Letters to the Edtor 06/17/2015

To the Editor:

Over 40 years ago, four young couples in Corvallis got together with the idea of having a cabin at Black Butte Ranch. We pooled our money, chose a lot, and had a Ridge Cabin built. The partnership exists to this day. The Ranch is part of our lives, of our history, and that of the succeeding generations as well.

We remember when the Ranch helped Sisters merchants build store fronts to resemble an old Western town, when the Sisters schools went no farther than the eighth grade, when the number of restaurants in the area was limited. Over the years, we watched as Sisters blossomed into a tourist town, albeit helped by its location near the Ranch, but now able to stand on its own.

It was with pride that we saw the Ranch help Sisters schools, not just with its tax base, but also by providing the Sisters tennis, swim, and golf teams a place to practice and train.

We also appreciate the participation of the wider community when they eat at the BBR restaurants and play on the golf courses.

However, as much as we love and appreciate our relationship with the people in Sisters, we did not make our Black Butte Ranch decision over 40 years ago to include inviting anyone with a bike or the ability to walk to the Ranch. Not to swim in the pools that we've maintained for all these years, to walk on the bike paths that we've paid for, or play on the tennis courts that we've spent money on. The friendship, up to this date, has been mutually beneficial. But inviting non-paying non-invited people into our homes is not part of that.

As for traffic, does anyone seriously think that residents of the Ranch are going to bike to Sisters for their weekly groceries?

If Sisters wants a bike path so much, why not on the other side of the road? Same view, but not a route that leads directly into private property? Why not parallel the bike path with other area roads? Like Indian Ford? Three Creeks? Camp Sherman?

I read in The Nugget that Alan Unger said that the trail option would actually take some pressure off heavily used recreational paths inside the Ranch. Unless I have something wrong, the Ranch's paths are the Ranch's business, not Unger's. He thinks that by putting the Ranch's residents on the proposed path and the Sisters population on the Ranch's paths that somehow that will benefit the Ranch?

We feel we are already connected to the Sisters community in many ways without compromising the unique environment that we have so cherished all these years.

Dianne Walta Hart

Thomas J. Hart

s s s

To the Editor

As a Black Butte Ranch homeowner and frequent visitor to the area, I have followed the debate about a paved bike trail between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters for years.

The June 3 story how Oregon Solutions "dropped out of the process" given "the inability to bring key parties to the table" is beyond belief that even a "mediator" can't bring people together to find a reasonable solution that appears people support in concept but "don't want in my backyard."

Step back and consider this: The town of Sisters, population 2,200, has bike trails running through the town, two bike shops, promotes biking as part of the attraction of Sisters. Black Butte Ranch has 1,200 homes, 18 miles of paved bike trails, a bike shop, and biking is promoted as an attraction.

Yet, there is a visceral reaction to linking the two communities with a "paved" trail, that will run past other homes, "harm" the forest, invite trespassing and invade privacy. How were bike trails and paths ever approved and constructed in Sisters and Black Butte Ranch? In Lake Tahoe, California, there is a paved bike trail from Squaw Valley to Homewood, 13 miles. Sun Valley created paved bike trails that connect the towns of Bellevue, Hailey and Ketchum, or 15 miles of paved trails running by streams, golf courses, houses, through meadows and forest.

If other communities have done this by working together, why can't this community? Instead of driving, wasting gas, polluting the atmosphere, you could walk or ride a bike to shop, eat, or just be out for exercise. I appreciate the trail would be "carved" through the forest and be close to people's homes, but is that any different now with cars running past your home or business on the existing road, or people taking a walk on the paved street or path? Surely there has to be a way for people to find a solution that works for everyone.

Chris Lalli

•••

To the Editor:

No roundabout on a major highway!

The people of Sisters need to wake up now and object to this obscene waste of taxpayers' money by ODOT and Peter Murphy over the roundabout project scheduled for Highway 20 and Barclay Road intersection.

Are people really aware this project will cost $3.4 million? A stop light intersection cost $100,000-$300,000 (est.) at most, and doesn't interrupt the town in the process. This could be paid for with the $300,000 Sisters will contribute to the process.

The roundabout will cost 10 to 15 times more than a stoplight system. That extra $3 million saved would go a long way to improving Highway 20 from Sisters to Suttle Lake, which is in dire need of repair, as are most state highways.

A roundabout intersection: Slows traffic down, stifling traffic flow. Costs 10 to 15 times more to install the system. Will cause backups similar to Quilt Show weekend that will happen most days in summer. Take up excessive real estate. Hamper semi-truck traffic around this obstruction. Block out our natural views of entering Sisters with an artificial manufactured view, cluttered up with some scrapyard piece of junk called "art."

I haven't met anyone around Sisters that is in favor of this roundabout. Everybody was happy with the stop light installed last fall. Who is pushing this project? ODOT, Peter Murphy, or the Sisters City Council? The public needs to know the answer.

People, hold Peter Murphy accountable with your taxpayer dollars. It's waste like this project that keeps ODOT and other public agencies always demanding more and more money. They first need to spend what they have wisely!

Finally, Peter Murphy: stop lights do not cause rear-end accidents - inattentive drivers do! Oh, if you want to slow traffic down coming into town as you so stated: A much cheaper way is to put in rumble strips; cost is only a few dollars compared to a grotesque roundabout at $3.4-million-plus.

If stop lights are so bad, why are there a million or more intersections across the country equipped with them? Maybe ODOT needs to do some soul-searching and rethink their data.

C. Childrey

Camp Sherman/Sisters