2
Wednesday, April 1, 2015 The Nugget Newspaper, Sisters, Oregon
O
P
I N I O
Editorial…
Move forward with urban renewal grants
Some members of the Sisters City Council
have picked an odd time to have second
thoughts about the nature and purpose of the
City’s Urban Renewal District small projects
grant program. Funds for the grants come
from the tax dollars paid by property owners
of the Urban Renewal District, which basically
encompasses the downtown commercial dis-
trict of Sisters.
The City offered this second round of
matching grants (up to 50 percent) to encour-
age property owners to invest in improving the
façades of commercial buildings to “achieve
visible results that enhance Sisters downtown
image, marketability and economic vitality.”
Applicants sought multiple bids and budgeted
for projects. Twenty-one applications were
submitted; two were rejected as being ineli-
gible (see related story, page 1).
When the 19 applications came to the
Council for approval last Thursday, the
Council, with Mayor Chris Frye absent,
declined to approve any of the grants.
Councilors David Asson and Nancy Connolly
expressed reservations about funding projects
that might be better considered basic business
expenses and concern that funds thus used
might take away from other worthy projects.
They want to take some time for a further look.
There is a legitimate debate to be had as to
whether this kind of tax-increment financing
for urban renewal and economic development
is appropriate and beneficial to a community
in the long term. There’s plenty of room for a
philosophical debate over whether local gov-
ernment should be in the business of providing
grants to improve the appearance of private
businesses.
But the time for that debate in Sisters was
before the City Council agreed to announce
the grants, allocated the funds to make them,
and invited applications for them. The council-
ors had to be aware of the nature of the proj-
ects they would be looking at — the City has
approved such grants before.
The City has put property owners through
a series of hoops, including providing multi-
ple bids for their grant projects, costing time
and expense, and has now missed its own
timeline for approval, leaving property own-
ers in limbo. As one property owner put it, it’s
baffling.
If the City Council decides it doesn’t want
the Urban Renewal Agency to provide such
grants, fine. But tabling this round of grants
for further study is going back on a deal. If
the projects submitted in good faith meet the
criteria of the grants, they should be approved.
If the Council doesn’t like the criteria, they
should revise them next time or decide not to
offer the small-projects program at all.
Then, at least, everybody knows where
they stand — and the City isn’t wasting peo-
ples’ time.
Jim Cornelius
News Editor
Letters to the Editor…
The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer’s name, address and phone number. Let-
ters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor.
The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be
no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.
To the Editor:
For three years I’ve not named any individ-
ual in any letter, I’ve purposely kept personali-
ties out of the discussion. However, it is now
time for an exception.
If you are curious why some of us can
get pretty fired up over the paved-path
issue, please read the following completely
contradictory statements that have contributed
greatly to feelings of bitterness among the
interested parties.
The following excerpt is from the STA’s
formal objection letter that was submitted
to the Forest Service on August 11, 2014. In
See Letters on page 27
Sisters Weather Forecast
Courtesy of the National Weather Service, Pendleton, Oregon
Wednesday
thursday
Friday
saturday
sunday
Monday
Chance rain/snow
Mostly sunny
Partly sunny
Chance rain
Chance showers
Mostly cloudy
44/25
46/23
53/27
51/25
49/26
52/na
The Nugget Newspaper, Inc.
Website: www.nuggetnews.com
442 E. Main Ave., P.O. Box 698, Sisters, Oregon 97759
Tel: 541-549-9941 | Fax: 541-549-9940 | editor@nuggetnews.com
Postmaster: Send address changes to
The Nugget Newspaper,
P.O. Box 698, Sisters, OR 97759.
Third Class Postage Paid at Sisters, Oregon.
Publisher - Editor: Kiki Dolson
News Editor: Jim Cornelius
Production Manager: Leith Williver
Classifieds & Circulation: Teresa Mahnken
Advertising: Lisa Buckley
Graphic Design: Jess Draper
Proofreader: Pete Rathbun
Accounting: Erin Bordonaro
The Nugget is mailed to residents within the Sisters School District; subscriptions are available outside delivery area.
Third-class postage: one year, $40; six months (or less), $25. First-class postage: one year, $85; six months, $55.
Published Weekly. ©2014 The Nugget Newspaper, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. All advertising which
appears in The Nugget is the property of The Nugget and may not be used without explicit permission. The Nugget Newspaper, Inc. assumes no liability or responsibility for
information contained in advertisements, articles, stories, lists, calendar etc. within this publication. All submissions to The Nugget Newspaper will be treated as uncondition-
ally assigned for publication and copyrighting purposes and subject to The Nugget Newspaper’s unrestricted right to edit and comment editorially, that all rights are currently
available, and that the material in no way infringes upon the rights of any person. The publisher assumes no responsibility for return or safety of artwork, photos, or manuscripts.
N
Start with a dirt trail
By Irv givot
Guest Columnist
As Carin Baker noted in
last week’s Nugget, build-
ing the proposed “paved
trail” (which sounds more
like a road to me) would
be a terribly unwise thing
to do to the forest, and I
concur. Also there is the
concern that beginning the
project with a wide paved
surface is itself impractical
and wasteful. My feeling is
that if some people really
want a trail there, then start
small, like a three-foot-
wide dirt track. I might sup-
port that. Then, if, after two
years or so, the trail proves
to be popular, then widen it
to four or five feet with a
nice surface of bark dust or
pea gravel.
If after another two
years, it becomes obvi-
ous that the trail is being
used a lot, then, and only
then would there be an
argument for paving it. In
another words, the common
sense approach would be
to start small, and demon-
strate a need for improve-
ment. Historically, this is
the process almost every
road you drive on has gone
through.
Otherwise, it evokes the
analogy of the young couple
in their twenties who think
they need a McMansion
for their first house, or the
16-year-old who wants a
brand-new SUV for his/
her first vehicle (with their
parents’ money). If there
is no demonstrated use for
this trail, which we would
only be able to assess years
after there is a simple dirt
track there, then paving it
all at once in the beginning
could be a boondoggle,
like the infamous “bridge
to nowhere” in Alaska.
Fortunately in that case
people came to their senses
before millions of dollars
were wasted.
The latter is an example
of a bureaucratic/egocentric
idea (like back-in parking)
where there is no real need,
no demand, just someone’s
bright idea.
As I said, the only way
to practically demonstrate a
demand is to put a simple
dirt trail there and see how
much use it gets. Then you
would have an argument to
improve it.
Another issue is that
most people I know who
hike (or ride mountain
bikes) in the forest would
prefer to stay away from
pavement. The only paved
trails I know of in rural
areas are the ones in state,
county or National Parks
that go from a parking lot to
a scenic attraction, hardly
ever more than a half-mile
long. The primary reason
they’re paved is because
they get so much use they
had to be upgraded. Of
course there are many
paved trails in urban areas,
like on campuses, institu-
tions and parks, but please,
our forest is not a theme
park and this is not Central
Park West or Golden Gate
Park North. From my view-
point, public land — and
especially National Forests
— are treasures to tread
lightly upon and leave no
trace.
Unfragmented forests
are becoming increasingly
rare.
Finally, there is the idea
of solitude in the forest vs.
walking near someone’s
property. Like many other
long-time Sisters resi-
dents, I have spent hours
every week for over 20
years walking in the for-
est, and on trails all around
Sisters Country. Walking
near someone’s property
is sometimes necessary for
short distances, but in gen-
eral it is something I avoid
if possible. For that reason
I would probably never
walk or ride on that pro-
posed trail/road. What with
barking dogs, people who
like their privacy, etc. it is
a relief to get way out into
the woods where I won’t
be making any property
owner/renter uneasy for
whatever reason.
Think about it. Do you
really want to walk or ride
on a trail where you know
some people don’t want you
to be there? I mean, come
on, we have tens of thou-
sands of acres of national
forest, just across the road
to the south and farther to
the west. Why would any
local person want to cre-
ate antagonism and bad
feeling along with their
walk or ride in the woods?
Doesn’t make sense. I think
the Forest Service made the
right decision by withdraw-
ing their support for this
project. Let it be.
Opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer and
are not necessarily shared by the Editor or The Nugget Newspaper.