In reply to Open for Debate (News 5/23)
Regarding the issue of allowing buildings higher than 35 feet along the river, where are we headed? From Greenwood to Franklin? Whatever happened to Bend 2030? It isn't exactly ancient history, but in Bend short memories seem to abide. The ugly vacant lots at the end of Brooks Street are now the raison d'etre to launch a possible series of variances to build high above the river. Not so long ago, those lots were not empty, but were occupied by small shops. In the mid-2000s the businesses were bought up and demolished. The Bend brewery withstood pressure to sell, which often turned ugly. (Just ask the folks at the Brewery.) If the brewery had not held its ground, that site too would be an ugly vacant lot. As a result of what looks to have been a poor business decision, the lots were undeveloped and left with rubble and weeds for a couple of years until the city finally forced the owners to clean up and fence them off. These properties still look to be prime spots for small businesses. Fast-forward to City Council 2013. Question: What does it take to get a variance in this town?
Thank you to the City Council for creating some transparency in our government. The broker trying to sell these lots says the 35-foot height limit has been a barrier to finding a buyer.
The theory that the land won't sell with the 35- foot height limit is really that it won't sell at the current price with that height limit. This is purely about economics, not that you can't build a nice building with a 35-foot height limit. The newest building downtown (Deschutes Brewery) is only two stories and is in a section of town that outright allows taller buildings.
If the seller prices the property appropriately, it would sell quickly.
Bend City Council is changing the rules for one broker and one property. That is not just unfair; it's bad government.
—What the Wha!
Thumbs up for Doug Knight's comments. Good for him. Councilor Knight, one of the councilors who voted in favor of allowing variances, conceded, and told the council that he may have made an error in judgment.
"I've said before, when I joined council, I would not be so prideful not to admit a potential or possible mistake," said Knight, "and to have the courage to revisit an issue if I felt that may have been the case."
In reply to Summertime and the Living Smells Like Patchouli (Feature 5/16)
Next time you do a story about "hippie concerts," get a real "hippie" to write it. Or at the very least, someone who was born and alive to have experienced the era. The term "hippie concert" was never used. Not even someone's most square parents used it. In fact, people of the hip era didn't refer to themselves as hippies. That came much later, after the era ended, which was about 1967. What followed were the wannabees, the drug dealers, anarchists, the born-again Christians, drug addiction, prostitution and disease all experienced by those who converged on the hip movement. The hippies left in 1967, not approving of the scene or the people and groups who infiltrated to take advantage of the "freedoms" which mostly were false freedoms. It was a "bummer."
Maybe the writer did see Jerry Garcia play, since he played up until the month he died in the '90s. But Phish?? Come on, that's an '80s group, and a lousy one at that. And nobody in the hip movement ever did nitrous oxide. That's an '80s raver drug of choice. The "hippie clothes" were just modified clothing, inserts into blue jeans to make them baggier, bell bottoms. Everyone sewed their clothing; bell bottoms were not carried at Macy's for quite a while after. These so-called "hippie concerts" are nothing more than copy-cat followers who don't really get what the hip era was about. They weren't born until 20 or 30 years later.
So, if the Source wants to write about "hippies," get a real "hippie" or what they were really called, self-proclaimed "cats" or "freaks." Bend has a lot of hippies; you can find them at the Senior Center, or wherever else 65-to 70-year-olds hang out. Peace.
In reply to INTERVieW: Insane Clown Posse (Bent Blog 5/22)
ICP doesn't need to be on MTV or the Radio to promote their music. Hell, they don't even need to tour to promote their CDs! The mighty death pop came out about a year or so ago and they are just touring it! Juggalos are die heart fans, we keep in touch with what's going on and we don't need some fancy radio station to tell us to like ICP's music. I was at the Saint Paul show on May 18th for the tour and almost every juggalo/juggalette had a family, does that really say gang member to you? Also, at that show, there was hundreds of us waiting outside, not one fight went on, we chanted family because that is what ICP has brought to the lo's and lettes. To say that we are a gang is crazy, we are a family. Just because a few of us got into fights or whatever they did, is it ok to label EVERY lo and lette? No, I didn't think so. If a lesbian got into a fight, would the whole lesbian community be a gang? I didn't think so. I should be able to show support to my family with out being worried about being a gang. My car and my husband's has hatchetmen on them, and we drive around proud with two kids in the back. We are both hard working family people who are down with the clown, does that make us part of a gang? No, we have never fought yet we are labeled a gang member? We will stand by our family and for what's right. Just because we support ICP and their music we are not a gang.
They should make Sharon pay their legal fees!
whoop whoop juggalo for life mmfwcl.
In reply to The Forgotten War (Feature 5/23)
The "Forgotten War," for clarification, is the Korean Conflict. You don't even mention it in this article. What you have undertaken is truly an honorable gesture. Perhaps the Hollywood drama references should be taken with a grain of salt. Every man and woman who served in any branch is fully due all honor and respect. Most of which will never publicize their experiences.
—A Vietnam Era Vet
In reply to The Challenge of Legalizing Pot (Bent Blog 5/22)
I'm pretty sure most of the "pot heads" in Washington understand that the law does not allow smoking in public. And there is nothing for the state to figure out about legalizing cannabis—the law is already enacted. Finally, I find no link to the NYT. You musta been pretty high when you wrote this one.