Boot Thyself Source Staff | Letters to the Editor | Bend | The Source Weekly - Bend, Oregon

Coverage for Central Oregon, by Central Oregonians.
100% Local. No Paywalls.

Every day, the Source publishes a mix of locally reported stories on our website, keeping you up to date on developments in news, food, music and the arts. We’re committed to covering this city where we live, this city that we love, and we hear regularly from readers who appreciate our ability to put breaking news in context.

The Source has been a free publication for its 22 years. It has been free as a print version and continued that way when we began to publish online, on social media and through our newsletters.

But, as most of our readers know, times are different for local journalism. Tech giants are hoovering up small businesses and small-business advertising—which has been the staple for locally owned media. Without these resources, journalism struggles to bring coverage of community news, arts and entertainment that social media cannot deliver.

Please consider becoming a supporter of locally owned journalism through our Source Insider program. Learn more about our program’s benefits by clicking through today.

Support Us Here

Opinion » Letters to the Editor

Boot Thyself Source Staff

Opinion on giving The Source The Boot.

by

comment

The Source Weekly should be giving itself The Boot for its lack of research and for misleading its readers in the April 26, 2012 The Boot.

The Source bestowed this honor on the Bend City Council for its consideration of renewing the deferral of payment of SDCs by developers.  The paper wrote, “What it will do is deprive the city of money it can ill afford to pass up—money that could be used to fill potholes, improve sewer and water systems, hire police and firefighters and pay for a hundred other things that help make the city a good place to live.”

What the paper should have known, or at least had the intelligence to find out, is exactly what Oregon law allows the city to do with SDCs.

In Oregon, by law, SDCs may be collected to build water, sewer, drainage, transportation, and park and recreation infrastructure. SDCs may not be used to operate or maintain these systems, nor can they be used for schools, general purpose government facilities, or solid waste facilities (emphasis is mine).  SDCs are to be used only to pay for growth-related infrastructure and intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned utility, park, and street infrastructure that provide capacity to serve new growth.  SDCs cannot be “used to fill potholes… hire police and firefighters and pay for a hundred other things” no matter how much the Source thinks the city can or should.

Whether or not SDCs should be delayed, deferred or eliminated I am not going to argue.  What I will argue is that the Source, for its lack of honesty and journalistic integrity, deserves THE BOOT.

Editor’s note: While Lester is correct that cities are limited in how they can spend SDC revenues, we would argue that a shortfall in revenue in any fund will reverberate throughout the entire city budget. That’s even more true in Bend where the city has traditionally required development to pay only a portion of its share, meaning the rest of us subsidize the system. Just look at the proposed city-wide water rate increases if you have any doubts that we haven’t kept pace through the boom years.

 

About The Author

Speaking of The Boot

Add a comment

More by Source Weekly

Latest in Letters to the Editor