By editorial board • 

It's deja vu all over again with Mac sports complex

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .



So, the concerns of the opponents are nothing but “white noise?” The Editorial Board dismisses Friends of Yamhill County and neighbors of this parcel as unreasonable and/or naïve, (even selfish and scrooge-like perhaps?) and then you seem to suggest they should sit down and shut up, or at least be tuned out. Really? Were any of your members actually present at the meeting? There definitely was plenty of “noise,” (some of it rude and inappropriate) but "white" it was not.

It appears that you are doing exactly what the advocates for this project did during the hearing: focusing on the indisputably fine work of the See Ya Later foundation in order to emphasize THAT element instead of the REAL issue: LOCATION. Emotion trumps fact? The developer was not persuasive when he opined that there are no other sites in or around McMinnville available for a project of this magnitude. His impassioned emphasis was that See Ya Later does great work and for that reason alone they should be allowed to locate where ever they choose, logistics and impact on the desired location notwithstanding.

You write that the Editorial Board is “hoping” the concerns of the neighbors, and others in the community, will be set aside so your version of “common sense” will prevail. Another version of common sense might be to find a more appropriate place to grind the wheat in 2015. Here’s hoping those powers that be give due consideration to ALL parties. Wouldn’t that be a more fair and reasonable approach?

I have a question about something that reads like an assertion of fact in this editorial. Are you sure Mr. Brosius is donating all 22 of these acres? Could that number be closer to 10?

Don Dix

Name one, just one, UGB expansion that these self-named friends have supported. See?

Their culture is an emphatically 'NO'. Distortion of fact, exaggeration of results, and nit-picking process or just cause as much expense or delay have been the tactics every time.

Many live on acreage, yet scream when a family farm wants to build a home for the younger generation that would continue the operation. Glaring hypocrisy!

Jeb was being kind when he stated 'white noise'. The thousands of people affected by these tactics, including city and county governments, could easily produce much better and certainly more 'descriptive adjectives' , but the NR is not allowed to publish those 'colorful words'. In fact the late George Karlin had a list -- choose one!


It has been more than a week since I inquired about the ownership of all 22 acres in question here, should I assume the Editorial Board was unable to determine the answer, or that the question was deemed irrelevant?

And to Mr. Dix: Have you driven by this area? Were you in attendance the night the concerned citizens voiced their reasoned opposition to the location of this project? There were tactics brought to bear, no doubt, but not in the way you suggest. There is nothing “kind” about trivializing and dismissing legitimate issues.

I renew my hope for a fair hearing for all parties concerned.

Don Dix

treefarmer wishes to make it seem like every attendee at the meeting were actually 'true neighbors' of the expansion request. Truth -- the push behind the opposition is the self-named friends. From providing talking points and encouragement to anyone interested in opposing the proposal, to furnishing a staff attorney for legal response, it's simply a re-run of comments for every other expansion request. All one needs to do is look up testimony against Shadden, Abrams, Discovery Meadows ( inside UGB ), the gated community ( inside UGB ), etc. Different subject, same old BS -- every single time.

The most glaring fact -- many of those in opposition ( read attendance ) don't even live in Mac, let alone near the proposed expansion.

Have I driven by this area? Seriously? I spent my early teen years fishing Baker Creek, hunted ducks and pheasants all over that area. You probably weren't aware that Hill Road was marked ( illegally ) for a quarter mile drag back in the day. So, I guess the answer is yes, I've driven, walked, ran, even crawled ( to sneak up on waterfowl ), for over 50 years ( excepting pre-drivers license when a bike was the mode ).

When one must choose between the perpetual b*tchfest or supporting a project that benefits healthy recreational activities for the youth, I'll always side with the youth -- and, based on the present testimony, assume conscience has never been a player! Always about 'me and mine', never about the community good in general!

Nothing at all 'fair' about that, in my opinion!


For the record, Mr. Dix, NO ONE I heard discussing this issue wants to deny ANYONE the benefits of a youth center. NO ONE is denigrating the fine work of the See Ya Later Foundation or the value of “recreational activities for the youth.” The issues appear limited to location, with some reservations being voiced about size and scope. I can offer no response to your loathing of the “Friends of Yamhill County.” I know absolutely nothing about the group beyond what I heard discussed in the UGB meeting. How interesting that you are so intimately familiar with the location and still consider it appropriate for this huge project.

I remain disappointed that the Editorial Board has not addressed my question about ownership of the land. If Mr. Brosius would be donating 10 acres, are the additional 12 acres being donated too? And if so, by whom?

Don Dix

It isn't like the sports venue is destined to 'be out there all alone. The area is the site of a new high school. Hill Road is on slate to resemble W 2nd. Anytime a school is planted, neighborhoods begin surrounding it. When that occurs, and it will, can we expect to go through this process again? Based on past history, no doubt about it!

This project could be proposed to be in an abandoned junkyard and these nimrods would still appeal. Priceless old parts, and all.

You responded somewhat irritated with Jeb's assessment. You may not agree, but Jeb has witnessed the tactics, as many have. All the hype created has been going on for every single plan for expansion, every one (even the Space Museum)! The time and money wasted is ludicrous, and takes precious tax dollars to answer the litany of appeals. Those dollars could be used for many worthy projects that benefit the city in general. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it untrue, especially since by your admission you know little about the friends.

As for my sentiments on the property ... first, hunting is no longer an option. Second, the racing stripes are gone. But I'm not going to whine about losing a place where some childhood memories were made. That's irresponsible to even consider, based on the alternative. Third, and most important, what crop is grown on those 22 acres that somebody can't do without? It's never been a vegetable garden or anything resembling a food source, no special crop that grows only there. So what's the issue again?

Frankly, I see it as just another opportunity for the no-growthers to b*tch, and they always take full advantage, as Jeb cleverly pointed out.


what difference does it make who gives the land.
--treefarmer -- (( I have a question about something that reads like an assertion of fact in this editorial. Are you sure Mr. Brosius is donating all 22 of these acres? Could that number be closer to 10? ))


Hi camken…….My question wasn’t “who,” it was about how many of the 22 acres are actually being donated. I do wonder if the financial aspect of (even a partial) land donation was added incentive to pitch and justify this location in spite of the problems it would create. Surely even a partial donation of land (and substantial cost offset) would make the developers less inclined or motivated to assess a different location to be as “suitable.” How do you see the issue?

I hope the ‘See Ya Later’ folks will be able to find a perfect alternative for their facility. It will be interesting to learn more about all of this at the meeting next week.

p.s. to Mr. Dix: I didn’t hear anyone whining about an irreplaceable crop on those acres, I heard people who are sincerely concerned about something of this magnitude creating chaos in an inappropriate and unsuitable location. And as for wasting time and money, it seems to me that a fair hearing for BOTH sides is the right way to make decisions even though you and the Editorial Board see it differently.

Don Dix


Any planned development has it's detractors ... some neighbors close by ... and those who oppose everything (you know who they are). And they do whine ... which is one reason many don't agree with the premise (see Mac UGB, Abrams, Shadden Claim, city sewer improvements, Rice Annex, Air Museum, etc.)... publically! Always with the familiar BS scare tactics!

Here is the example of what Jeb described when he wrote, 'So we are being treated to the same old refrain of noise, traffic, congestion, environment and need arguments.' The writer attempts to make mock of this article by throwing the editorial board under the bus, and then makes this outlandish statement....
"This development would be built on high-value farmland outside the urban growth boundary. It is a good example of rampant, unplanned growth."

John W. Englebrecht

There are numerous example just like the one above, always the same refrain, and always in opposition (do you require more?) One might think the vocabulary and tactics would evolve, but these selfish nimrods are stuck in the 90s. And they could utilize 'copy and paste' for most of their responses (maybe they do)!


Mr. Dix

“….selfish nimrods…..BS scare tactics…..” and nary a VALID issue anywhere. The solution here is obvious. They need to locate this this huge project in YOUR back yard.