B4 THE BULLETIN • SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Oregon should
not raid PPP
loans for taxes
O
regon Sen s. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden worked
in the waning days of the Trump administration to
ensure the federal government would not hammer
struggling businesses that received Paycheck Protection Act
loans.
Thanks, in part to their work,
it’s been made clear: Forgiven PPP
loans will not count as income on
federal taxes. And even expenses
paid with a PPP loan are deductible
on federal taxes.
But Oregon legislators may do
things differently. An amendment to
House Bill 2457 seeks to tax the fed-
erally forgiven PPP loans.
PPP loans were designed by
Congress to keep struggling busi-
nesses alive and their employees
employed. It would be a sucker
punch for the state to try to grab
it. Why would that be OK? Hav-
en’t Oregon businesses suffered
enough?
To make matters worse, it’s not
clear which legislator or legislators
introduced this amendment. That
is not identified in legislative doc-
uments. Why the secrecy? Orego-
nians need to be able to hold their
legislators accountable. At least, leg-
islators won’t get away with hiding
who votes for the amendment. We
will be watching.
We should be clear that the com-
pany that owns The Bulletin re-
ceived a PPP loan. So did thousands
of other Oregon businesses. And
the PPP program has received some
criticism. It was put in place quickly.
Some businesses who needed the
help had trouble getting the help. It’s
been argued others that didn’t de-
serve help got it.
But it’s reprehensible that the state
would attempt to raid money to
keep Oregonians employed and al-
low businesses to avoid collapse. Or-
egon already taxes some businesses
even if they don’t make a profit un-
der the state’s corporate activity tax,
so maybe some legislators think
plundering the PPP is fair game. Do
you?
Historical editorial: New Prineville
courthouse brings heavier taxes
ý
T
he objections aroused by the re-
cently announced intention of
the county court to build a new
court house are so vigorous as to war-
rant the careful attention of the court.
At the present time when conditions
in the county are so unsettled, owing
to the rapid and recent development
of different sections of the county, and
when the tax burden is already heavy
enough, the time chosen for adding
the burden of building an expensive
court house is not only unwise but
smacks of disregard for the welfare of
those citizens of the county living out-
side the favored Prineville vicinity.
To make matters worse, it’s not clear which legislator or
legislators introduced this amendment. That is not identified
in legislative documents. Why the secrecy? Oregonians need to
be able to hold their legislators accountable.
ý
The following historical editorial originally
appeared in the March 25, 1906, edition of what
was then called The Bend Bulletin.
In view of certain previous ex-
pressions and actions, the unsavory
suspicion that the courthouse is pro-
posed chiefly for the benefit of the
county seat is gaining strength. In
the Crook County Journal of March
3, 1904, under the caption, “Perma-
nency vs. Death” the editor discusses
the possible unfavorable result the
rapid settlement of other parts of the
county may have on Prineville’s fu-
ture, and says: “It is time therefore
to ward off a body blow and secure
to Prineville the county seat for all
time to come. To do this, the most
substantial county buildings must be
erected.”
That is blunt talk. Is it strange then
that the people are suspicious that the
new court house is proposed more for
Prineville’s interests than to meet the
needs of the county in general?
There should be no hurry to build
a court house now. Taxes while not
excessive are heavy enough and these
settlers recently buying and improv-
ing ditch land should not be asked to
hear an unnecessary burden. It is un-
fair to them.
It is probably that the steps will be
taken to postpone further action un-
til there is a full consideration of this
matter and until an expression from
the taxpayers can be obtained. A short
delay will cause harm to no one and
will give the opportunity for future ac-
tion to be stamped with the sanction
of the majority.
Editor’s note: The two columns below are a land use dispute between a resident John Larson and the city of Bend over a Habitat for Humanity
project in his neighborhood. We obtained the city’s response and decided to run it with Larson’s column because it shows important context.
Bend gave OK to project Transportation bond projects
with traffic-data errors address safety on 27th Street
BY JON SKIDMORE
BY JOHN LARSON
A
M
SE 27th St.
SE 26th St.
recent editorial comment in The
Bulletin addressed the efforts that
the city of Bend has made regard-
ing neighborhood safety improvements and
urged readers to submit suggestions for im-
provements to the City Council. This is at
odds with the actions of the Bend Planning
Division that used false data and ignored le-
gitimate safety concerns to avoid delaying or
denying approval for project PZ-20-0726, a
project creating 12 townhouses in southeast
Bend.
The transportation review for this project
was provided by Transight Consulting cit-
ing Oregon Department of Transportation
data from 2013- 17 indicating no history of
reported accidents in the study area. That
information was false and outdated. A re-
view of ODOT and city data revealed 36 re-
ported accidents on SE 27th St reet between
SE Reed Market Road and Bear Creek Road
from 2015- 18. This error was presented to
the planning staff with the expectation that
they would be ethically bound to stop and
correct the assessment. Sadly, planning staff
accepted the flawed consulting study, ig-
nored the facts and current data and allowed
approval. Are ethics not required in the plan-
ning process?
For this project the planning division did
not require a Transportation Impact Analysis
citing the development will generate fewer
than 700 average daily trips , or ADT . A TIA
would have expanded the traffic study out-
side of the immediate area to include the in-
tersections of SE 27th St reet with Bear Creek
Road and Reed Market Road. This threshold
is very convenient for the planning staff, al-
lowing them to approve project after project,
as long as the 700 ADT is not exceeded, add-
ing hundreds of homes without ever having
to consider the cumulative effect to traffic on
SE 27th Street.
Although this project has been approved, a
moratorium should be placed on it until the
desperately needed turning lane is added to
SE 27th Street.
As a resident of SE 27th Street for nearly
30 years, I have observed many accidents
and near misses, reported and unreported.
They occur more frequently as we add res-
idents and vehicles to the city. Twice in the
last two years while retrieving my mail I have
been almost struck by traffic swerving to
avoid rear -ending north bound traffic that
r. Larson raises a number of issues in
is backed up waiting to turn across south-
his email regarding the review process
bound traffic. Frequently when entering my
specific to the 12-lot subdivision that
driveway from the north and waiting to cross
was reviewed and approved through file PZ-20-
north bound traffic, it has been necessary to
0726. The development was proposed by Hab-
abandon the turn and accelerate to avoid be-
itat for Humanity which will contain a total of
ing rear-ended.
12 attached townhomes. The townhome lots are
Often while I am waiting to enter my
accessed via SE 26th
driveway, south-
Street which will have a
bound traffic will
Anne Ln.
cul-de-sac constructed
simply take to the
at its terminus and an
gravel beside the
alley providing access to
street and pass me
the new homes.
on the right while
This explanation be-
doing 45 mph.
low may seem overly
In 2019 a north-
technical, but that’s be-
bound armored
cause we’re trying to
truck struck a ve-
address the questions
hicle stopped for
in the email that were
turning traffic and
quite detailed, technical
then hit a 25 -foot
and in-depth. I apol-
pine behind the
ogize for the delay as
mail box on my
there was a lot of infor-
property. Thank-
Area of planned
mation to gather prior
fully I was not re-
development
to responding.
trieving my mail at
The main issue
the time. In 2020
raised appears to be
a crash with three
concerns with the
north bound cars at
Transportation Facil-
Bear Creek Road
ity Report , or TFR ,
intersection re-
that was submitted as
sulted in a fatality.
part of the application
The City Council
that was completed by
must take immedi-
Transight Consulting.
ate action to correct
The city’s development
this travesty and
code requires a more
instruct planning
comprehensive Trans-
staff that false or
portation Impact Anal-
outdated data can-
ysis for developments
not be used to ap-
that will generate more
prove applications.
SE Philly Ave.
than 700 average daily
Development codes
City of Bend planning document
trips. Generally, each
must be changed so
single-family residence
that every project’s
generates 10 trips per day. As a result, the 12-lot
impact, and the cumulative effect of previous
proposal doesn’t require a TIA, rather a TFR is
developments in the area regardless of ADTs,
required.
must be considered before granting approval.
The TFR focuses more on right -of -way needs,
When current, accurate and verifiable traf-
access points onto the city system, on-site circu-
fic data is provided in a public comment
lation, safety and walking/biking/transit facilities.
or other source, planning staff must give
In this instance, it was determined that the site
full consideration to that data. Finally, City
would not generate enough trips to require the
Council should give the desperately needed
need to study the capacity on 27th Street nor the
center turn lane on SE 27th S treet the high-
capacity at nearby intersections.
est priority on its list of safety improvements.
(Editor’s note: Part of the paragraph below was
Council members must hear your views on
trimmed.)
these issues.
ý John Larson lives in Bend.
A key item to understand is the concept of
“rough proportionality” and how that is relied
on in the land use review process. The concept
stems from a court case from Tigard where a
land owner appealed requirements that were at-
tached to a land use permit which required the
owner to dedicate land to the city and construct
a public path on their land. This case is known
as Dolan v. City of Tigard and requires a juris-
diction to demonstrate that a condition of de-
velopment approval is roughly proportional in
nature and extent to the impacts of the proposed
development. Requiring widening of the en-
tirety of the 27th Street corridor and installation
of turn lanes along it (as an example) would not
be roughly proportional to the impacts of the
proposed subdivision and the roughly 120 aver-
age daily trips generated by the 12 lots. Further,
there is a Capital Improvement Project planned
for 27th Street that is in the current transporta-
tion CIP.
(Editor’s note: Sections of the next two para-
graphs were trimmed.)
Connectivity/ capacity transportation im-
provements that are roughly proportional to the
proposed development were required as part of
the city’s land use decision. The applicant was re-
quired to dedicate right -of -way along 27th Street
to assure that the right -of -way from the property
line to the centerline of the road is 50 feet (arte-
rial road rights -of -way, such as 27th Street, are to
be 100 feet wide). Further, the pavement in 27th
Street is required to be widened to 42 feet with
installation of curbs.
Yes there have been accidents along 27th Street
over the years, and obviously the safety of the
traveling public is considered when reviewing
new applications that connect to the corridor.
However, that reality is not grounds for denial of
an application nor would disproportionate im-
provements be required for this 12-lot subdivi-
sion or legal. Although Mr. Larson’s research is
at odds with the materials provided by Transight
Consulting for the Transportation Facility Re-
port, those differences don’t justify applying stan-
dards that don’t apply to a project of this magni-
tude.
With the General Obligation Bond, there may
be opportunities to accelerate portions of project
C-31 from the transportation CIP. As Mr. Larson
correctly notes, the 27th Street corridor area is
experiencing a high volume of new development
— and this will continue — so it may be prudent
to move quickly on some of those projects.
If you have further questions about this or the
land use review process, feel free to contact me.
Thanks!
ý
Jo n Skidmore is the chief operating officer of the city of Bend.