Letters to the Editor 10/4/23
Last updated 10/3/2023 at 10:17am
Development and affordability
To the Editor:
The Central Oregon Daily on September 6 reported that the 2020 Census data revealed that 33 percent of the people moving to Deschutes County between 2016 and 2020 came from California and, of the other 66 percent, half came from other parts of Oregon and half from other parts of the country.
The implications of this are worth pondering.
Perhaps the most important is that the housing “crisis” in Deschutes County has little or nothing to do with organic demand. Instead, it is driven by external forces abetted by promoters (chambers of commerce, tourist advocates, developers, and the like). There is no lack of housing in Deschutes County for those who are moving here and are willing to pay the price. So why do the County and the State claim there is a crisis? Have they invented a crisis in order to attract newcomers and to try to manipulate demand to the benefit of developers? The assertion that there is a lack of “affordable” housing and, therefore, we need massive development rings hollow. Affordable for whom?
Massive development will not significantly lower the price of homes. It only lines the pockets of developers and degrades the quality of life of residents. If local workers, including public employees, have difficulty purchasing or renting homes, then they should be paid more. Surely if property taxes go up because of rising real estate values, public employees can get a raise. In short, when investigating the issue of the need for housing, we need to follow the money and ask, “Who benefits?”
To the Editor:
After reading some of the Letters to the Editor in this and previous weeks’ Nugget I see some of the letters are referencing children with families living out in the forest and the kids attending the schools here in town.
I do not see any stats on how many children actually live in those conditions, ages, etc. Also, what living conditions are the families in? Do they all live in tents? How many actually live in motorhomes, as so many people around the country travel and live with families?
If the SCWS can get monies from the State then use it to house those families that are not presently in motorhomes, the SCWS can purchase motorhomes as needed. For those families that live out in the woods during the winter could relocate as close as possible and SCWS funds could be used to assist those families with safe access to and from town based on the weather conditions in the winter.
The other option for parking motorhomes with families with children attending our schools is to work out an agreement with the City and School District for only those families to be allowed to temporarily park in school parking lots during the extreme snow conditions.
Councilor’s vote revealing
To the Editor:
Our family would like to thank the Sisters City Council for rejecting the “Cold Weather Shelter” proposal, which, while a sincere gesture, was a Trojan horse for a much larger agenda concerning the “Homeless Industrial Complex.”
Additionally, not only do we want to commend Councilor Blum for changing her vote to oppose this bureaucratic quagmire, but also Councilor Cobb for exposing herself through her anti-Democratic, anti-community statements.
Councilor Cobb’s comments at the Council’s special meeting on September 19 show her to be quite comfortable with the tyranny of the minority. From her own mouth she stated her ascent to laws “designed to circumvent public input…bypass land use laws and…made public input optional…the intent…in avoiding public scrutiny.” Incredible, but thank you for presenting your illiberal stripes.
When the Councilor’s term ends in 2024, should she choose to run again, I encourage all Sisters voters to reject her candidacy. Such disdain and disregard from a Councilor for the community’s sincere and valid concerns is disqualifying.
Kirk L. Schlemlein