© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising

Letters, letters, letters
The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.

To the Editor:

Underneath all the butts and ash and stink of my Mom's ashtray was a goofy cartoon and those memorable words, "MY MIND'S MADE UP! Don't confuse me with facts."

Mr. Boyer's letter last week regarding the annexation measure unfortunately was written without the benefit of at least a couple of fundamental and important facts.

Fact 1: The McKinney Butte Ranch is already adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary, and therefore already positioned to be considered for inclusion in the UGB. How can there be a conflict of interest when there will be no change in the status of the property?

Mr. Boyer's assertion that the McKinney Butte Ranch owners will get a windfall in increased land value from the annexation now being voted on is patently false. The option for future inclusion of this property within the city limits already exists.

Fact 2: There was no shady self-serving deal worked out in a back room somewhere to get the sewer extended to McKinney Butte Ranch.

Due to the lack of its inclusion in the UGB at the time of Sisters' application for sewer grant money and funding, the high school was not included in the sewer plan and therefore the school district would have to pay to get it hooked up, just like everybody else who was not in the UGB at that time.

This and the associated expense was of course a disappointment to the school district. Whoever hooks up is required to provide sewer "to and through," a rule that applies across the board.

In this case, the sewer that goes to the high school property must go on through to McKinney Butte Ranch. The school district was solely and entirely responsible to provide a sewer line to the boundary of McKinney Butte Ranch, sized appropriately to accommodate whatever might be developed there.

Bill Reed and others contributed their own money to this extension even though they had absolutely no obligation to do so. In other words, it was not the district that assumed half the cost of the extension to McKinney Butte Ranch, but rather Bill Reed and associates who assumed half the district's cost.

Mr. Boyer's attack in this regard, quoting others, unfortunately has this exactly backwards.

Naturally all the ugly inferences attached to these two sets of false assertions and assumptions are equally false, as is the suggestion that we should all reconsider the annexation now being voted on.

We all just love Sisters' rough and ready Old West flavor, but can't we do better than "shoot first, ask questions later"?

For those of us who feel the need to launch the occasional mud pie off the pages of The Nugget at our fellow citizens, and I hope I have not slipped into this sorry category myself, conscientious research of often complicated issues coupled with some small measure of charity goes a long way.

John Rahm

* * *

To the Editor:

Debate over important issues that affect our community is always an informative and stimulating experience, to say the least. The debate over annexation of the 100 acres of School District property for our new High School is no exception.

Those who are in opposition seem to believe they can use the annexation vote to overturn last year's favorable vote for the new high school.

Let's make sure that we understand the facts and implications, then vote our conscience.

The facts are that the construction and funding for a high school have been approved by a majority vote and the high school is going to be built.

The implications of annexing are in the quality of school we get for our tax dollars and in its location. We simply get more of a school and at the most favorable location if the property is annexed, and less if it is not.

The vote will only determine whether or not the school property will be annexed into the city. That is the bottom line.

Please consider the benefits we gain from a "yes" vote. Why should we accept less?

Deb and Jerry Kollodge

© © ©

To the Editor:

Mr. Moyer's letter of February 20 was complimentary, but somewhat in error.

Mr. Bryan is against annexation for a new high school because we need a middle school! Our middle school is old, inefficient, and without adequate playgrounds. In 1995 its enrollment was 295; today it is 295 -- no change.

So far the voters have not seen a firm comparative cost analyses of a new middle school versus expanding the present high school -- figures and facts from the board have been lacking.

Many "pro annexation" voices contend that the democratic process said build a new high school. Perhaps. But the first vote said no to the bond.

The second vote lacked information and the Voter Pamphlet touted huge growth. At least two of the 1990 school board members and the architects say the present high school was built to accommodate future expansion to 1,200 students -- why has a dollar figure not been provided on doing this?

The board said "the no to annexation appeals have been frivolous." Is a potential saving of $6.5 million frivolous?

In the past six and one/half years the net increase of students in the public system is 14.

At this growth rate the high school should last 15 years -- if growth doubles it will last eight years. However, it can be expanded to hold 1,200, as originally designed and calculated by the architects.

Why is the board opting for an expensive and too large new high school? The tax dollar well is getting dry.

The bond can be redirected, with a vote, to a middle school, and then the savings could be used to fix both the high school and the elementary schools -- thus reducing future tax levies. The threat of not saving 3 or 4 percent by reviewing annexation pales to better using a $6.5 million saving.

There is legitimate suspicion to stop the annexation; review all factors again and then vote again in May or June to redirect the funds.

Let's revisit annexation later -- but for now Vote NO.

Jim Mackey, Mel Bryan, and Bob Hindman

PAC / Responsible School Fiscal Planning (Committee ID 2002-2)

* * *

To the Editor:

With the conclusion of the sixth annual Sisters Starry Nights Concert Series, we would like to let this community know just how much we appreciate the extraordinary support this event has received.

Thanks to the commitment of our sponsors--led by Ray's Food Place, Coca-Cola Central Oregon and Bank of the Cascades--and the tremendous volunteer efforts of parents, students, teachers, administrators and other caring local citizens, Starry Nights will raise close to $90,000 in net proceeds this year for the Sisters Schools Foundation!

One of the highlights of the shows is when student performers join the headliners on stage, and also help with emcee duties. We would like to express our sincere thanks to music teachers Alisa Allen, Elizabeth Renner and Jody Henderson along with all the talented students from Sisters elementary, middle and high schools, for making each show feel so special.

There are hundreds of things that happen behind the scenes that exemplify how this community comes together for the event.

Whether it's a retailer like Village Interiors or Sisters Furniture letting us borrow beautiful chairs for the stage; people like Dave and Donna Moyer decorating the cafetorium for every single show; a businessman like Dave Holloman recruiting his family and co-workers to brave the elements and hang our banners; a family like the Cyruses inviting our artists to bring their children to the farm to see the baby lambs; a committee member like Jackie Erickson stitching gorgeous quilts to give to the performers' kids... the list goes on and on.

As Amy Grant said of Sisters: "There are a lot of really kind, generous people...what a great spirit!"

We couldn't agree more.

Susan Arends and Jeri Fouts

* * *

To the Editor:

Kudos, to all those involved in the Sisters High School pageant performed there last weekend to benefit Doernbecher Children's Hospital. What an endeavor in caring our young people displayed for the purpose of helping other kids, unable to help one another and their families in many respects!

I would like to make two significant additions, if I may, to The Nugget article (February 27).

The performance of "beautiful guitar music" as mentioned, was in fact an original song written and sung by the performer as well as the beautiful augmentation and enhancement of his accompaniment on the guitar.

Also, the dynamic classical piano performance opening the talent division, was also an original beautifully blended trilogy composed by its performer.

Indeed, credit is due to all the talented young people who entertained their families, friends, and fellow students in our community.

A special thanks to one and all for a delightful evening and mega-congratulations to MR. SHS, Joel Meyer!

Bea Pray

* * *

To the Editor:

We would like to thank all of you who have donated bottles and cans to help with our soccer trip to San Diego. The response has been overwhelming.

We leave next week and with us we take all of you.

Again, a big thank you to all.

Marsha Marr, Josh Marr, Geovanni Ortega

Back to front page