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.