Letters to the Editor - Sept. 1, 2012

Letters from Denise Murphy, Michael G. Groshong, Robert Wilson, Susan Dehm

Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .


Dances with Redwoods

Nothing to find offensive in adopting the names of indigenous plant & wildlife, Michael.

Michael Tubbs Sr
Grand Ronde, Oregon


We hear from the Yamhill Parks Board how DESPERATE our county is for a park that has walking trails, water, flora and fauna, etc. How it's imperative we put a park in next to the old, toxic landfill at Whiteson, and in view of the stinky and ugly Riverbend Landfill, because of that real need.

Yet, here we are, reading about this wonderful park in Yamhill County, mere miles from town, called Miller Woods. Isn't it fortunate the very park Mr. Huffer and the Parks Board decrees we need in the county is already here? "Miles of well-maintained trails, old growth trees, streams and a variety of flora and fauna", plus educational opportunities.

Isn't it ironic the very park we are so DESPERATELY in need of in Yamhill County, has NO cars or visitors on a Saturday, save for one? Of course, this jewel isn't in Yamhill County's bag, is it? Let's spend precious dollars (over $288,000.00 just for Phase I and II) so we can make sure Yamhill County owns a park like that. But, not quite like Miller Woods--the Whiteson park would only have 1.5 miles of walking trails. Furthermore, let's sandwich that park between two dumps, one that was known toxic (and still may be), and the other also having had leachate in the past, and currently smelling to high heaven on some days.

Will families visit a park so close to an old, toxic dump and in sight and smell of Riverbend Landfill? A park on a river that was used for neighborhood dumping from the '20's to the '70's? The bank and bottom of Yamhill river at that site has old debris that is potentially hazardous to visitors.

In this economy, when every dollar counts, why would we need to replicate what's already available in the county? The over $288,000.00 for the first phases will be coming from grant money, and as we know, a major portion of grant money comes directly from taxpayer's. Sounds like a waste of taxpayer's money to me!


I agree with you cjdera. More taxes to pay, just what we need in this economy. The values of our homes go down but yet the property taxes go up. I have two grandsons, and I will make sure they don't go to the park they will be building by the dump site. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way. It will be a waste of time and money. I just hope the children that do go to it don't get sick.

Dances with Redwoods

"In this economy, when every dollar counts, why would we need to replicate what's already available in the county?"

The homeless currently taking up residence at various campsites out here in Grand Ronde, are required to move every 10 days. The homeless also face a limit on the total number of camping days per year, out here, at tribal camp grounds.

Perhaps the homeless may not be as fickle, all things considered?


If a shelter is needed, than use the 200000+ for such. But a campground for the homeless is not really all that generous, they are still outside in the cold in Oregon winters.

Why focus the money on one park built on toxicity, if that truly is the case? Sheridan is in dire need of some park restoration, some trashcans, and bathrooms with doors to protect the privacy of those who need to use them.

A new park would also be a treat, but more than anything, they need a monitor to help protect what they do have. The children are left unattended and climb on the baseball fencing, throw thier 900 ounce sodas all over the park as well as the rest of their garbage and turn a family fun day into irritation and anger by their lack of care for what should be a great place to play.

Use the money there, hire a regular monitor or two to issue citations to those who destroy the park, with proceeds going directly back to the city.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS