Letters to the Editor 01/01/2014

To the Editor:

Regarding vandalism to mailboxes in neighborhoods north of Sisters:

We live on a street with wonderful neighbors. We decided to create unique and whimsical newspaper boxes to replace the not-so-unique white standard ones you are given by The Bulletin. This made our street a little more special and fun. What is sad is that someone or ones decided to take that away.

Some of the widows in the neighborhood no longer feel safe, and another couple is now thinking of moving to a retirement home, as they don't want to deal with this type of behavior and what may come next. What does it say about someone when they get their pleasure from someone else's pain? I think it does say something about their character or lack thereof. If they find joy in this sort of activity, it is a sad statement about who they are.

Why not find joy in helping those in need, or visiting someone that has no one to cheer them during the holidays, or hand out the food baskets to those in need, maybe even raise some money to buy gifts for needy kids.

If what it takes to make you happy is destroying someone else's joy, that makes me sad for you.

Darlene Knox

•••

To the Editor:

Here's a suggestion: How about focusing on principles instead of personalities in the Wild Mountain case? How about taking a more considered, thoughtful and nuanced stance? I ask these questions because I'm sick and tired of hearing all the reasons as to why one should, or should not, have "sympathy" for Ky Karnecki.

Given that ours is a government of laws, not men (or women for that matter), what difference does it make whether or not he's a nice guy, a likable person or sympathetic character? How are anyone's feelings at all relevant here?

Like every other citizen of this nation, Karnecki has constitutional rights - that includes the right to have his case heard by a fair and impartial judge/jury.

Yes, Ky and I have had our share of disagreements and personal differences over the years, but those are between us and us alone. On the other hand, my political support for his lawsuit and the exercise of his legal rights remain undiminished.

I believe it's also worth noting that I don't always condone Karnecki's actions, politically or personally, and most especially with regard to his recent comments about Jim Cornelius. Rather, I agree with David Grady that Karnecki's remarks were "snarky" and unwarranted. In fact, I'll go even further and call his snide remarks belittling, unfair and personally demeaning.

This doesn't mean that I'm impressed with everything Cornelius - or anyone else I might happen to find likable - says or does, either. Still, I'm quite capable of recognizing Cornelius's efforts to uphold journalistic principles and deeply appreciate the ways in which he's gone on record to defend politically unpopular positions - in a small town like Sisters, that takes a great deal of courage and integrity!

In sum, if someone like me, who unabashedly describes herself as an "opinionated old broad," can set aside her own particular views and personal loyalties-for the sake of taking a more principled, subtle and politically objective stance-why can't others do likewise? If nothing else, I'm going to wish for a little more peace and good will towards all in the year ahead!

Camille Atkinson

•••

To the Editor:

Just a heads up to parents of young children thinking of taking them to "Saving Mr. Banks" currently being shown at the Sisters Movie House: Some movie reviews have suggested this movie was suitable for kids 10 and up. After seeing and enjoying it, my recommendation would be at least 12 and older as there are some scenes young children may not understand and find disturbing, as did the ones sitting near me that questioned the adult with them as to what was happening.

Just because the subject is Disney-related doesn't mean it's for all children.

Judy McCann

•••

To the Editor:

The Editor's response to Mr. Karnecki's letter two weeks ago missed the mark. I've had a copy of Mr. Karnecki's first Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for a very long time and so has The Nugget. It contains no language whatsoever requiring him to remove his structure. All that needed to be said is: "You're correct, we regret the error."

The fact there was discussion of an ordinance that might be applicable (but never enforced) cannot be considered a requirement of a Temporary Use Permit unless it's specifically included in the TUP under the section titled Conditions of Approval. An approved TUP creates a contract between the applicant and the City. If the structure removal requirement is not cited in the TUP it does not apply and cannot be enforced.

The City and its employees must be held to a higher standard than those they serve. It's indefensible for the Community Development Department to list some conditions of approval, but not all conditions, on any permit. People wanting to open a business in Sisters should not have to guess or hire an attorney to figure out what the City requires of them; all requirements should be clearly stated in the contract between the applicant and the City. This was not done on Mr. Karnecki's first TUP and resulted in significant financial harm. The errors were corrected on his second TUP after the harm had been done.

Mr. Karnecki tried to get a reasonable remedy to the structure removal requirement through a simple code change but was denied. The other similar business operating on an identical TUP was never required to remove its structure. These facts suggest discrimination, which is why the City now faces a civil rights lawsuit in Federal Court.

Mike Morgan