© 2003
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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:

The severity of the Booth Fire and the speed at which it initially spread point out the urgency of dealing with the untreated piles of slash from thinnings that dot our forest landscape.

I am not inferring that slash was a factor in the Booth Fire; in fact, according to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the area that has burned as of this writing did not contain piles of slash from thinnings.

I am instead looking to the immediate future and the potential danger that existing slash piles present to our local communities.

Page 8 of the Pacific Northwest Research Station's "Science Update: Fire Risk in East-Side Forests" (a free copy of which can be obtained at the Sisters Ranger Station) states that "thinning does not automatically reduce fire hazard... If the cut trees are left on the ground, the untreated slash raises the ground fuel load significantly. In all types of thinning, if the slash is not treated, then the risk of intense or crown fire is usually increased."

Unfortunately, slash piles must season for a year after they are created, before they can be burned. One alternative to burning slash piles is to immediately remove them from the forest and use them for biomass-energy generation.

According to a Forest Service official I talked with, this approach would cost approximately $300 an acre, an obstacle in times of budget deficits.

I don't know the answer to this problem, but I do believe that thinning treatments are an important ingredient in reducing fire risk to our communities and in improving forest health. Hopefully, in the light of the Booth Fire, professional forest managers will find a timely solution for removing these potentially dangerous slash piles from our forest before disaster strikes closer to home.

Michael Cooper

* * *

To the Editor:

This year's Booth Fire has been very reminiscent of last year's Cache Mountain Fire.

If anyone has been to the old high school, you have seen the hundreds of pup tents housing the massive army of young men and women who are struggling to save our forests.

Last year, a group of appreciative citizens collected donations of new underwear, socks, and travel-sized toiletries for these visitors to our little town.

I have been informed by the Forest Service that such donations again this year would be very helpful.

Donations may be taken to the information tent at the entrance to the high school. Trying to get in the parking lot is difficult and for this reason, I am willing to act as a drop-off site for donations. I will see that they are delivered to the appropriate people in a timely manner.

My office is located just across the highway from Papandrea's Pizza (410 E. Cascade Ave.).

Remember, these firefighters are working to reopen our town to the much needed tourist traffic that fuels much of our economy. Let's give them a hand.

Sincerely,

Mark Francis, DDS

* * *

To the Editor:

At the time of the struggle over the original bond issue for a new high school, a difference of about $2 million I seem to recall, made the difference between passage and failure of the issue.

At that time, the value of the former Lundgren Mill property entered the equation as a means of keeping the bond issue cost down.

As Bill Reed mentions in the almost-unnoticed article on page 23 of last week's Nugget, I, too, am glad that they held off on the sale of that property.

However, it now appears again; only this time, there is just a one-line disposition for that money, which may now total $2,950,000, except for a bill of $800,000 for "roof repairs."

The line reads, "earmarked for facilities improvement and maintenance."

Kindly tell me what facility we have that will account for over $2,000,000 and tell me where our current maintenance budget stands that it needs that kind of funding.

Where does our current maintenance budget come from, and why does it not meet planned needs?

If the track record on repairs of the current high school is any standard, I could understand it, but I thought we had gone down that road already.

Am I correct in assuming that somewhere along the way, we will also have an elementary school for sale?

Would we expect a one-liner on a back page to cover that transaction?

I think that the taxpayers who did not think we needed the new school, as well as those who passed the bond issue by a narrow margin, are entitled to a very detailed explanation and accounting of what our board plans to do with a $2 million fund.

And NOT on a back page!

Russell B. Williams

Editor's note:

Mr. Williams appears to be in error regarding the use of the income from sale of the Lundgren Mill to keep bond costs down.

The Nugget asked for clarification from the school board.

School board vice chairman Bill Reed said, "What he's thinking of is the sale of the middle school property. The first $500,000 of net proceeds is retained by the district for a maintenance and facilities fund and the proceeds after that were to pay the bond down."

Jim Cornelius

* * *

To the Editor:

The Tollgate subdivision has 440 lots. More people live here than in the City of Sisters. Given that population, it is not uncommon, and is to be expected, that individuals may have different perceptions about how the subdivision should be run and from time to time express their views through the Nugget's Letters to the Editor.

Tollgate's Board of Directors felt this letter appropriate given two recent letters commenting on Tollgate's CC&R (Covenants, Codes and Restrictions) enforcement policy.

The Association only sends out a CC&R notice, labeled a "Friendly Reminder," based on the complaint of an owner. The notice form is designed to try and help the property owner understand the rules and achieve compliance without being judgmental or confrontational.

The notice reads:

"We realize that our property owners do not intentionally set out to create potential problems. The basic purpose of having a set of covenants and regulations is to ensure a pleasant and peaceful environment for the entire community, and we are acting only in the best interest of all. Your Board of Directors and your fellow property owners are very appreciative of your efforts to help keep Tollgate a beautiful and highly valued community.

".If you have any question or comments regarding this 'Friendly Reminder‚' please contact the Tollgate office. We thank you in advance for your cooperation and would appreciate you correcting this situation in the next 60 days. If you are unable to correct this in the next 60 days or need assistance correcting this, please let us know..."

Mr. Collom, the author of the most recent letter of concern, is familiar with this process as he has invoked it to deal with what he felt were inappropriate situations on a neighbor's lots. Specific to Mr. Davis' letter, not only was the usual policy followed, but the business manager called Mr. Davis and offered to recruit some of his neighbors to take care of his yard. His unstacked firewood was never an issue.

Sincerely,

Tollgate Board of Directors

Back to front page