Letters to the Editor, Week of Feb. 5

New ‘Prosperity Officer’

Thank you for your Opinion piece of 22 January 2026, highlighting the new Oregon “Prosperity Officer” and the current economic challenges faced by the Oregon economy. However, discussing the “falling economic outlook” fails to discuss other, more important aspects of measuring the success of a society and its economy.

According to the piece, the economy and therefore Oregon are only “growing” if the population is growing and business is growing. This fails to look at the quality of life or the happiness index of the citizens of Oregon. Oregonians are not best served by limited economic measures, but by also measuring the type of businesses that grow here and how the economy affects our quality of life.

Profoundly in Bend but true everywhere, residents rate a high quality of life when there are close interactions with natural environments. By only citing a study that analyzed the importance of job growth and in-migration, the Opinion piece leaves out the problems that come with that growth. Proper land use and businesses that maintain the Oregon wild and natural environments are important to the quality of life. A high quality of life will fuel a different type of economic growth that can last for many generations.

If the “Prosperity Officer” looks only to bring more people into Oregon, and to bring in more business that could include polluting and environmentally destructive ones, Oregon’s future is bleak. The best future for Oregon and our economy is one with a high quality of life, and that must include maintaining our natural resources and providing a good education to our citizens.

—Mathieu Federspiel

Stop ICE funding

I am saddened by what we have become as a nation and a people
We have lost the rule of law.
We have lost the checks & balances between our branches of government.
Much of our congress and judiciary have lost their moral compass.

Under the guise of deporting the “worst of the worst” we have decided instead to allow ICE to continue unchecked outside the rule of law – allowing the arrest and killing of peaceful protesters, children. U.S. citizens, asylum seekers operating within the confines of OUR laws and anyone else who crosses their path at the wrong time. Sounds like the SS to me.

Please do not continue to fund or support ICE — a vile and corrupt institution. Shame on all of our elected officials who are more concerned with their reelections than upholding the constitution and laws of this nation.

The irony of this administration sending military troops toward Iran to stop the government killing of protesters is beyond ridiculous.

I am embarrassed and sickened to be associated with this administration and what our country has come to stand for.

—Leila Thompson

County districting

The eight Oregon counties with a population of at least 100,000 use a variety of systems to choose their county commissioners.

The “4 plus 1” system is now being used without rancor in the two largest counties- —Multnomah and Washington. In each county, voters in each of four geographically mapped districts choose their own commissioner, while the 5^thcommissioner is elected at-large.

4 plus 1 could be the optimal choice for Deschutes County. It could provide proportional representation for our two biggest parties, and would preserve true representation for our vast, diverse county. This could be a way out of our Deschutes County conundrum, because no matter how our five districts are drawn, one party or the other will always have a three to two majority.

As a result, some political leaders now clamor for complete elimination of geographically mapped districts in our county. This would tragically stamp out hope for a county commission with representation from rural and urban and from conservative and liberal parts of our county. This would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater

With 4+1 we might get two district-based commissioners from each party with a 5^th “tie-breaking” commissioner who is elected from the county at-large. May calmer heads prevail. We need to reset the mapping process with involvement of the public and jurisdiction from a non-partisan, independent districting commission, possibly consisting of trained mediators and retired judges.

—Foster Fell

City Threatens Housing Affordability with Untested Policy

Bend often positions itself as a statewide leader on housing affordability. This status is well-earned and hard-won: the City has produced more affordable housing units per capita than almost any other in Oregon, and it is the only city that has successfully pursued the state’s one-time expedited UGB expansion (SB 1537).

Yet despite the ongoing housing crisis, Bend now jeopardizes its own progress. The City Council is advancing an untested electrification policy that threatens to worsen local affordability rather than improve it.

The proposed policy aims to reduce natural gas use in new residential construction and proposes a “tiered climate pollution fee” on gas appliances and heating systems. According to several councilors, this fee will help accomplish the City’s Community Action Plan goal to cut fossil fuel use by 70% in 2050. Consultants have recommended fees between $5,543 and $13,857 per new home. While messaged as a climate tool, the policy effectively imposes a natural gas tax, raising construction costs that will inevitably flow to renters and homeowners. With nearly half of Bend renters already cost‑burdened and local home prices far outpacing wages, even modest cost increases risk pushing more households out of our community.

Housing and climate resilience must advance together, not at the expense of the other. Bend’s climate goals are important, but this fee-based approach is unproven, especially amid rising utility costs, grid reliability concerns, and uncertainty around federal renewable energy incentives. The City’s own Economic Development Advisory Board (BEDAB) has urged Council to first test the concept through a pilot program.

Before adopting an untested new fee, Bend leaders should measure the overall policy’s impacts on housing costs, energy affordability, fossil fuel reduction, and electrification outcomes. Let’s make well-informed policy for Bend’s housing and energy future.

– Megan Perkins, Mayor Pro Tem, Bend City Council

– Emerson Levy, State Representative HD-53

– Sara Odendahl, CEO, Bend Chamber of Commerce

– Dave Burger, Business Agent/Organizer – Central Oregon, UA Local 290

This article appears in the Source February 5, 2026.