News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
For Silver Rail
To the Editor:
To families in Bend and all of us mourning the loss of life and innocence on October 15: We stand with you and hold you in our hearts. We will honor you with acts of compassion for others as we all process this unspeakable tragedy.
Therese Kollerer
Reject county districting
To the Editor:
I read with alarm the arguments offered by Carey Tosello in a recent Nugget column supporting county districts. A “yes” vote, the argument goes, means you’ll have a local commissioner to speak with at the post office or grocery store — a voice for Sisters Country to protect our “rural values.” And to enjoy this opportunity, all you have to do is abandon your right to vote for the other four commissioners.
In the 1990s I was an elected member of the Anchorage Assembly in Alaska, where I represented the South Anchorage district. In Anchorage I learned firsthand the jeopardy of district representation and urge Deschutes County voters to reject it in the coming election.
I have two principal concerns: First, the so-called “Sisters District” is not nearly as compact as the argument suggests. It will have perhaps 40,000 people and extend from Black Butte to west Redmond to Costco. Yes, our single commissioner will live in the district, but it’s likely they’ll live far away from Sisters. Even worse, if you supported their opponent in the election, your only commissioner will not be interested in your point of view. So instead of five commissioners, you might have no one in your corner.
Second, even if your district commissioner is from Sisters and a friend, consider the difficulty getting majority support for your issue. I faced this problem in Anchorage frequently. While your commissioner may be a supporter, the others probably won’t care because Sisters is not in their district! We see this problem all the time in Washington and Salem, why bring this dysfunction to Deschutes County?
In my experience, I found politicians pay little attention to issues that arise in other districts. It’s an “us” vs. “them” philosophy that is hard to break. So if you want to protect Sisters, protect our right to vote for all five commissioners. Please vote “NO” on 9-185.
Jim Barnett
Stronger county
To the Editor:
I’m promoting a “Yes” vote on Measure 9–185, which would give each of five districts representation at the county level.
Deschutes County is a large county with different needs, concerns, and perspectives in various regions. It makes sense to have commissioners living in the five separate districts bringing local concerns to the table where the commission can put their heads together to make the best decisions for the county.
Regional representation is what our country was founded on. The American Revolution was based on lack of representation for the colonies.
As a federal government began to form in America, the smaller colonies realized that representation by majority rule only would lead to larger populated areas dominating the vote and leaving them voiceless.
Several Oregon counties to the east have demonstrated their desire to become part of Idaho because they don’t feel like they have a voice in Salem.
A no vote on measure 9–185 would have everybody on the county voting for every commissioner position. I think that’s absurd. I will exaggerate to make my point. What if every voting citizen in the United States were allowed to vote for all the congressional districts throughout the United States and the candidates were not required to live in the congressional districts that they represent? I doubt the voters in California and New York would have any idea of what the people in Oregon congressional districts desire. Nor would they care, because they would cater to their voting base that elected them in the first place.
The current at-large system where everyone in the county votes for every commissioner position will almost certainly eventually lead to the city of Bend electing all county commissioners, leaving a large geographic area of the county unrepresented and voiceless.
Don’t leave rural Deschutes County voiceless; vote “Yes” on Measure 9–185.
For a thorough understanding of Measure 9–185, login to http://www.deschutesforall.com.
Rodney Cooper
Restrictions hurt property owners
To the Editor:
I own a condominium in Pine Meadow Village in Sisters, and I am unable to rent it short-term under the City’s current restrictions.
Pine Meadow Village is a master-planned community where vacation rentals were anticipated. The homeowners association permitted them, and the community includes properties that have operated as short-term rentals.
Ordinance 540, effective October 25, 2024, expanded the separation requirement from 250 feet to 500 feet and extended it to condominium units.
There are at least 48 condominium units across several Sisters developments that could be affected. At Fourth Sister Lodge, a 28-unit development, City records indicate that only one unit could qualify for a new permit under the revised rules. The exact citywide number of affected units has not been established.
These restrictions may eliminate rental income, diminish marketability, and potentially reduce property values, harming owners who purchased in communities where vacation rentals were anticipated. Owners’ investments and reasonable expectations deserve serious consideration.
Sisters depends on tourism. Visitors spend money in our restaurants, shops, galleries, and other local businesses. As a former small-business retail owner, I understand how important those customers are to our economy.
This issue deserves intelligent, informed discussion — not a one-size-fits-all rule. The City should listen to affected owners, consider the economic consequences, and explore fair solutions that address neighborhood concerns without unnecessarily harming property owners and local businesses.
We can protect neighborhood quality while respecting owners’ investments, and supporting Sisters’ tourism-based economy.
Jill Neal
Sisters UGB
To the Editor:
I’ll vote yes for the Sisters UGB expansion.
Last year I voted to rezone 58 acres of forest zoned property on the northwest edge of Sisters so that the City could consider the property during its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion process. Now, many are asking whether I will support the City’s proposed UGB expansion for 318 acres on the east side of the City.
The proposed UGB expansion is the product of extensive community input, work by the Sisters UGB Steering Committee, and review by the City and County Planning Commissions. The City Council approved it on October 14 and I will vote to approve it on Thursday.
The City has worked hard to assess how much land it needs for housing, commercial, industrial, and open space purposes in the next 20 years; how much of that will need to come from outside the current UGB; and which lands are most suitable. Among the lands that the City is legally allowed to consider for its UGB expansion right now, I think they have chosen well.
If the City does not advance a City and County approved UGB proposal to the State by January 1, much of the analysis work to date will need to be redone. This would be a huge setback for a city that needs more housing now.
After this UGB is adopted, the City should work to ensure that it grows well into those new lands. Sisters will need to grapple with expanding the Wildland Urban Interface into a hazardous area while protecting its citizens; protecting both people and habitat around the Whychus Creek floodplain; and getting sorely needed affordable housing built.
Lands that weren’t eligible for inclusion in the UGB this year could be added through one-time legislative actions later if they become eligible.
Phil Chang
Phil Chang is a member of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. The commissioners will vote this week on whether to accept the City of Sisters’ proposed UGB expansion concept.
Deschutes County Judge
To the