News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
The Sisters City Council came to a 3-2 contingent decision to deny the application of the Sisters Cold Weather Shelter organization for an emergency homeless shelter at 192 W. Barclay Drive in Sisters.
Councilors Gary Ross, Jennifer Letz, and Mayor Michael Preedin voted to deny the application while councilors Susan Cobb and Andrea Blum voted to approve.
The decision made in a marathon special meeting on Tuesday, September 5, is non-binding until a written decision is adopted. City staff will prepare a draft written decision and the Council will convene in a special meeting on Tuesday, September 19, at 5 p.m. at City Hall to review and vote on the final decision.
Reader Comments(4)
Greg writes:
For the record, as Mr. Blanchard appears to enjoy gaslighting on this specific topic. As a credentialed journalist I wrote a 3-segment investigative report on the errant hiring of Cheyenne Purrington as the county's homeless resource coordinator. Easily discovered in the public record, among other things, was the California Department of Justice finding that she was responsible for mis-managing $8.1 million in homeless grant funds in Lake Tahoe. She resigned there only to be hired here, only to resign again and move on. Local media likewise covered this story.
09/07/2023, 3:10 pm
Greg writes:
The city council, mayor, and a full house of Sisters residents asked Mr. Blanchard relevant questions and heard his responses. A vote was taken and the mayor's comments afterward offer sound insights as to why the application was rejected. The final decision document will describe why this decision was made. As I have stated before I support a shelter in Sisters. But a shelter established, funded, staffed, and managed by a professional entity with credible local oversight. Mr. Blanchard's ad hominem attacks illustrate, perhaps, the unsuitability of the SCWS as a shelter proponent.
09/07/2023, 2:18 pm
SCWS writes:
Interesting Greg that your take on our qualifications was dismissed and it's the consideration of the properties hazards that seems to be the issue. Your twisted fascination of a particular female is very troubling as is your loose ways with facts. As a fellow veteran you've lost all credibility with me.
09/06/2023, 5:37 pm
Greg writes:
Clearly Mr. Blanchard failed to sway the attending audience and those who voted no. This is no surprise. The lack of attention to detail, the suspect use of a date to just make eligibilty, no Way Ahead regarding financial sustainability, and a host of other meaningful issues resulted in this vote. Teamwork is what gets things done and done properly. SCWS, to date, has demonstrated it is not interested in teamwork on this issue. And that in itself is concerning.
09/06/2023, 10:32 am