Letters to the Editor: Nov 10, 2016

Answers seem dodgy

County Commissioner Stan Primozich will not answer certain pressing questions.

The Yamhelas bicycle path requires an agricultural impact study under Oregon law, but Primozich talks for five minutes, leaving the impression that he does not know.
So I took Commissioner Allen Springer’s advice and went to county planning myself because Primozich would not respond intelligently. Instead, he acts like everything is so fuzzy and unknowable — the opposite of “intel.”

I requested that the county legal counsel join us. This included counselors Todd Sadlo, Christian Boenisch and planners Laura Tschabold and Ken Friday on Sept. 6. They responded that I needn’t worry. This is only hypothetically a bicycle path, said Sadlo. The county has no plans on how to use this property, Boenisch added. Once it is purchased, it could be used for solar panels, said Ken Friday.

I asked them if they are just using Ken Wright’s bicycle idea to make a land acquisition. They snarled and did not answer with words. I told them to please speak respectfully and stop shaming me every time I asked a question.

I knew something was off-kilter. I asked officials at the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission myself. They said they already had this conversation with Friday some time ago and explained to him that Yamhelas needs to amend the county transportation plan to include an agricultural impact study and a formal period of public comment.

Neither of these occurred in 1996 when the bike path was added to the transportation plan. Why the runaround? Will this be a bike path or not? Where is the ag-impact study? Primozich? Planning should precede financial commitment.

Bryan Schmidt


Women’s voices lacking

It’s ironic that a newspaper that turns isolated criminal acts in our community into front-page news can get so upset when the Democratic Party tries the same sleazy tactic in the Moore-Noble contest for the open House seat.

It’s also ironic that an article on women’s safety in the community is commented upon in the paper by a series of men — the candidates, the editorial board, Scott Schieber and spokespersons for Linfield and the Independent Party (yes, even this letter writer) — who all seem to be using this to make their own points that have little to do with creating a society where women feel safe at all times. To a woman victimized or threatened by crime, it is never an “isolated incident.” It is a reality she deals with to a greater or lesser degree daily depending on time and place. While the legal patriarchal system where women were considered property to be protected or abused by male guardians as they saw fit has been dismantled, the underlying attitude of far too many men has not changed. This is true from the richest man running for president down to the poorest homeless man on the street.

However the election turns out (I write this before Election Day), neither the winning candidate nor the Legislature they join is going to resolve this issue with another law. Men need to honestly acknowledge the extent of the problem and challenge patriarchal nonsense wherever it rears its ugly head.

Mark Davis