© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising
This is a PDF file. View with Adobe Acrobat Reader. 

The contents of the on-line edition of The Nugget represent a selection among the stories that appear in the weekly print edition.

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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:

Every single property owner in Sisters needs and deserves to have a more in-depth meaningful dialogue, that is supported and well documented by fact and data, concerning the current proposal by the City of Sisters that would increase the minimum lot size requirement within the existing development code from 6,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet.

Recent land actions within the city have prompted a closer look at the current code. While some land owners are feeling a negative effect by some specific land use applications there is a perception being created that the "majority" of Sisters land owners are up in arms concerning lot sizes in the current development code.

To the contrary, looking outside the intimate concerns of these land owners (yet by no means dismissing them), there are facts and data that support the view that there is actually a "majority" of land owners in Sisters that are satisfied and are beneficiaries of the development code as it stands.

The current "lot size blanket proposal" that is being fast tracked through the city venues proposing larger lot sizes across the city is not the answer; it will not stop density. Each individual neighborhood of our city has a culture and character of its own and needs to be considered as such.

These processes that the city is using to resolve this issue should be seriously studied from a legal perspective. The City Council should innately feel a need to educate themselves on the code and the law, visit the situation in person and not vote on emotion or trust totally the direction of others assisting.

A public workshop is in the planning stages in the very near future to give support, documentation, and further data that supports that this situation is not a "hemorrhage" requiring immediate action that is not well thought out.

Please, Pro and Foe, look for the date of this open public meeting, attend it, feel welcome to speak and bring verifiable documentation to support your stance. Let's all work to resolve an issue that is very comprehensive and ask at the least the city to give more time for needed study.

Jim Bell

* * *

To the Editor:

I realize change is inevitable, this beautiful, friendly and little piece of heaven. Our town of Sisters is about to change.

If I would have known how much the change would be with the city sewer, I would have campaigned against it. Now we see what is happening with wild development, led in large part by money hungry developers, these are not likely the people who live in the neighborhoods they build.

I wonder if J. Bruce Forbes, concerned land owner, is the same as Bruce Forbes, Developer, and concemed about what? Money or livability?

I moved here 23 years ago to raise my family, having done that am now looking to retire here. Money is not the issue as livability is. I think most people are concerned about livability.

I am against multiplying my neighborhood population by any more than twice. I think that twice is a fair sharing of our little spot of heaven. But up to times-six is too much.

Six times the traffic, no place for kids to play, and almost for sure 100 percent transient population in rentals is not the neighborhood I want to live in.

Let's not get too greedy. I know there are always people who always know what is good for you and the community. Somehow I don't think our best interests are at heart.

Whether you agree or not, have a different opinion or not, I urge you to attend the planning workshops and city council meeting.

At least write a letter to the city council and the newspaper, Come on citizens of Sisters, wake up, speak up or lose heaven.

Thank you,

David Culver

* * *

To the Editor:

As part of his effort to justify tax cuts for the rich, Kenneth Ehlers uses the shopworn spectre of "double taxation" (commentary, The Nugget, March 5, page 2).

Conceding only for purposes of argument that the same dollar taxed as corporate profit is the same dollar taxed as a dividend to a shareholder, Ehlers' claim ignores a fundamental point: There can be "double taxation" only when the corporation pays taxes on its profits.

Too many of Mr. Ehlers' colleagues have successfully manipulated (or bent beyond recognition) the tax laws and accepted accounting principles so that large corporations (such as Enron) haven't paid any taxes on their profits for years.

Michael Wells

* * *

To the Editor:

I read an article the other day about someone proposing that Saddam and his henchmen step down and go into exile. What a brilliant way to avoid a war!

And then I thought, "yes, and George Bush and his henchmen as well." To the same island.

Let them duke it out together if they are so inclined toward violence.

See how much they like war when they have to fight it themselves.

Jane Stevens

Back to front page