Letters to the Editor 07/01/2015

To the Editor:

When I was mayor of our small town, one thing I clearly remember being told from conferences and meetings is that every city has the same problems, it's only a matter of scale. So I find it interesting and similar that Sisters is experiencing the same thing as Benton County.

A minority wants to build a paved path from Albany to Corvallis. The controversy is that it needs to cross private property of generational farmers. The fight is bitter and I empathize with the landowners because wherever there are people there is litter, vandalism, theft and defecation even though the "wouldn't it be great" crowd disagrees.

Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell, who has recently stepped down, was pushing for eminent domain.

It would appear that the same thinking applies in Sisters. And frankly, the traffic congestion at Tollgate is not from the folks from Black Butte Ranch or Camp Sherman. By far and above, the majority of traffic to Sisters is from the valley, the coast, the large cities and points beyond. So the proposed path would benefit the same "wouldn't it be great" minorities at the expense of all of you and the dismay of property owners. Good luck with that.

And I must admit, in Sisters' case, I only learned of this issue recently and may not have all the facts, but it smells the same.

Chris Schaffner

Tangent, Oregon

•••

To the Editor:

We should not be advocating for another trail when there is already one in existence that exactly parallels the proposed Sisters to Black Butte Ranch trail. There is already a trail from Sisters that goes all the way to Indian Ford Creek and Campground, where it ties into the network of Metolius Area recreation trails. It isn't paved, but it could easily be developed as the paved trail that advocates want for ADA reasons - and without bulldozing another path through the forest and bringing down hundreds of trees. It only has to be paved.

The group called "Friends of the Black Butte Trail" seem to be adamantly against using existing trails.

Why not take advantage of what we already have? Why carve another trail through the forest? Why lobby for taking down hundreds of trees? Why are the advocates of this trail refusing to consider alternatives? It is starting to smell very fishy out there.

JoEllyn Loehr

•••

To the Editor:

Last week, a representative from the BBR community and I met with Commissioner Unger regarding the proposed Sisters-to-BBR asphalt path. Our meeting was a good opportunity to bring him up to speed and clarify our position on some of the issues involving this project, as this issue has been ongoing for well over three years, and Mr. Unger only got involved this past November.

I am pleased to report that Mr. Unger pledged his commitment to thoroughly examine ALL options for a path, including locating the path on the north side of Highway 20 to Indian Ford Campground - in the highway right-of-way - one of several community trail options discussed with the Forest Service last October and supported by some as being more publicly accessible and preferable to connecting two private (one gated) communities.

Unger's openness was somewhat encouraging, as this is different from the message being conveyed by the STA, and clarifies Unger's earlier statements that recently appeared in the press.

I appreciate that many (most?) people may be burned out on this trail debate. I truly believe, however, that whether or not to move forward with this asphalt path is a huge decision that will have ramifications that last well beyond all of us currently trying to figure out whether or not this project is, on balance, a good idea.

The Nugget reported that Unger's goal is to submit a go-forward proposal to the USFS in August. What's the rush? Probably grant money. As of late, Sisters seems to be in the habit of making hasty decisions and then doing the due diligence and corrections when things don't work out as well as expected. A decision this big should not be driven by grant funding. You can't re-stripe the forest. Let's get this one right.

Susie Werts

•••

To the Editor:

The guest editorial written by Cathy Ellis which appeared in The Nugget on June 24 concludes that, "the majority of BBR owners support the proposed multi-use trail entering the Ranch." This conclusion is misleading for several reasons.

First of all, for all official businesses at Black Butte Ranch only one vote per household is allowed, not opinions sought from 1,785 registered email addresses. Why this exception was made for this particular case is unclear. The issue is quite important and one vote per household should have been observed.

Second, how accurately do the "registered addresses" reflect an actual homeowner roster? Is it possible that many names appearing on the list should have no say on issues of this magnitude? How is the list audited to ensure accuracy and validity? Will all future surveys use these "registered" addresses? If so, shouldn't the homeowners know what these addresses are used for?

Thirdly, the conclusion that the "majority" of homeowners support the proposed path is mathematically faulty. Whether one used this inflated number of "registered addresses" or the actual number of households, the analyst can only come up with 496 people or 61% of respondents (not necessarily homeowners nor households), who were in favor of the path. That is hardly a "majority."

If one used the number of households which are allowed to vote on important issues, that number comes to something like 39 percent and, if one used 1,785 "registered addresses" that figure drops to about 28 percent. A majority is defined as "more than half" and neither 39 percent nor 28 percent comes close to that.

The statement that the proposed path would connect at the "public, commercial area of the Ranch" gives a false impression. Land classifications and uses within Black Butte Ranch are documented in the master design and there is NO public, commercial area. The spot where the proposed path would connect with Black Butte Ranch is part of "Resort Properties" and close to "Private Areas" and "Private Ways," an opportune location to trespass onto 18 miles of Ranch bike paths.

Finally, Cathy states, that, "the Board maintains its philosophical support ... subject to resolution of some issues of access that have been raised."

To date, Black Butte Ranch access issues have not been dealt with, signage pertaining to vehicle restrictions and private property continue to be ignored and many comments in The Nugget show little respect for all issues at hand.

However, there are several things we can all agree on. We chose to live here for many reasons. We love our National Forests, we believe in protecting the environment, we enjoy recreational opportunities, we support the development of community assets, we back education, we value the synergy between all communities but we ask for the respect of private property.

Other trail options on the north side of the highway should be discussed and the presently proposed trail must evolve into a true recreational community asset for visitors and local residents without immediate ill effects on private neighborhoods.

Isolde Hedemark

On behalf of concerned BBR homeowners

•••

To the Editor:

Hey, Tollgate residents, are you feeling wealthy? I hope so, because you might need to donate a portion of your bank account to defend the Tollgate Property Owners' Association (TPOA) against inevitable injury claims if the Sisters-to-Black Butte Ranch Trail gets built. Anyone who gets hurt while crossing Tollgate Road on the trail can sue TPOA. Members of the homeowners' association could be on the hook for paying damages out of their own pockets.

The reason? Back when Tollgate was formed, TPOA indemnified the U.S. Government against any injury, loss or damage for use of its easement (Tollgate Road) into the subdivision. TPOA would need to be painstakingly thorough about keeping a trail across the road free of ice, sand and other hazards. If a tourist should take a spill on their bike or get hit by a speeding car while crossing Tollgate Road on the trail, TPOA could be held liable.

But liability isn't the only headache with the proposed trail. Since there are no plans to build parking lots along the proposed route, the head of Tollgate Road would likely become a de facto parking area for hikers' and bikers' cars. One can only imagine the amount of automobiles, garbage and toilet paper that would accumulate on Tollgate Road as it transforms into both a parking lot and emergency outdoor bathroom.

The Tollgate Board of Directors has voiced their desire to support the proposed trail. But the board would be acting in direct violation of TPOA's CC&Rs should they officially offer the community's support for a trail across Tollgate Road (which is common property) without approval by 2/3 of TPOA members in a vote.

Concerned? It's time to call the Tollgate office (541-549-7962) and voice your opinion. The next Tollgate Board meeting is July 28. Be there!

Michael Cooper