By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Trail's end or just a hiatus?

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Amity fan

If two of the Commissioners say there is no reason to hold an Executive session, then why is one being held? It takes a motion in open session to adjourn to Executive session. If a majority of the Board says they are not in favor, then how are they going to get to it? I hope the NR is in the Executive session since they are able to report on any matter discussed therein that is not within the statutory reasons to be in Executive session. Why the secrecy? What a circus!

LML

What a complete fiasco. That trail was needed. Ever tried riding your bike in Yamhill County and lived to tell the story? I'm sure the closed meeting would of been interesting. There were deals being made I'm sure.

David S. Wall

Concerning Berschauer's plea for an "Executive Session"...Do I smell the faint odor of betrayal wafting towards the nostrils of prominent political donors?

Berschauer received hefty donations to fund her campaign from prominent farmers, who are aligned with Starrett; most of which are litigants against the Yamhelas Westsider Trail (YWT) during various LUBA hearings.

At issue are all of the "Grants" received for the YWT and the "Obligations" which come with them.

The aforementioned "Obligations" associated with each "Grant" should be made public for they are germane to whether the YWT should be cancelled out-right or is compelled to go forward due to the; amount of money, interest and "what-ever-else" must be paid back to the "Grantors" mentioned in the aforementioned News Register story.

Will Berschauer support the prominent farmers who gave her several wads of cash for her campaign and who rightly hate the YWT adhere to her campaign promises or thoroughly screw the farmers employing a cost versus obligation gambit; to appease the taxpayer's sense of economic frugalities and the YWT supporters for her future political benefit(s)?

Then again...the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruling is still pending and is the sticky wicket ready to be used to paddle some already sore BOC behinds...again. And these hearings cost the taxpayer's in staff time.

Go to Post #2

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #2

I have opposed the YWT from the beginning; primarily to protect and defend farmers and farm land from "municipal development" which inevitably will be used to justify increases of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) and the costs to taxpayers to maintain the YWT (trash, porta-potties, et cetera) and the law enforcement patrol costs of the YWT to suppress the criminal element from establishing base camps to commit all sorts of crimes.

Also, the YWT was initially presented as an Economic Development project (and a very "cheesy-one" at best).

At some point in time, the "Economic Development" of the YWT characterization was shelved and the new moniker of a "Transportation Project" was allegedly substituted to qualify for some of the aforementioned "Grant(s)" money.

Let the YWT die the ignominious death it deserves.

David S. Wall

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable