© 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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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 Editors:

I am Dan Malin, the manager of the Oregon State Police Sex Offender Registration Unit. I just read your article of October 28 ("Officers cautious about listing sex offenders, The Nugget, page 28) and wanted to point out some misinformation you printed.

Currently, to obtain information on registered sex offenders who live in their area, the public calls the Oregon State Police Sex Offender Information Line at (503) 378-3720, extension 4429. When they call this number, they provide their name, address and phone number to an automated voicemail attendant.

That information is pulled from the voicemail daily and within about a week, callers receive two lists of registered sex offenders who reside within their zip code.

One list is for those offenders who are on supervision -- this list by statute does not include the registrant's address, but does provide a contact number at the supervising agency to call for further information.

The second list is for registrants who are off supervision and this list includes the address, so the public can determine how close the offender lives to them and the list indicates if the offender has been designated as a predatory sex offender.

A person does not "listen to a list of all the registered sex offenders within a certain area code."

Protecting the rights of victims is also a paramount concern to the Oregon State Police and the question arises whether in posting this information on an internet website, the need for the public to access this information in this format outweighs the potential continued traumatization of the victim and their rights to privacy.

All arguments made to date against the use of the internet to post information about sex offenders have been weighted towards protecting the rights of of privacy of the offenders and except for the offenders and their families, there is clearly no support for that.

Perhaps an argument in support of protecting the rights of the victims, considering the number of "in the home" offenses should be raised. Today there are 366 registered sex offenders in Deschutes County, not the 180 you reported.

It appears that you were taking information from Charity Hobold, who I work with and is one of the most respected sex offender probation officers in the state.

Charity was probably just quoting those who are on supervision. Of these 366, 158 were on supervision at the time of their last registration and 208 are off of supervision. Of the 208 who are off of supervision, five are predatory and none of these five predators live in Sisters.

So from Charity's figures the 40 predators she cited may all be on supervision and there are five who are off of supervision, making the likely total 45 predators in the county.

The Oregon State Police is not the only agency that designates offenders as predatory -- in fact 90 percent of them are designated by the Department of Corrections and the individual county Parole and Probation Offices.

Ten counties in the state offer websites containing information on predatory sex offenders who are on supervision.

If you have any further questions about sex offender registration, notification or release and availablity of information, please contact me at (503) 378-3720, extension 4425.

Dan Malin, Manager, Sex Offender Registration Unit

* * *

To the Editor:

An important October 29 Nugget article (way back on page 7) titled "City considering lower density plans" raises several important questions:

1. What formal credentials does our "city planner" have to recommend 90 acres of land for the UGB, AND to recommend five to eight housing units per acre?

Knowledgeable land use people here in Sisters have expressed sincere concern about destroying Sisters' feel of community and the loss of sense of pride-of-ownership that has proven to occur with high density units especially when they are or become rentals.

2. Where does the planner get off stating "...developers sometime avoid higher-density developments because they find them less profitable." By "developers" does he mean investors?

In either case, they both operate on a profit basis -- and they know their return on investment is too often hurt by high density area vacancies, i.e., no rental income.

However, in the U.S. it is the market system that guides the process -- not bureaucrats.

3. How can he conclude that "he" (the planner) is recommending five to eight houses per acre in "residential areas" that will still allow some acres to have only two houses? What kind of a mish-mash of "planning" densities is he considering?

The Citizens Committee said two to seven houses per acre -- he recommends five to eight!

Multiple-unit buildings (typically rentals) adjacent to homes is a basic No-No in Planning 101! A citizens committee has made recommendations to isolate rentals -- but it continues to appear to fall on deaf ears, those of the City Planner.

Maybe he should check the over 50 residential rentals listed by local landlords and then consider why we have a rental surplus.

People want to live in nicely planned neighborhoods and in an area with employment opportunities.

Sisters is long overdue for sound planning.

Lon Kellstrom, an elected member of the city council is correct: "The same laws that apply to Bend and Redmond do not necessarily apply to Sisters."

Mel Bryan

* * *

To the Editor:

I live in California and am livid (about) the article that was forwarded to me that appeared in your newspaper (regarding the appeal of the Metolius Basin Project).

Ms. (Karen) Coulter (appellant) might want to take a very good look at the loss of life, homes, animals not to mention the loss to the trees etc. that has occurred in California in the fires that are still raging. She might want to seriously start thinking in terms of what makes just plain common sense and what is something that just stems from her idea of what is the right width of tree or not.

There comes a time when each of us has to weigh up what is good for man and the ecology together and not to try and separate one from the other. It would be quite amusing to see her file suit in this regard and try to get that past the federal government.

I have seen the trees she is talking about and would like her to know that they are far worse than those which are currently burning and it makes absolutely no sense to let these trees just stand. It would be much the same as leaving cans of gasoline standing around where people are working with fire.

Marie Pacheco,
Yorba Linda, California

* * *

To the Editor:

Aloha and a big thank you. I'd like to thank the person who returned the Bad Ass Coffee Co. signs. It shows courage and respect for other people's property. And (thanks) to Certified Property Management for offering the reward.

Let's not forget the incident and the cruelty to the cat. This should not be tolerated.

We're happy to be part of your community. My family and I are looking forward to years of business in Sisters and living in the Sisters community.

Mahalo and thanks again,

Frank T. Halvorsen
Bad Ass Coffee Co.

Back to front page