Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Bulletin. (Bend, OR) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (June 11, 2021)
The BulleTin • Friday, June 11, 2021 A5 EDITORIALS & OPINIONS AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Heidi Wright Gerry O’Brien Richard Coe Publisher Editor Editorial Page Editor Bend may make changes to public comment rules S hould the Bend City Council no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance before every meeting? Should the council limit public comment to items on its agenda? Those are some of the more com- bustible changes councilors dis- cussed this week in looking at re- vising its rules. The council doesn’t seem to be leaning toward making either of those changes. A coun- cil subcommittee discussed them. Many of the possible changes are mundane. One possible change is just smart: Move up some items on the agenda early in council meetings. For in- stance, when the council discusses important discussions in executive session that it will later vote on, it schedules those votes for the end of the meeting. That can be 9 p.m. at night and later. The agenda should be ordered to make it easy for the public to understand what import- ant actions are being taken. This proposal would do that. Also at Wednesday’s meeting of the Bend City Council’s rules sub- committee, councilors briefly dis- cussed removing the Pledge of Alle- giance from the council agenda. To repeat, councilors did not express a clear desire to remove the pledge. They discussed it. Removing it could create a circus of controversy that would distract from the coun- cil’s ability to get city business done. Already some councilors have not stood and recited the pledge during meetings. That stirs some people up. Even more people could be stirred up if councilors stripped out the pledge altogether. A major topic was public com- ment. Basically at council meetings people can speak about whatever they want for two minutes. Lately many of the regular commenters criticize the Bend police or the city’s treatment of people who are home- less. That can be so even if such mat- ters are not on the meeting agenda. Councilors discussed limiting public comments to items on the agenda. Councilors seemed reluc- tant to adopt rules like that for a number of reasons. Foremost per- haps is that councilors want to be accessible. Such a policy would argu- ably make them less so. The crucial change that councilors on the subcommittee seem support- ive of is creating regular, perhaps even monthly, community roundta- bles. People could speak to council- ors. And unlike in council meetings, the council would permit dialogue back and forth between members of the public and council. It would be a way to foster more community in- teraction. It’s the best idea the coun- cil is working on in these subcom- mittee meetings. We hope it can pull it off successfully. More discussions about possible changes in council rules are sched- uled for June 11 at 1 p.m. You have to register in advance for the online meeting and can do so here: tinyurl. com/CityofBendrulesmeeting. The journalism watchdog barks S ince 2008 newspapers in the U.S. have lost about half their workforce. There are now about five people in public relations to every journalist. That’s a dismal picture painted in a recent article in The Washington Post. It’s dismal if you value jour- nalism and the power that the press can have to inform readers and be a watchdog on government. Rather than dwell on the dismal, look at what journalists at Oregon Public Broadcasting, The Oregonian and ProPublica did. They investi- gated the Oregon Forest Research Institute. And they found the proof to show that state money was being used to become a “de-facto lobbying arm of the timber industry, in some cases skirting legal constraints that forbid it from doing so.” Because of the investigation by those journalists, the Oregon House voted Tuesday to cut the OFRI budget by about 66% and send the money instead to things such as climate research in forests. State officials, state auditors, state legislators and the governor’s office didn’t uncover what OFRI was do- ing. Journalists did. We are certainly biased about the value of journalism, but this should be another reminder of its value. Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe. Bad decision about hotel for homeless BY ALLAN BRUCKNER A s one who’s property has been directly impacted negatively by the homeless situation in Bend, I have thought a lot about the issue. I would like to offers several thoughts. First, like a recent Bulletin editorial clearly expressed, I am appalled by the city’s handling of the siting of a new over- night center for the homeless — all done Bruckner behind closed doors with only the staff and economically powerful involved, with a very inex- perienced city council. This approach guarantees there is no accountability for this bad decision. They decided to again foist the problem on to North Division Street businesses, an area with no politi- cal pull, just as they allowed a very impractical expansion at Shepherds House several years ago as mentioned in The Bulletin. The result has been a problem for a neighborhood that al- ready suffered after being cut off by the Parkway. Siting another overnight facility in this quieter neighborhood will create a steady flow of homeless, with atten- dant problems, between Shepherds House and the new Value Inn shelter. And it places residents, many likely GUEST COLUMN without a car, over a mile from down- town services, whereas the Rainbow motel on Franklin Avenue, could serve twice as many and be only ¼ mile from said services. This is in addition to allowing an apparently permanent tent city at the Revere/Parkway interchange. Clearly the powers that be are abandoning North Division street to the homeless. This is all the result of a brazen power play by powerful developers, lawyers and staffers on a very inex- perienced city using the excuse that it was discussing real estate, when in fact it was discussing a major pol- icy initiative on homeless housing. Citizens have a right to know who is influencing the decisions and the rea- sons for them. This power play excluded the Rain- bow motel on Franklin Avenue as a housing center because it is in the new Urban Renewal District. Actually, the Rainbow motel site is ideal BECAUSE it is in the Urban Renewal District, which makes available substantial funding and draws attention to the area. This site is also appropriate be- cause it is near downtown and on a major arterial so there is exposure that brings needed attention to any potential problems. Contrast that with North Division Street which is an ig- nored neighborhood that would be overrun with another homeless cen- ter. With a Division Street location, the center would be a big fish and big problem in a small area, where as on Franklin it would be a small fish in a busy vibrant area. Clearly, if such a facility were lo- cated in this vibrant economic area with new investment guaranteed through the Urban Renewal District, which will have over $200 million of tax payer funds, the negative aspects will be much less than if were in a more inactive area like North Division Street. This busier area would assure more eyes on the situation, spot po- tential trouble, provide better supervi- sion and quicker response time to any problem. And plenty of money to ad- dress any issues. This action also makes a mock- ery of the promises of Central Ore- gon LandWatch and other promoters of the Urban Renewal District who guaranteed that it would be to the benefit all citizens and not just gen- trify this diverse area. Such hypocrisy. The decision to choose a location far from downtown, that will serve less than half as many clients, is an ob- vious power play at its worst. It is the ultimate NIMBY act by powerful in- terests and a NIMBY endorsed by the city. And the secret manner in which it was enacted is despicable. e Allan Bruckner is a former mayor of Bend. Letters policy Guest columns How to submit We welcome your letters. Letters should be limited to one issue, contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s signature, phone number and address for verification. We edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We re- ject poetry, personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and those appropriate for other sections of The Bul- letin. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. Your submissions should be between 550 and 650 words; they must be signed; and they must include the writer’s phone number and address for verification. We edit submissions for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted columns alternate with national colum- nists and commentaries. Writers are lim- ited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. Please address your submission to either My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email submissions are preferred. Email: letters@bendbulletin.com Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column P.O. Box 6020 Bend, OR 97708 Fax: 541-385-5804 Bend should provide more public notice of developments BY ROBIN VORA T he city of Bend needs to pro- vide better public notice of de- velopments of potential com- munity-wide interest. The public should have learned about the Bend Village development at the corner of Colorado and Cen- tury Drive (pres- ent Pine Ridge Inn) when the city con- sidered the appli- cation more than a year ago. City planners ra- Vora tionalized the Bend Village development as being in an “Op- portunity Area.” While serving on the urban growth boundary committee we did recom- mend “Opportunity Areas” but did not delve into site-specific details of each area. Those were just blobs on a map. We envisioned mixed-use develop- ment, including some mixed-income that would include affordable hous- ing, especially next to the college. It would be a place where people lived and worked, and was an integrated community. We didn’t envision tall high-end hotels marring a scenic view, luxury condos for well-to-do, second homes and short-term vaca- tion rentals, and more tourists as an “opportunity.” We assumed that added congestion from a development would be miti- gated and a project would not make traffic worse. We assumed the city would give site-specific consideration to any ap- proval, including special features of interest to all citizens of Bend, such as scenic views from popular Farewell Bend Park, Reed Market Road, and the east river trail south of the Healy Bridge. We assumed that city officials, elected and staff, would better inform all residents of proposed projects of likely interest to many, not just some adjacent property owners. I urge the City Council and staff to work to overcome the several short- comings of the way the Bend Village project was handled. 1. The public notification and in- volvement undertaken by the city and the developer were inadequate for a project of this magnitude and interest. GUEST COLUMN People will see the 5- to 6-story build- ings from much further than 250 feet. The Bend Community Development department should be able to identify projects of significant interest and use press releases, newsletter and website posts to inform all residents. 2. A traffic analysis should be more than a technical procedural require- ment, and it should be conducted for several peak use times. It should in- clude a funded implementation plan to completely mitigate the added traffic congestion from a project. New nearby roundabouts on Simp- son won’t alleviate traffic congestion from this project at adjacent Century Drive intersections, already backed up at times with ski traffic. Adjacent OSU- Cascades was approved with the promise that bus service would alleviate traffic congestion. The direct bus between COCC and OSU-Cas- cades didn’t last long. That campus is growing. The Cascades Lakes Scenic Byway is becoming more like an ur- ban highway. The citizens of Bend de- serve to know how the added traffic A traffic analysis should be more than a technical procedural requirement, and it should be conducted for several peak use times. It should include a funded implementation plan to completely mitigate the added traffic congestion from a project. New nearby roundabouts on Simpson won’t alleviate traffic congestion from this project at adjacent Century Drive intersections, already backed up at times with ski traffic. from this development will be accom- modated without making congestion worse. 3. The Bend City Code needs further refinement so that projects such as Bend Village are not just run through the process because they ap- pear to satisfy the code. Site-specific considerations and public interest should be important considerations in how City Planning handles a proj- ect. 4. It is unfortunate the Bend Park & Recreation District Board didn’t discuss any concerns over the loss of quality views or added congestion on the river trail. The only communica- tion between the city and Bend Park and Recreation was between staff re- garding the Haul Road trail easement crossing of a driveway. 5. All of the Neighborhood Asso- ciations should include in newsletters significant proposals anywhere in the city that may be of interest to all res- idents. The Bend Village project suffered from inadequate public involvement, adds to traffic congestion without mitigation, does not have affordable housing, and should have been kept out of view from the river. The City Council should not only evaluate a project if somebody pays for an ap- peal to the council. Councilors should also look out for public concerns and interests and take the initiative to add projects of potential concern to the council agenda. e Robin Vora lives in Bend.