Erik404 | The Source Weekly - Bend, Oregon

Member since Aug 24, 2007

Contributions:

  • Posted by:
    Erik404 on 03/25/2022 at 9:35 PM
    FMarcos, You should go to the local homeless camps and read all of your web comments aloud to them. I guarantee they’ll want to get as far away as possible.
  • Posted by:
    Erik404 on 03/25/2022 at 11:12 AM
    So, are we still pretending that exorbitant real estate and rental pricing isn't contributing to the growing homeless population? I'll save you from all your Google research: It is. It absolutely is contributing.

    Let's connect some dots.

    Let's say there are 3 classes of renter. At the top, you have fairly wealthy folks who could buy a house at will, but choose not to for whatever reason - they're here temporarily, they're waiting for the right opportunity, or maybe they just don't want the responsibility. They'll rent a nice 3-bedroom house for as long as they feel like it.

    In the middle, you have people who make the median income in the area - they have careers - Business managers, Teachers, web developers, skilled workers, contractors, police officers, etc. These are long-term renters and they plan on being here for years to come. They'd like to buy something eventually, but it's gonna be a while before they have a down payment. They might rent anything from a decent 1br apartment to a crappy 3-br house. They'll go as cheap as they can get away with so that they can possibly save enough money for a down payment someday.

    At the bottom is were we find students, first-time renters, and all the low-income workers who staff our restaurants, grocery stores, and various other jobs the general public takes for granted. They'll maybe rent a Studio if they're lucky, but it's usually more likely that they're renting a room, maybe splitting a house with roommates or the homeowner.

    Guess what happens when rental costs increase 3-5 times faster than the local wages/salaries? Well, group one either downgrades to the second-tier rentals or buys a home. In either case, this squeezes the mid-level renters out and pushes them to the bottom-rung properties, which they're now paying mid-level pricing for.

    And the folks at the bottom? Some begin to share housing where they didn't have to before. Many don't even make enough qualify for any rental anywhere, so they live in their vehicles, hoping to find something - but the reality is that living homeless out of a car or van isn't as cheap as we tend to think. They lose ground rapidly. It's hard to shower or do laundry. They can't cook food. Things spiral from there, and then we have our new crop of homeless.

    In the end, if Bend jobs can't pay Bend rent, why should the workforce you rely on even bother to stick around? Who's gonna staff our grocery stores? Who's gonna run the chair lifts? How are the local breweries gonna continue to operate if nobody can afford to work for them? How is our local healthcare system gonna function if no nurse can pay to live here? Who's fix your car? Where are you gonna go for happy hour when the pub can't keep any staff to pour your IPA's?

    If we continue to price out Bend's support staff, we stand to lose much of what makes Central Oregon livable in the first place while we continue to surround ourselves with homeless camps.
  • Posted by:
    Gearhead4077 on 03/25/2022 at 10:08 AM
    fmarcos, I invite you to move to any state that has been under Republican control for the last 30+ years. Like Louisiana, where the Murder rate is higher than almost anywhere else in the developed world and wages are so low that virtually everyone is on welfare. Or Texas, where it's practically guaranteed that your daughter will have her first kid before she graduates high school (if she even graduates). Maybe you'd love it in Mississippi or Alabama, where public land is virtually non-existent.

    Or you could just go one state east to Idaho, where Covid infection per capita (and covid deaths and hospitalizations) were more than double the rates we've had in Oregon because the leadership and the people refused preventive measures.

    Or you could just go.
  • Posted by:
    Gearhead4077 on 08/21/2015 at 6:54 PM
    Re: “Letters 8/11-8/18
    Sage,
    guess who's in my way during rush hour (or any hour)? Other Drivers. They floor it when they should yield. They run stop signs, they run red lights well over the speed limit (gotta take advantage of that Yellow), and - worst of all - they can kill you if you find yourself in the wrong part of the street when they do these things. And it won't matter if you're in your car, on foot, on your bike, or on friggin' horseback. Get T-boned by some schmuck running the red at 45mph and your chances aren't good.

    There are a lot of deadly drivers on the road, and most of them would rather stare at their Phones than steer around that mini-van in the center lane just ahead . . .

    It amazes me that so many people actually think there is some kind of rampant killing spree committed by rogue bike riders with such frequency. Do you know how many people are killed getting hit by bicyclists in a year? Eight (maybe ten in a bad year). Lightning strikes kill almost 30. You read that right. You're three times as likely to die trying to absorb 1.21 Gigawatts to go Back To The Future than you are to be killed by a bike rider, no matter how careless they are.

    Crappy Divers kill over 30,000 per year. Consistently. That's roughly the population of Juneau, Alaska being wiped out annually.

    Nationwide, bikes represent just under 1% of trips taken each year. If bicyclists were the dangerous boogeymen you seem to believe (as dangerous as crappy drivers) they would be killing 300 people per year. However, as it turns out, the real totals mean bikes can really only be 2.7% as deadly as cars.

    I honestly don't care if how many bicyclists are running stop signs and annoying the crap out of me, Sage. It means they're not pulling that crap in their cars, and I feel really good about that.
  • Posted by:
    Gearhead4077 on 03/13/2015 at 6:58 PM
    Re: “Bike Town USA
    Bike lanes are needed in many paces, but a bigger issue is sprawl. In older parts of Bend, destinations are close to each other making these areas more walkable, more bikeable. Go to an area that was developed in the last 30 or 40 years, and the picture changes. The east side - apart from private homes - is mostly parking lots. The north end of Bend is much the same.

    This layout creates distance very quickly. Overbuilt parking lots are wasting a lot of space, though, and they never seem to fill to capacity. Real estate being as valuable as it is, perhaps it's time for the powers that be to re-think certain ordinances.
  • Posted by:
    Gearhead4077 on 03/13/2015 at 6:28 PM
    Re: “Letters 3/3-3/10
    @ Chuck Thomas: You are held hostage by a bike lane? Really? You can't leave your home if a bike lane exists? How is someone so inept allowed behind the wheel? If a bike lane is such a danger, in what cocoon of protective kitten flatulence are you taking part in all of your "avid recreational" cycling?

    But wait! Bike lanes are a conspiracy! Yeah, the local government is trying to make you ride bikes. You solved the puzzle. Now that the truth is out, old man Withers is on the wire to every news organization in the civilized world. Our right to drive is safe for another day. Thank you.

    -Or-

    The street that passes by your home (like the sidewalk) is not "yours". Anybody who needs to use a public street is allowed do so in a civilized society. Nowhere is it written that large, expensive (dangerous) machinery has to be purchased in order to travel on public roads, nor should it be.

    This may surprise you, Chuck, but lots of people simply cannot drive - the very elderly, anyone on a limited income (Poor people in Bend?! Yes, they're around), kids under 16, anyone with a DUI problem. Many others who DO drive should not - anyone with a smart phone addiction, people who have killed with their car in the past, the very elderly, kids over 16, and so on. If only there were ways for the inconveniently car-free to go from one place to another without having to rely on uncle Chuck and his "car held hostage" to cart them around . . .

    Was Riverside safer for anybody when there was no bike lane? (I'm psychic enough to know that Chucky just said "yes".) Safer for who? I grew up here and I've been riding (and driving) all over Bend AND on Riverside Drive for over 20 years, and I'm not alone - there were very few days that bikes could not be found riding past Drake Park, trying to split the difference with passing drivers. Now, I have a lane that tells me where I can ride my bike and drivers are able to pass me easily. And when I DRIVE THE CAR THAT I OWN, I'm able to pass bikers at will thanks to this bike lane that is "holding you hostage". If only it were so easy to pass on all public roads.

    If having to be around bikes and the people who ride them are really a problem for you, there are places where "those bikers" are very rare. Maybe you mistook Bend for that kind of place when you moved here. If that's the case, you were very much mistaken. Events like the Pole Pedal Paddle and the Cascade Cycling Classic have gone on in Bend for nearly 40 years now - That's not a coincidence.

    Bike lanes aren't new here. There will be more. Bicycles aren't going away any more than cars are.

    Get over it or get out.
  • Posted by:
    Gearhead4077 on 09/26/2013 at 2:33 PM
    While I would appreciate the proposed efforts to keep us alive, wouldn't it also make sense to keep proven deadly drivers from ever driving again?

    I'm pretty sure that once someone has proven that they'll kill with a gun, they can never again legally own a gun. So why, then, is a driver who is found to be at fault in a traffic death allowed to continue to own and operate the murder weapon?

    I'm all for stricter enforcement, speed traps, anything that will slow down the jac#@$$ who just has get to the next red light 2 seconds faster. Just do us all a favor and make it count!