Letters to the Editor 03/29/2017

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to an article in the March 15 Nugget in which Julie Benson, co-owner of the Sisters Eagle Airport, stated that the airport lacks authority to limit or deny skydive activities because, as a public use airport, it is "obliged not to discriminate against types of uses."

I believe the discrimination argument is erroneous.

Rules issued by the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) state that "Aeronautic Recreational and Sporting Activities on airport property shall be subject to the approval of the airport sponsor." (OAR 660-013-0100(8)). Aeronautic Recreational and Sporting Activities expressly includes "all forms of skydiving." The authority to approve skydiving operations necessarily includes the authority to disapprove. Consistent with this provision, the director of the ODA has stated verbally that the airport has the requisite authority to restrict or deny skydive operations.

In addition, discrimination only exists when similarly situated entities or individuals are treated differently for reasons that are arbitrary or otherwise not legitimate. Skydiving is not similarly situated to any other use at the airport. On the contrary, it is unique: skydiving at the airport is a commercial/recreational activity that uses the airport property from early morning until sunset, with as many as 30 take-off and landing events in a single day, up to seven days per week, three seasons per year. Comparing skydiving to other routine airport uses, such as use by a local pilot or a pilot visiting for a weekend, is comparing apples to oranges.

The noise problem created by skydiving is very real to many people in this community, regardless of whether they live adjacent to or miles from the airport, and is increasingly becoming an issue of concern for others considering moving to Sisters. I believe the airport is either misinformed or has more options available to address and resolve this problem than it is willing to acknowledge.

David Adler

•••

To the Editor:

Last week's coverage of the "Major Blaze" included a captioned photo of a water tender ("one of those that made relays...") employed in the attempts to suppress the fire.

I must conclude that a high desert, hard rock, domestic water well was incapable of producing sufficient volume to quell the flames of a 17,000-square-foot, wood-frame, single-family residence.

What might be learned from this unfortunate event?

John Grant

•••

To the Editor:

I would like to address some of Mr. Mackey's comments and concerns brought up by his letter to the editor on March 15. In regards to his taking exception to those applying the word "Nazi" to our present administration, I would suggest he look up the website for The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. After perusing the list of "early warning signs of an encroaching fascist government' displayed thereon, I would suggest Mr. Mackey see how many of those signs have already been checked off by President Trump's comments and edicts.

A prior response to Mr. Mackey's claims about the number of people detained due to the travel ban has already been put forward, but I might add that why has it not been blaringly brought out that the majority of the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia - a country which was not banned, and which undoubtedly has large financial dealings with the Trump empire. Finally, it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on race and religion.

In regards to outrage about underfunding of veterans - I agree, and congress did attempt to pass a bill to increase financial aid to veterans; unfortunately, the bill did not pass due to the fact that the Republicans attached a provision to it that funds be cut to Planned Parenthood, an organization that gives mostly under-served women life-saving tests. Clearly, it was more important to the Republicans to defund PP than to help the veterans who also needed life-saving procedures.

Finally, Mr. Mackey, if women marching in protest of our present administration are wearing hats with representations of vaginas, perhaps one of the many points they are trying to bring home is the fact that they feel they are in danger of losing the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies, and their reproductive choices. And there is no worry that you will have to "envision a similarly orchestrated men's march," as men do not now, nor have they ever, had to worry about their reproductive rights being similarly in danger.

Michelle Tormey