Parking Problem
Parking on Deschutes Market Road adjacent to the Pine Nursery dog park has been in the news recently. There used to be access to the dog park from Deschutes Market Road before the roundabout was put in. Some residents from the apartment complex Solis also used to park there. Safety may be a reason now for the No Parking signs, but the problem is part of a bigger story. It is about fairness and quality of life for Bendites who live in apartment complexes. There are parking fees at most apartment complexes in addition to rent. Monthly fees can range from $30 to $175 for one assigned parking space, less for an unassigned one. At Solis, residents used to have a choice of parking a second family car on Deschutes Market Road. Now that choice is gone and they have to pay for parking two cars, adding to a family’s expense. A second problem is that there may not be enough spaces for all 2-car family residents in a complex. The algorithm used by builders and condoned by the city to allocate parking spaces is usually one and a half spaces per unit. How many people do you know that own half a car? I thought Bend wanted to be a family friendly town. I am aware that land is expensive. But until the city insists builders provide affordable and adequate numbers of parking spaces for people in apartment complexes the problem found on Deschutes Market Road will persist.
—Carol Smalley
Re: County District Mapping
I am wondering how much public comments even matter anymore. Not a whole lot of thought has gone into the decision of county commissioners to want future commission positions to be in districts vs at large. There are some factors that have not even been discussed or considered in this rushed process.
I am and have been opposed to the districting of the county for county commissioner positions. There are so many things wrong with this. The process stunk, the fact that the advisory committee was not unanimous in their recommendation says something in itself, the rushing of the process, old data/information and above all that IF there is not a viable candidate in your district you don’t really have a voice, let alone a vote. Some additional factors are what this is going to cost the County. The current commissioners were initially concerned about the costs of two additional commissioners when voters passed a vote to add them. What is currently not being talked about is the costs of different ballots that will have to be printed, the costs of staff having to do more tracking and separate counting of these ballots, more campaign expenses and what about having to have more drop sites for each district. Haven’t heard any of this talked about.
I am all about at large as it is what we want in a candidate — to be looking at the interest of the entire county, not a specific area. If commissioners move forward with this, I suspect that it will be shot down with a no vote. There was a lot of money and time spent for something that most likely will not pass. I believe the commissioners should wait until there is a full five-member commission, get new, recent information regarding census information, look at the additional costs and see if folks even want this. A straight question to voters would be if they even want districts for these positions. The current rush on this process is uncalled for.
Some history of how we got here: two county commissioners refused to consider having two additional seats on the commission and so a citizen took it upon himself and volunteers to get the needed signatures to put this on a ballot. GUESS WHAT — it passed with large numbers to add the additional two positions. Now we are looking at one more way for the two county commissioners to push an agenda because they want to gerrymander voting — at least that is what it looks like on the surface. YES, that is exactly what it looks like. All of this because you want to continue be the sole voice for the county. It seems to me that commissioners should be looking at more important matters that are CURRENTLY affecting everyone right now, than worrying about future elections. We have immediate concerns with homeless as we go into the winter, food insecurities for not only homeless but many families and to top that off, health services being available for all.
I really hope that you will table this issue, despite having already put out funds for the facilitator and took up many folks time and travel. OHHH and the last meeting that didn’t happen did not allow the public to once again weigh in. Stop this foolishness now.
—Mary Fleischmann
Re: “Ask meaningful questions about Green Energy policies” (Nov. 20)
Thank you Mr. Stanko for pointing out how important it is for young people, and old, to question and fully research things they hear, especially in this day and age! While your statements about the growth of coal and natural gas usage are totally unfounded, your statements should inspire many people to look hard at their sources of information and choose those that provide substantiated data.
I must point out one error in your statement that implies that natural gas is a good option to have available when the power is out. Please note that no gas heat or cooking will work when the electronic controls they use, the thermostats and igniters, require electric power to work.
We should all agree with your closing about working for the health of the Earth, and every little bit we can do will contribute to reducing human-caused climate crisis, even if the little bit seems meaningless.
—Mathieu Federspiel
This article appears in the Source December 4, 2025.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
To take some issue with Mary Fleischmann’s thoughtful letter, I feel that Phil Chang and Melanie Kebler’s call for 5 at-large districts is a position equally as extreme as Tony and Patti’s scheme to gerrymander. Both are incompatible with democratic principles in that neither even attempts to bring about more perfect representation. With totally at large districts and with each voter able to vote for all five Commissioners, we are setting the stage for one party rule in our county.
With the memory of Jamie McLeod-Skinner taking Deschutes County from Greg Walden in 2022 and with demographic trends being what they are, Deschutes County Democrats will certainly be adding to their voter registration advantage in years to come–making it virtually impossible for traditionally conservative rural voters, for example, to achieve any kind of representation on the Deschutes County Commission. I am one registered Democrat who fervently feels that such an outcome fits the definition of authoritarian rule.
As for Ms. Fleischmann’s concern about increased costs associated with ballot modification to allow for voting in 5 separate districts, please remember that we already have separate geographic districts for library, school board, and Congressional elections. This is nothing new for our excellent County elections department, whose ballot scanners are already programmed to handle district voting.
Deschutes County is large and diverse. Let’s not put the machinery in place that would most certainly disenfranchise voters and create even more resentment in our fragile society. Please, draw the map with geographic districts. At-large voting for all 5 Commissioners is a Democratic Party power grab equally as contemptuous as the White House MAGA plan to suppress voters.