News and information from our partners

Letters to the Editor for Jan. 31 edition



Thanks, Jeff

I know Jeff Blackman isn’t looking for fame or glory, but as a guy that came out of a very small, very isolated rural town, and headed down the technology road due to ONE high school teacher, I’d like to thank him for all his work in the various robotics programs!

Of course, there are many others besides Jeff that deserve thanks. I just happen to know Jeff personally.

Tom Kosmalski

Hood River

Doncella Darting

I came across a mountain pool

all echoed-full of fish:

small fish that darted very fast.

A memory, “meaning,” of a school?

Does “mean” mean, or it just a wish?

What is the point, if it does not last?

Memory was, and is, without any rule.

To mean, explain, or to coffer a fish,

no need a poet’s line to cast.

Fast form, bubble-traced, in a cool pool:

must a question have an answer, a fish,

or will it answer itself at last?

Ted James

Hood River

Skeptical

With regard to the (Jan. 27) article about the proposed Mitchell Ridge community: This article is the first I have heard of this proposal, and I live and work in the proposed area. I am sure I am not alone in saying that Andreas von Flotow is not speaking for me when he says, “The motivation is that people who live in that area are not happy with their restricted property rights.”

From what little there is in the article, it sounds like what he’s proposing is to create a new urban growth boundary, eventually annexing it into the city, and I’m pretty sure the Scenic Area was created to specifically protect the area from such urban encroachment. County zoning laws were also created with the protection of farm and forest lands in mind. I am skeptical that what he is proposing is best for the area. However, I am interested to learn more details about his proposal, so I hope he will include all of us who live, work and own property here as he releases more details about his plan.

Anne Lerch

Hood River

Land law flouted

I vigorously oppose the proposed “new city” development called Mitchell Ridge (Hood River News, Jan. 27). I believe this proposal flouts both letter and spirit of Oregon’s pioneering land use laws, regulations that have helped make Hood River so wonderful and attractive.

In a job where I represented local government in 1973-75, I helped bring these exceptional laws to life. I am not an attorney, so am not current on the letter of today’s land use laws. But I was there at the beginning, knew some key players, participated directly in writing the goals, and worked to implement these laws as a consultant. I know the spirit of these laws, and they were and are meant to discourage just such “concepts” as Mitchell Ridge. They also were enacted to prevent such backdoor annexations as the “concept” proposes.

The legislative and political attitude in Oregon for more than a half century has been to focus development to protect the open spaces that make communities like ours so livable. This, in my view, is the Oregon way, part of our contribution to making things better. These laws were passed during the years of revered Governor Tom McCall. Readers interested in learning about how the Oregon way evolved might benefit from reading Floyd McKay’s book, “Reporting the Oregon Story.”

The Mitchell Ridge promoters will give lip service to two popular ideas: Creating an affordable Hood River and sustainability. This development will address neither of these worthy goals. It simply will create more sprawl, ignore the needs of people on limited income, and increase costs of providing services.

Let’s send the “concept” packing, perhaps to relocate in another place already choking on McMansions and gridlock.

David Hupp

Hood River

Hear the piper

Those who have been working for the government for any extended period of time have never learned, or have forgotten, to think for themselves. Their job has always been a set template of what to do, when to do it, and never to question it, so when something new or different comes along, they refer back to the template and if the question is not answered there, the question or situation must be either radical, irrelevant or wrong. We cannot expect lifer government employees to accept anything new that they have not been trained on, or anything that actually comes from the people they are supposed to serve.

The sad thing is that these government drones are teaching that same SOP to our youth, who can get a temp (at least) entry level position at the government which pays twice what they can get in the private sector entry level. And so, the beat has gone on for the last 30-plus years. Trump comes along and turns the template upside down and they hate him for the message he delivers from all of us working people.

I can hear the piper coming down the street. Can you?

Tim K. Smith

Hines

Check Walden record

It must be an election year for Greg Walden. In his constituent letter of Dec. 29, 2017, he brags about the house passing more than 460 pieces of legislation. He describes all the bills he introduced or sponsored that look to be positive.

What this campaign letter does not include is how many of these 460 bills he voted for are detrimental to the environment, including clean air and water, reversing consumer protections already in place or the living and working conditions of wage earners.

If you think I’m making things up about his voting record, please log onto the votesmart.org website and read for yourself. This site has every Walden vote from 1999 into January 2018.

Gary Fields

Hood River



Comments

Comments are subject to moderator review and may not appear immediately on the site. A user's first several comments must be manually approved by a moderator.

Please read our commenting policy before posting.

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment

CLOSE X

Information from the News and our advertisers (Want to add your business to this to this feed?)