EEditor’s note:
Every time an earthquake (or tsunami) happens off the Oregon coast, people begin to wonder once again, “Is the Big One coming?” It’s coming—but no one really knows when, or even if it’s going to be during our lifetimes. Still, Central Oregon is preparing, not necessarily as a place where we’ll experience damaging shakes, but as a place where people will come when it’s done. Jaclyn Brandt’s story on how that preparation is coming along is this week’s Feature—aptly timed after a tsunami from a volcanic eruption in Tonga this week prompted brief advisories for the Oregon coast.
Our coverage continues with some news about where to get more COVID tests (hint: your mailbox), a new brewery for Sisters, a new round of grant funding for artists and how a local outdoors group is empowering people of color to try new activities. Thanks for reading and have a great week!
Guest Opinion: Butte Dispute
Our land use rules in Oregon have good intentions behind them. But in the hands of people with money, they can be weaponized to economically segregate our cities.
Bend YIMBY has been following a proposal to build some homes (duplexes) on Awbrey Butte that the neighbors have been fighting tooth and nail.
They have written comments like:
Why “build multiplexes rather than classy single-family homes?”
“This type of development that does not fit in with the neighborhood”
“Awbrey Butte was not built for high density. Why? For high end large homes on large lots” [sic]
“We want the developers to plan single-family residences on 12,500 sq. ft. lots”
“The current Awbrey Butte neighborhood is a highly sought after place to live, and would cease to be so in the future with the addition of the large number of tenants the proposed development would bring, thus lowering the property values significantly. We bought this home as an investment and expected it to continue to retain it’s excellent property value far into the future.” [sic]
The desire to keep out “inferior” duplexes is clear, but thanks to Oregon’s HB2001, those homes are legal, by-right.
So the residents did some digging, and found a rule – “Street Connectivity and Formation of Blocks standards” – that is in place to provide better street connectivity.
It’s a good rule! There are places in Bend where cul-de-sacs, rather than connected streets, mean long walks between adjacent lots. The city is right to discourage that.
However, the homes under consideration are on a steep portion of Awbrey Butte. A street grid—or even a simple loop—won’t work there.
Do the neighbors really care about street connectivity? Included with this letter is a map.
The proposed cul-de-sac for the new homes is marked in blue (approximately). Existing cul-de-sacs in red.
They have paid top dollar to live in an area with a large number of cul-de-sacs! But this is the rule they found where the developer is not 100% in compliance, and an exception to the rule is required for the development to go forward. So they are weaponizing it in order to try and stop or slow the development.
The more time and legal expenses they can throw at stopping these homes, the more likely the developer either gives up and sells the land, or accedes to their demands and builds very expensive houses rather than duplexes.
City staff must follow the letter of the law, and so this objection must go through the process. If you guessed that this will cost the developer more time and money, between legal fees, city fees and delays, which will then be included in the price of the homes being built, you guessed correctly!
We should strive for more, rather than less diverse neighborhoods in Bend, and we desperately need more homes of all shapes and sizes. Our land use laws should serve to create a great place for everyone, rather than as a cudgel for the wealthy to exclude others from “their” neighborhoods.
— David Welton is a chapter lead for Bend YIMBY, a chapter of YIMBY Action , a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.
Climate Change
Wake up! Our government and news media have totally politicized “climate change” to reflect that humans are the sole cause of global warming and humans can fix it. Neither premise is valid. Recent books by world renowned scientists, Steve Koonin and Bjorn Jomberg, demonstrate how we are being misled by the reported science (eg. UNIPCC). Few people know that on March 7, 2019 Senators Schumer, our own Merkley, and others introduced Senate Bill S729 which stated in part that no federal funds could go to anyone who challenges the “scientific consensus on climate change.” Fortunately this did not pass. Science that cannot be questioned is propaganda. Due to new satellite systems we have been able to determine that the Earth is getting bombarded by more radiation than previous recorded history (see NASA data). Recent Danish studies have concluded that the magnetosphere has lost over 15% capability to protect us from radiation, mostly in the last 30 years. They conclude that the breakdown of the magnetosphere is “a significant cause of global warming” (Danish National Space Center). At this time, scientists cannot accurately quantify the global warming caused by humans versus the natural causes. Thus, targets for temperature reductions are arbitrary and sometimes capricious (California?) We do need to focus on adaption, but not sacrifice our economy to do so. Protecting water resources and our oceans must be the highest priority. Do we trust the politicians to this?
—Quentin Jauquet (Stanko)
RE: New Year, New Villages News, 1/13
This is excellent to see. I keep hearing “nobody would want camps or shelters near their home,” but I disagree. I work with our neighbors in the forest in Sisters, and they are just that, our neighbors. If we started embracing them instead of constantly pushing them away and out of sight further away, we’d see positive change and be able to all move forward together. This is a great step in the right direction, thanks to everyone involved.
—Mandee Seeley via bendsource.com
Thanks for your positive response, Mandee! You get letter of the week. As we take time out this week to honor the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I’m reminded of his musings on the “beloved community,” and our commitment to one another.
As he once put it, “Our goal is to create a beloved community and this will require a qualitative change in our souls as well as a quantitative change in our lives.”
—Nicole Vulcan
This article appears in Source Weekly January 20, 2022.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Wow David, way to pick and choose a few unfortunate quotes to support your one-sided narrative. Either you didn’t bother to read all of the resident letters to the planning commission or you choose to share only the snippets that support your POV. Assuming that’s where you got those quotes, I can only assume you purposefully omitted the main reasons most residents have issues with the development as planned- winter driving safety.
The recent snowstorm is a perfect example and I’m guessing you didn’t attempt to drive to the top of Glassow Dr at any point during or after the storm. During those 3 days, a City road grader slid backwards down Palisades Dr (one of the main connecting streets) into a residential yard taking out several trees. More than once a City cinder truck slid backwards down Palisades, the same street the developers expect to support 140+ vehicle trips a day. Multiple resident vehicles became stuck attempting to climb Glassow Dr up to what would be the proposed development.
The developer-funded traffic study submitted to the City expects 40% of vehicle traffic to use Palisades Dr, a street so steep that by current City codes it could not be built today. Multiple vehicles every winter attempting to go down Palisades end up in the guardrail at the bottom of the hill. Glassow Dr, the street on which the development would go is only slightly less steep. Oddly enough, the traffic study makes absolutely no mention of Palisades Dr and the inherent winter driving dangers anywhere in their report. Again, a street on which they expect 40% of development car trips to occur. The developers have said a loop road is not possible because the 18% grade would be too steep for residents to exit the development yet they’re ok with residents having to climb and descend the 20+% grade of Palisades Dr.?
If you had attended any of the online meetings with the developer, you would know that residents are not trying to stop this development from going in. What they would like to see is a lower density of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes to mitigate the safety problems of this location as much as possible, for both new and existing residents.
I know none of these points will change your mind but hey, don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Tom Beans. Perhaps the current residents of Aubrey should not be living there due to to safety and road maintenance issues then? Arguably Aubrey never should have been annexed into city limits, it costs the city far more to service the low density development on Aubrey than the residents pay in taxes. Aubrey Butte demands some of the most expensive and extensive infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) per capital. The city is preparing to invest millions more due the the failing water system as we speak. Perhaps some new residents could begin to offset the drain that the butte is on our city budget. Maybe you and your new neighbors can justify asking even more extensive winter maintenance. Although we all know this isnt the real objection.
All I can say is I am so sick and tired of low income apartments, duplexes, quadruplexes being erected all over town in the middle of peoples neighborhoods, it’s really pathetic, lack of parking etc…
What really sticks in my crawl is the fact that the liberals in this town have the power to rezone every piece of dirt in town to build whatever they want whenever they want.
We live in a world of entitlement, and Bend is getting ruined daily with the mass construction of six story ugly apartments everywhere, With a utopia attitude, I think liberals need to get a life, and stop building your garbage in my backyard, I Scrimped and saved to buy a house only to have it get ruined by a bunch of low income, Rat maze towering into my backyard, I don’t know who the hell these pathetic board members are in town that have just ruined this place.
I can’t wait till the market crashes!! And all these low income apartments become empty because there’s no jobs here, all Low income means is people make bad decisions in their life and the people that made the right decisions have to pay the price, these people should’ve learned how to make a living instead of partying And squirting out babies, jumping on governmental subsidies, it’s really pathetic this is America, you can choose to be rich or poor it’s your decision but I don’t understand why we have to pay the price for having human garbage in our backyard
YIMBY..,,Get a life!! I don’t want your garbage in my backyard