VACATION RENTALS IN BEND
The comments from the Bend home purchaser who could ONLY make the purchase by becoming a part-time rental (vacation) landlord...how about deferred gratification? Wait until you can live here fulltime and then become a real community member—99 percent can barely afford one home, why should the quality of our neighborhoods be sacrificed to enable your over consumption?
One day, Bend will be a city of vacation neighborhoods, gated communities, and a workforce of Redmond commuters.
—Tourists Own My Hometown
IN REPLY TO "CAN A MORMON AND REPUBLICAN DE-THRONE GOVERNOR KITZHABER?" (7/30)
I am not sure that Richardson is the answer. I do believe that his attitude and strategies probably work well in a smaller community. What I don't want is Kitzhaber's lying about his knowledge of Cover Oregon and suing Oracle in retaliation. Oracle does A LOT of business with Oregon and a lawsuit will go nowhere. Kitzhaber and his advisors had daily contact with Oracle and knew what the issues were - he said he knew of no problems. I want an honest Governor.
IN REPLY TO "GET SPINNING!" (9/24)
Yes, absolutely agree. Downtown has a good amount of bike parking (although more bike corrals like the one in front of Thump wouldn't hurt). The real shortfall is a lack of safe routes that are separated from traffic. If people don't feel safe riding a bike around town, they won't and it's unrealistic to expect many more people to jump on a bike without a major improvement in our bike network. The city seems to be heading in the right direction, I just hope they have the political will to make more than minor changes.
IN REPLY TO "WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?" (9/24)
"'We don't actually have a neighbor left,' Federal Street resident Orion Junkins said at the meeting. The home where he lives with his parents has vacation rentals on three sides. 'We don't have anyone we can borrow milk from.'" But since the Junkins live about a block from 7-Eleven "milk" really isn't the problem.
I moved from the west side in 2003 in part due to the massive construction boom along with the noise and congestion. Additionally, an unrealistic expectation exists where neighbors feel that they have a right to control the happenings next door. The clarification on this expectation is that a property owner's control ends at the property line unless a specific law is violated. The west side of Bend seems to have a greater than average level of this busybody factor, probably due to the small lots and high prices. The "Truth in Site" NIMBY [Not In My Backyard] group is only one example. The reality is the west side is a high density, urban, mixed-use area in the middle of a fast-growing city. If that is not where you want to be then it could be frustrating. It is unrealistic to think that you can keep the area "the way it was..." Public discussion on zoning and use is great, but do not forget the rights of property owners; the other ones. This includes the owners from out of state whose rights are protected by the constitution and a "Regulatory Taking" by the city.
—My neighbor has rights?
Quiet enjoyment, retention of property value as a residential home, solace, stability, community, and preservation of residential neighborhood character do not end at the property line. This issue is not about vacation rentals vs. long-term renters vs. long-time homeowners, and any perception of a government taking. At the most core level, it is about being a good neighbor, and being a good businessperson if you own a vacation rental by ensuring that your transient tenants will also be good neighbors. The old saying goes: With rights come responsibilities. It is, therefore, one's responsibility as a NEIGHBOR to act NEIGHBORLY... When this happens, we, and the City of Bend are all better for it.
—The Truth is in Our Behavior
COLORADO DAM PROJECT
In the 9/24 Bulletin article on the Colorado Dam Project, Chelsea Schneider makes an interesting statement. She notes that in Nov. 2012 voters approved a bond to provide $6.3 million for the project. She goes on to state, "There were things that weren't accounted for" in the initial estimation including true costs of water diversion. "You're actually damming part of the river and doing construction on one side, and switching it all back." The result of these "things that weren't accounted for" is that the $7.68 million approved for the construction is actually $9.68 million. All of the contingency funds had to be drained to make up for this apparent error. My point is that any second-year engineering student interested in river work would know diverting water to do work on the riverbed during construction almost always has to be done. How could this essential aspect of the construction bid be overlooked by those responsible for approving the contract? "Things that weren't accounted for?" It is this sort of tax spending that makes many voters so reluctant to approve bond initiatives. Only in government is this sort of apparent incompetence accepted. Any good businessperson would can those responsible.
IN REPLY TO "WHY THE WEED BILL COULD FAIL" (9/10)
Some very pro weed people are very anti Measure 91 because they would prefer decriminalization to legalization. Do we really want cannabis to go the way of tobacco- pumped full of chemicals, overly regulated, taxed like crazy and controlled by mega corporations? Most pot smokers I know don't like that idea. If it is inevitable, why settle for Measure 91 when there are other options for legitimization/decriminalization that could be preferable? I have a feeling that very few people ever read this or any ballot measures, just news stories like this that hardly scratch the surface of what it really entails.
Really? Whooooaaa. Decriminalization versus legalization: It put our minds into an inside out, upside down pondery. We were like dogs chasing our legal tails trying to figure that one out. Yes, when we sorted it out, makes sense. As a thanks for the thought, how about stopping by for a legal and non-criminal cup of coffee from Palate . . .on us.