Letters to the Editor 7/29/2015

To the Editor:

Recently local TV Channel 11 re-aired their coverage of the May 2015 meeting of the Bend City Club. A standing-room-only crowd of citizens heard a panel of wildland fire experts and local land managers discuss the role of planning in protecting our forest residential communities from forest fires

The primary presenter was a resource economist with a background in forestry and wildlife. He discussed results of collaborative efforts of a group in Summit County, Colorado, west of Denver, incorporating planning as a tool to alleviate fire susceptibility of new and existing forest residential communities. As in Deschutes County, new housing areas are rapidly being planned and built in dry pine forests that are prone to disastrous fires.

After examining many of these communities, several common problems were found, which have led to recommendations that can be applied here as well as there. First: areas of young, closely growing trees/thickets are often maintained for privacy and need to be thinned for safety. I do not know what spacings of trees local foresters now recommend; however, during my long career in forest ecology research, pine-thinning studies conducted in eastern Oregon and Washington determined that trees spaced 20 to 30 feet apart, on the average, maintain a healthy, fast-growing forest while reducing the danger of rapidly moving fire.

When the crowns are not allowed to inter-mingle, the result is an effective shaded fuel-break.

Second: enclosed communities should have at least two usable exits bordered by shaded fuel-breaks. I expect it would be very dangerous to try to leave Tollgate by the one paved exit to Highway 20 while a fast-moving fire roared through the dog-hair thickets less than 100 yards away. It might not be possible to get out the locked, gated fire exits at a moment's notice.

Third: forest residential communities are safer if encircled by a widely shaded fuel-break, that includes a hard surface path. In the communities they studied, the path served not only for recreation, but as a critical fire-break that prevented fire from spreading into the development. As a disabled person, I have strongly supported a paved or good hard-surface path. And it needs to be wide enough to serve as an effective fire-break.

If this multi-purpose trail is ever built, it makes sense to locate it in the forest adjacent to the community, and west of the highway. This would help keep a quickly moving fire from reaching homes along the forest border and also the entire community.

Paul Edgerton

•••

To the Editor:

The debate regarding the Black Butte Trail has evolved. With the strong supportive statements forthcoming from individuals, planners, organizations and businesses for the trail, the effort of opponents has shifted from trying to stop the construction of the trail to moving the trail to the north side of Highway 20.

North of the highway, of course, is unsafe because crossings of the highway would be required, and trail usage could drop 50 percent or more compared to an alignment south of the highway.

Families with children and disabled individuals may feel that they would have to use a car to safely cross the highway to access the trail. That defeats the purpose of freeing our residents from their automobiles and offering alternative modes of transportation. With such a potential decline in trail users, it is doubtful the northern alignment could qualify for funding.

Some residents have expressed concerns regarding privacy and safety once the trail is built. As a result the proposed south trail alignment is at least 371 feet away from residential property near Tollgate. Paved trail users engage in "quiet sports," and at that distance it would be very difficult for any residents to be aware of trail users as they pass by.

Some trail objectors appear to lump paved trail users in with those who illegally use ATVs and other motorized vehicles on rogue trails. Most "quiet sport" trail users will find such an association very unfair. Where the paved trail alignment comes closest to Tollgate homes there is a rogue trail illegally used by ATVs only 205 feet away. Once the new paved trail is built, users will not take kindly to such nearby illegal motorized trail use in the forest. The paved trail will be protected by bollards at road intersections to help keep out unwanted motor vehicles.

Homeowners and paved trail users need to work together to reduce illegal motor vehicle use in our forests.

Bjarne Holm

•••

To the Editor:

I read Barbara Secrest's letter encouraging people in our town to express heartfelt beliefs, ideas and concerns "in a way that allows us be heard while not harming others' rights."

Ms. Secrest's observation - that in her 38 years as a resident of Sisters, she recently realized she "no longer feels comfortable expressing my views publicly" - is a sentiment I hear more and more. I am grateful for her courage in writing the letter.  

I, too, have become concerned as I see citizens feeling uncomfortable volunteering for public service, or speaking their hearts and minds, due to the behavior and verbal and written actions of a few individuals. I know several people who have experienced these problems first-hand. It also has happened to my partner and myself.

In the last few months, I have met, formally and informally, with Sisters citizens who are concerned about how this is affecting our community and how we can improve the situation. People who have been involved in these meetings have committed to doing several things, which are: To try to speak and act in ways that allow viewpoints to be heard without hurting/harming others, which helps set the tone for more constructive discussions and actions (which can start to create positive change). Second, to express gratitude or appreciation in a private or public way to people or situations.

Third, to serve as a source of support, experience and help.

Please know that if you are in need of any support, that there are individual community members who are willing to help and serve as a resource. Several people have availed themselves of these resources and found them helpful.

I can be reached through Eurosports.

Karen Kassy

•••

To the Editor:

Thank you for your editorial, "Housing has to be a priority for Sisters," The Nugget, July 22.

Hits it right on the nail.

We need affordable housing in order to get families to live here and attend our great schools. And just maybe if we had affordable housing and more people moved in we would have more jobs that are full-time year-round.

Hmmm ... a win-win situation all the way around.

Shannon Chesney

•••

To the Editor:

In the July 22 issue of The Nugget, Editor calls for affordable housing: the city can "deploy reductions in fees, zoning changes, and loosened code restrictions..." to make affordable housing a "viable proposition."

Fees are set by law to cover costs; zoning eliminates traffic or smooths flow; codes provide health and safety. Which of these values do we give up to promote affordable housing?

Editor says we should increase housing density to fill classrooms. The relationship between enrollment and classrooms is never perfect. Lowering housing costs to fill schools means we must soon build schools to accommodate enrollment. Solving a problem by creating a problem to solve the problem we had feels a little ... circular.

"Affordable" means housing takes a percentage of income, banks use 30 percent, by reducing cost or increasing income. Viewing "affordable housing" as only a "housing" issue shifts the real cost of employment from employers onto the rest of the community: Lowering community requirements to make housing affordable, we subsidize those paying less than a living wage.

Editor says Sisters should solve the affordable housing issue, "and do it quickly. The need is great." Now is a good time actually to step back and ask, "what happens if we do nothing?"

Classrooms may fill more slowly, but they will fill. Workers may drive further to work; perhaps local employers will pay mileage or raise wages; our community will lack diversity. Before we settle on solutions, we need to recognize that the difference between groups and individuals who make up those groups is as profound as that between a river and raindrops.

We can change the lives of individuals (Habitat for Humanity) in ways we cannot change the lives of a group without changing the environment. Dynamics of groups and dynamics affecting individuals are different dynamics. 

Erik Dolson