Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The nugget. (Sisters, Or.) 1994-current | View Entire Issue (April 27, 2016)
30 Wednesday, April 27, 2016 The Nugget Newspaper, Sisters, Oregon LETTERS Continued from page 10 District submitted to voters, the current measure is bloated with nonessential items. It’s especially insensitive and inappropriate considering the current state of the economy. The new bond would also pay for the repair or replacement of the High School’s defective roof, which has failed after only 12 years. Rather than sue the company that designed and built the faulty roof to force them to fix their shoddy work, the Sisters School District is asking taxpayers to shoulder the burden. The Sisters School District needs to recognize that most people’s budgets are smaller — some completely broken — since the 2008 financial crisis. The school board needs to stop its endless requests for funding discretionary spending, delete the non- essentials from their bond measure and focus on the items for which there is a true need. Send a message: We won’t support the Sisters School District’s undisciplined shopping sprees. Vote “No” on Measure 9-108. Michael Cooper • • • To the Editor: I support school needs, but this bond worries me both because of the range of issues, and the fuzzy math used to sell it. First the fuzzy math. Part of the bond will pay off a prior bond and we are told that will save $260,000 per year for new teachers. Maybe. But the new bond borrows the same amount to pay off the old which means the interest on the old just becomes part of the new. I suppose what they really mean is they get $260,000 and we taxpayers get stuck with the inter- est for the old bond we did not vote for along with the new bond. Slick. The bond has four elements, but none are very clear. The first, repairs to the high school are prob- ably necessary. The second, security upgrades is too vague for $3 million and given where we live, questionable. I suspect this will end being a slush fund. The third is repair and upgrade of the sports fields. This is not only too expensive, but the funds needed to keep these facilities up in the future will end up coming out of the school operating budget, again cutting funds for teachers. The final issue is the ever-present comment that if the bond passes they will create an oversight board who will care- fully supervise the projects. Always said, never really done. This bond should be scrapped. Why must these bonds always be so large and full of different issues. The last one was the same. Come back with a bond only for facilities repair. Do a good job on that, then come back for the next project. Prove to us the money will be used carefully and we will support the effort. Howard Jameson • • • To the Editor: Re: Trees on Highway 20 are in trouble,” (The Nugget, April 20, page 1). What a terrible story to break in the same week as Earth Day! And with so many unanswered questions. Who is the unnamed manufacturer? Internet research reveals DuPont. When and for how long was the herbicide Perspective applied in the Highway 20 corridor? The warning that it would damage ponderosas came out in 2012. Are we just now seeing damage from before that? How long does it take to damage ponderosas? How much more damage can we expect to see? Where else has Perspective been used in ponderosa country? Who decides to use these herbicides and how are those decisions made? According to the website PAN (Pesticide Action Network), DuPont has done this before with Imprelis, a supposedly tree-safe herbicide that killed roadside Norway spruces and white pines in nine Midwestern states (who have filed class action law- suits). Imprelis was pulled from the market in 2011, but others in the same chemical family, including Perspective, remained. What are the testing protocols that DuPont uses, and how is it that they are so flawed? Those dying and damaged trees along the other- wise beautiful western approach to Sisters will be a sad and terrible reminder of flaws in “the system” for a long time. Joellyn Loehr • • • To the Editor: Deschutes County has taken months to put together a 14-page shapshot report of overnight housing for the four Goal 5 destination resorts. Let’s not give them the impossible and publicly sub- sidized task of trying to track the 1,800+ medical marijuana growers now in Deschutes county that want to convert to recreational growers to increase the size of their grows. Today Oregonians can each grow four plants legally and can now get ample marijuana medi- cine thru the Oregon Health Authority. We don’t need large grows scattered across the community or grandfathered in homes across our county or in cit- ies under OLCC rules growing more pot for recre- ation. Medical growers already can sell surplus for recreation. Bigger grows pose life, health and safety issues for all. If you think you’re immune or your kids are safe taking their learner’s permit or that the rural com- munity won’t be a target for heist, or you can’t fig- ure from where that skunk smell is emanating, get educated. Testify on May 2 before the Board of County Commissioners — Barnes Hearing Room, 10 a.m. or 1 p.m. Is it that hard to figure the right way to develop our community? Resort hotels are a bust and large marijuana growers is outright dangerous for Deschutes. Is this the tourism you want? We don’t need another boom/bust hype to risk our rural livability. OLCC requires fingerprinting to grow pot, so this heavy industry should be behind industrial razor wire the required security cameras inside industrial parks, not open to our scenic views, exposed to our raptors, invading with permanent skunk odor, glowing at night or tantalizing our youth. Set the keel with our politicians. Land use moves slowly and the Board needs to continue the opt out. Nunzie Gould
