Wednesday, July 1, 2015 The Nugget Newspaper, Sisters, Oregon
LETTERS
Continued from page 14
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 per-
cent. 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 tres-
pass onto 18 miles of Ranch bike paths.
Finally, Cathy states, that, “the Board
maintains its philosophical support … sub-
ject 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 pres-
ently 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
s
s
s
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’ asso-
ciation could be on the hook for paying dam-
ages out of their own pockets.
The reason? Back when Tollgate was
formed, TPOA indemnified the U.S.
Government against any injury, loss or dam-
age 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 pro-
posed trail. But the board would be act-
ing in direct violation of TPOA’s CC&Rs
should they officially offer the commu-
nity’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 opin-
ion. The next Tollgate Board meeting is July
28. Be there!
Michael Cooper
37
Bill would boost penalty
for invasion of privacy
By sheila V Kumar
Associated Press
SALEM (AP) — As part of
an ongoing push to strengthen
the state’s privacy laws, Ore-
gon Senate lawmakers on
Tuesday cleared a measure
making it a felony to secretly
record someone while they
are nude and in a private area.
The state Senate gave
unanimous approval to the
bill, which would increase the
penalties for someone who
sneaks a camera into a private
room, like a bedroom or bath-
room, and records the occu-
pants without their knowl-
edge. Culprits would only
be required to register as sex
offenders if a court decides
it’s necessary for the commu-
nity’s safety.
It’s currently a misde-
meanor to violate the personal
privacy laws, and prosecu-
tors have argued the statutes
haven’t been able to keep up
with the pace of changing
technology.
“We wrote the bill very
specifically to address the sit-
uation of people who are hid-
ing these little tiny cameras in
places where somebody has
the expectation of privacy,”
former state representative
Denyc Boles told a joint sub-
committee last week.
The measure targets cases
like Bryan Duane Tilley, a
Keizer man who pleaded
guilty to charges of burglary
and invasion of privacy last
October. Tilley was accused
of stalking his college-aged
stepdaughter and hiding
cameras to record women
undressing. He was sentenced
to serve nearly four years in
prison, but not because of the
invasion of privacy charges.
His stepdaughter Ash-
ley Buckle said in submitted
testimony that she went to
police after someone hijacked
her social media accounts,
and they later discovered her
stalker was her stepfather.
Buckle’s mother, Cathy McIn-
nis, said they were shocked
to hear Tilley would only be
charged with a misdemeanor
for taping Buckle and that he
would serve more time for the
burglary charges.
“We are not only victims
of this crime, we are also vic-
tims of the law of enforce-
ment due to current Oregon
laws,” McInnis told the
subcommittee.
Gov. Kate Brown has also
signed two other bills aimed
at keeping state laws in line
with new technology.
One measure increased
penalties for those who sneak
photos up women’s dresses
without their consent. Sup-
porters of that bill say it closes
a loophole that allowed a man
to escape unpunished after
he snapped photos up a teen-
ager’s skirt in a Target store.
And so-called “revenge porn,”
sharing intimate images of
someone without that person’s
consent, is now also a crime.
We keep you
up-to-date
every day!
Become a fan to receive notifications
of breaking news, events and more!
Facebook.com/NuggetNews