permit. Frustrated, I told the store owner I couldn't return. Because I never discovered the name of the woman who'd given me permission, I ultimately went back to work in excavation.

I am sickened to think that Sisters continues to stifle new businesses or fresh ideas. Wild Mountain food stand offers unique, quality products and competes with no one. In addition, this business cleaned up an area that had previously been a catch-all for overgrown bitter brush, empty beer cans and other trash. And yet City Hall stonewalls or acts in an unfriendly and anti-capitalistic manner. Meanwhile, another hardworking man's livelihood is at stake. The PC and CC need to reconsider city codes or come up with some kind of compromise. There is nothing to be gained but further disappointment and ill-will if Wild Mountain is shut down.

Aaron Kirkpatrick

•••

To the Editor:

It seems that the interest over roundabouts has faded, but here is something that all might consider. We've lived and driven in England for over three years and, yes, the roundabouts do slow traffic and work well, except when one highway with high traffic (such as Highway 20) dominates the roundabout. Cross traffic never has a chance to enter. Many roundabout intersections in England with high traffic on one road now have four traffic lights entering the roundabout and four traffic lights on the roundabout to allow cross traffic a chance. That's a lot worse than a regular intersection traffic light.

Merrill Kneeland

•••

To the Editor:

This is a response to the letter by Pat and Karl Farr: "New Zealand and Australia may backend park, but they also drive on the wrong side of the road. Is that next?"

I think you meant to say they drive on the "left" side not the "wrong" side. Such a comment shows a condescending attitude, which I hope you were not meaning to convey.

Joe Marquez

•••

To the Editor:

A few last words about reverse diagonal parking. 

The City of Sisters, with the backing and support of ODOT, has started a $500,000 project to convert N. Main Ave. to reverse diagonal parking. Why, after over 100 years of automobile driving, is this brand-new concept being forced on the public? If this was truly a wise and safe thing to do, wouldn't it have been implemented a long time ago?

This concept is being pushed by ODOT and a very vocal bicycle lobby who wants to divert even more highway funds to bicycle-related projects while road repair and maintenance continue to suffer.

When a car, pick-up or SUV starts to back into a confined reverse diagonal parking space, the front of the vehicle will have to swing out across the road centerline and become a potential hazard to oncoming traffic. The vehicle, with restricted visibility, will still be crossing the bicycle travel lane and be a hazard to bicycle riders.

A vehicle that pulls into a traditional diagonal parking space still has to cross the bicycle travel lane when it backs out into the regular travel lane, but it does not cross the center of the roadway, and it is backing into that less confined space.

With traditional diagonal parking, at least the bicycle rider has the benefit of being able to see the back-up lights on the vehicle as a warning that the vehicle is backing out into traffic. With reverse diagonal parking bicycle riders do not get this warning.

The visibility out the back of most vehicles is not nearly as good as out the front, and for very good reasons.

Bicycle riders will always be at risk. They are traveling in a vehicle that is inherently un-safe. Bicycle riders must be constantly alert for hazards and dangers while riding.

In my opinion, ODOT needs some serious restructuring and a reminder as to who their primary customers are and what their mission should be.

Dave Marlow

•••

To the Editor:

The beautification project along Main Avenue is coming along nicely don't you think? Aesthetically it will be a welcome improvement, however, the back-in parking idea will deter business and sidewalk usage. No longer will the bank be able to have its friendly doors wide open in the summer; Angeline's customers will no longer linger in the cafe when vehicles fire up their engines; The Fly Fisher's napping retriever will become a dull dingy "golden"; and our newspapers will all smell like exhaust from now on; BUT, I'll get a good look at the driver that hits me on my bicycle!

It is also interesting to note that in the DMV Parent Guide to Teen Driving that it states "Backing increases the risk for crash because it is much more difficult to see obstacles behind us. In addition, backing up requires more space to maneuver because your tires do not turn." Here's a solution - cut the number of spaces in half in order to make each space twice as wide, then restrict usage to adult drivers in electric vehicles only.

Penny Elson