|
Bingaman, Lauritzen, Lowe, Boe, Candler, Erwin, Garlitz, Alexis, Pierce
About 30 years have passed since I’ve written a letter to the editor. The public meeting advertised to gather public reaction to the proposed Mount Emily land purchase has compelled me to write another.
In the Jan. 28 Observer, county commissioner Steve McClure is quoted, “We have a public process. Let’s hear what the community has to say.”
On Jan. 29, a public meeting was held at the Blue Mountain Conference Center. The last hour was reserved for audience participation. The first ground rule laid down by the facilitator was “no statements, only questions.” I must assume this was on instruction from the commissioners. Participants could only listen to the information and opinions presented and then later ask a question. We were not allowed to express any opinions. How can the commissioners hope to gauge the pulse of the county if we are not allowed to utter one declarative sentence at the public meeting?
Yes, we were given a questionnaire to return, where we could check yes or no or a couple of other options. However, including your name and address was shown to be optional. How is there any assurance of accuracy in a questionnaire when the person is not identified? What is to prevent
one person from filling out multiple questionnaires?
Surely the county commissioners will not make a decision on this matter based on such unreliable information. If the commissioners are interested in the opinion of the people who elected them, let the citizens of Union County vote on this matter. Then, and only then, will the decision be based on the will of the people being asked to underwrite this purchase.
Ross Bingaman
Imbler
This letter is a response to Joe Garlitz’s Jan. 24 letter to the editor claiming he knows that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I would offer that the vast majority of scientists, environmental experts, the Supreme Court and politicians of both major parties disagree.
California and 13 other states classify carbon emissions as pollution and are fighting a court battle with the Environmental Protection Agency to allow them to regulate it as such. For those keeping track at home, of the 14 states involved, there are six Republican and eight Democratic governors. Last April, the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the states.
President Bush, who used to openly reject climate change, said in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28 that we should pursue technology that captures carbon emissions — like those being emitted by the PGE facilities at Boardman.
Taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon, is not a partisan issue. The cause is supported by environmentalists, people who love the outdoors and concerned citizens. These are Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike.
When the history books are written, I don’t want them to say that this was the generation that abused the environment beyond repair by continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the air. Instead, I want them to say it was this generation that recognized the grave dangers of climate change and cleaned up how we produce energy. The risks of continuing the status quo are too great not to take action. In Oregon, we have myriad resources including hydro, wind, solar,
geothermal and tidal.
We can to better than dirty coal.
Zachary Lauritzen
La Grande
Sadly we just had a fatality in Union County caused by a snow drift on a state highway.
Last Saturday night as I drove home on Hunter Road I found the road impassable due to snow drifts. I then tried Starr Lane. It was impassable. Standley Lane was barely passable for a four-wheel drive. Unfortunately I own a front-wheel drive. I finally made it home by detouring to Booth Lane.
I called our local emergency dispatch at 9:30 p.m. to report the dangerous conditions. They simply told me they knew it was drifting but that there was no one to come out to plow.
This underscores problems at Union County’s road department, who, instead of staggering shifts so the whole week is covered, are scheduled closed every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Can you imagine if law enforcement took the same approach? Not responding in emergencies because they have no one scheduled?
During some days the county does bring in a skeleton crew to work on one of their 180 scheduled days off but it is simply ridiculous that they are not better scheduled and prepared. The county maintains they are short of funding but the reality is they are still paying $8,000 a month for winter golf staff. This does not make any sense. Can’t the golf course teach their staff to drive a snow plow in the winter months?
There have been too many wrecks this winter due to poorly maintained roads. The county needs to be held accountable. I hope others will contact the county commissioners and let them know that maintaining the roads is a priority.
When county roads are drifting at 9:30 on a Saturday night there needs to be a better response than: the road crew is sleeping.
Ben Lowe
La Grande
I attended the public meeting regarding the proposed Mount Emily Recreation Area at the Blue Mountain Conference Center. Based on the information presented, the people of Union County should not be burdened with any of the risk or cost of acquiring this property.
Presenters gave “best-case” conditions if the property is purchased and “worst-case” if it isn’t.
Union County doesn’t have a good track record of acquiring and managing money-making enterprises, and should pass on this one.
There are other more urgent needs in the county, and the last I checked, there aren’t any money trees to be shaken — just taxpayers.
Steve Boe
La Grande
I have a gripe. I am tired of people who complain about horse fecal matter on hiking trails. I never hear them complain about moose droppings, bear scat or rabbit pellets on those same trails. One can only wonder about these people’s origins.
I put these people in the same category as those who complain about the phrase “In God We Trust” on our money. I don’t care what’s on it as long as I can purchase adequate food for the table.
Get over it and consider yourself fortunate just because you awoke another day.
Rudy Candler
Union
I would like to respond to the statements and questions raised by Ross Bingaman in his Feb. 4 letter to the editor regarding the Mount Emily property acquisition.
The meeting was advertised, planned and held by the Mt. Emily Recreational Coalition as a public information meeting in cooperation with Union County. Since this was the first opportunity to share Forest Capital’s offer, the MERC felt a public informational meeting was appropriate to explain the offer and funding opportunities.
The hope was an informed public could provide more specific questions and comments once the facts were available. Additional public comment opportunities are planned before any decision is made to actually purchase the property.
If funding opportunities are not successful, then continued discussion will not be necessary.
Mr. and Mrs. Bingaman requested a vote on the proposed purchase. Since the property purchase is not proposed to be funded with any county funds and financing would be backed by timber value rather than the county general fund, there is no funding authorization required by the county.
Commissioner Nellie Hibbert has asked the Secretary of State whether the county could conduct such a vote. The Secretary of State’s office explained voting is for electing candidates and deciding legislation such as ballot measures, not polling. Therefore, a county-conducted vote is not allowed.
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would have a problem with acquiring the Forest Capital Mount Emily property for resource management and recreational uses at no cost to the county taxpayers. The annual property tax loss is about $1,900 — equivalent to the property taxes paid on one to two homes.
Gene Erwin
La Grande
Mr. Cimon’s Jan. 30 letter in response to my letter on Jan. 24 serves to prove my point. Mr. Cimon points out the need to mitigate the environmental dangers caused by pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides. There is no doubt that these airborne pollutants are very harmful and must be mitigated.
My objection to “environmentalism” is the attempt to categorize carbon dioxide (and by parallel logic, water vapor) as pollutants. People do not breath out sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide does not kill trees. In fact, increased carbon dioxide enhances the health and growth of vegetation.
The kind of “political science” that would have us as fearful of the “dangers” of carbon dioxide as those of sulfur dioxide is just plain obtuse.
While there are many good reasons to wean ourselves from fossil-carbon fuels, global warming (perhaps) among them, carbon dioxide is not to be considered this kind of “pollutant.”
Joe Garlitz
Elgin
After reading Mr. Lowe’s letter to the editor Thursday night, I felt I had to respond.
My husband and I have also driven along Booth Lane and Mount Glen Road with the wind blowing snow to the point it causes a whiteout. But, we never expected to get home to call emergency dispatch to have crews come out to plow the roads as they are not major arteries.
We listened to our scanner Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. The road crews were extremely busy out in the middle of the storms hitting our area. They were plowing, sanding and stopping to help vehicles stranded along the roadways. They were constantly reporting in to dispatch about vehicles that had spun out, jackknifed or slid off the roads.
They were busy on the state and interstate highways doing their best to keep the roads clear. They were working hand in glove with OSP to assure those drivers made it safely home or to their destinations.
At the time we were listening to all of this, I thought about how safe I was in my warm home. Those crews were out in the thick of the storm. They often reported visibility at zero. I did not envy them their job, but I certainly appreciated all they and the dispatchers were doing to keep the roads passable and safe!
I thought then, I need to say a big thank you for all their efforts. I am doing that now.
Hazel Alexis
La Grande
In response to the Feb. 4 Observer article, “Weather Takes Toll on Young,” the article stated the bad conditions will not force the ODFW to add to its feeding program in Union and Wallowa
counties.
ODFW’s policy is that deer and elk are not fed unless it is an extreme emergency. The title of the article speaks for itself. However, Baker County has five feeding stations in its Elkhorn Mountain range.
Could it be that Baker County’s ODFW takes action before conditions turn extreme? It seems to me the ODFW is trying to justify their neglect in Union and Wallowa counties’ big game animals.
In all, 363,226 people participated in the Oregon controlled hunt process with a total of $1.6 million in revenue raised. I don’t think it is asking much to use some of that revenue to establish some feeding sites in Union and Wallowa counties to avoid a loss of our big game animals.
They have it hard enough with Oregon’s explosive cougar population.
Jamie Pierce
La Grande
|
Opinion 
