Letters to the Editor 05/23/2012

To the Editor:

Thanks for the informative article, "Greenhouse gardening is a must," in last week's issue of The Nugget. The article was especially timely in light of newly approved CC&Rs for Tollgate that allow greenhouses.

There is a statement in the article that isn't necessarily true. We are warned that even the tougher cold-weather vegetables will wilt when the temperature drops to 19 degrees, as it did in Sisters on the morning of May 10.

The parsnips, radishes, beets, kale, spinach, endive, cabbage, collards, carrots and several varieties of lettuce my wife and I had planted in our garden in April all survived that frigid May morning completely unfazed.

We attribute our garden's survival in such extreme conditions to three factors. First, we grow our veggies in a raised bed that is 18 inches high; this allows the coldest air to sink to lower ground outside the bed. Second, the bed's substrate is routinely bolstered with organic soil amendments that promote a thriving culture of earthworms and beneficial microorganisms, thereby creating a warming biomass. Third and most important, we covered our garden bed overnight with two layers of floating row covers to insulate it from the cold. 

With great care, it's possible for cool-weather crops to survive outdoors in Sisters when Mother Nature drops the mercury to bone-chilling lows.

Michael Cooper

•••

To the Editor:

The concept of "extensive community outreach" is being put to the test. In a recent Nugget article, it was explained that the proposed paved multi-use trail from Sisters to Camp Sherman "came out of an extensive process of community outreach."

A single survey, a meeting of 30 interested people is not exactly "extensive." According to the Sisters Trails Alliance (STA) the survey was sent electronically to their members, posted on their website, and advertised in The Nugget. If the results yield 130 responses and the information taken from those surveys is used to create a 1.4-million-dollar proposal with environmental and neighborhood impact, more data is needed as indicated in the following two paragraphs.

Only 26 percent of those surveyed expressed interest in a multi-use trail, 61% preferred native turf, only 11 percent wanted to connect communities through trails, and four percent wanted to develop new trails. I respect the STA and their dedication to our community, but how did they interpret these results to create the multi-use trail proposal?

A subsequent survey/petition of 161 Sisters residents [108 were Tollgate residents] revealed 100 percent of the respondents opposed to the trail as proposed by STA; in excess of 50 percent wanted no trail at all.

Prospective grant money must have played a role in formulating the Sisters-Camp Sherman trail and multi-use designation. If it weren't for state and federal grant money dictating size and surface, would other types of trails have been considered to link communities, including native turf, which the majority of those surveyed by STA preferred? It certainly would be less expensive and kinder to the environment.

Whether this trail proposal was shaped by grant money or community outreach is debatable. One fact is certain, the subsequent maintenance and upkeep for the 14 miles of paved surface (from Sisters to Camp Sherman) will be the sole responsibility of the STA, come roots, cracks or crumble.

The USFS is gathering and compiling public input at [email protected]

Steve Madsen

•••

To the Editor:

Here is a potential solution for the parking controversy on Main Avenue:

Make the spaces a full 12-feet wide so there is more room for vehicles. There will not be very many vehicles, anyway, so the reduced number of spaces will not be a concern and tourists who are not used to back-in parking will not be intimidated.

Voila!

Don Harner

•••

To the Editor:

Reverse angle parking is backward thinking. That experiment failed in Sisters. The majority of the citizens rejected it the first time and they don't want it now. Nevertheless, it's being forced upon us anyway. Immeasurable costs could arise regarding legal disputes because specific instructions and guidelines for reverse angle parking are not included in the "Oregon Driver Manual."

Moreover, it could be harmful to the health of pedestrians using the sidewalk; especially vulnerable are small children (seated in a stroller) the elderly or a disabled person in a wheelchair (bear in mind a potential ADA violation). There are numerous strictly enforced federal and state environmental regulations protecting air quality that consumers and business owners pay for in taxes and other fees. Therefore, forcing drivers to direct noxious vehicle exhaust at people on the sidewalk and at storefronts is counterproductive.

Reverse angle parking will be rejected a second time and the city will eventually be required to correct it.

The correction will cause more unnecessary inconvenience and obstruct business and residential access for an unknown duration.

I've spoken with many people in Sisters that believe the city council was encouraged to approve the project primarily for avoiding governmental downsizing during a time when it must be required.

It establishes a perpetual effect that prevents public employee layoffs and provides paybacks to special interest groups.

That is not stimulus; it is yet another costly manipulation by an out-of-control government at all levels.

The plan has been cloaked with good intentions, but the end result is detrimental.

Kevin L. Dumas