Last week, we had questions about the way an Adult Parole and Probation home funded by Deschutes County was designated, and how that might have affected public notice for such a contentious property.
This week, we have more questions.
The new questions come after the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners abruptly voted last week to move that newly created Adult Parole and Probation home to another location and sell the current property. A number of people offered fiery testimony against the facility during last Wednesday's Board of Commissioners meeting, arguing that siting a home that hosts previously incarcerated individuals and sex offenders so close to a park, school and the homes of numerous children was unfair, that too many of these types of facilities were located on Bend's east side and that many neighbors never got notice. These are similar to arguments a group of neighbors has been making with the County since at least December, when the same Board of Commissioners voted in favor of purchasing the triplex in question.
The Board, in a unanimous vote, first voted in December to approve the facility at the location on Wilson Avenue, knowing the population that would live there and the makeup of the neighborhood. Then, that same board, in a 2-to-1 vote, voted this week to move it, after hearing more testimony from neighbors and their representatives.
Why the abrupt change of heart?
Does it have anything to do with the public notice process? And, perhaps more crucially to all county taxpayers, how much is this change going to cost us?
Several individuals are already living at the property. Now it needs to be put on the market, a buyer found and a new property secured — ideally where there will be no new neighbors to complain.
But where exactly is that? Neighbors in any neighborhood in Deschutes County could cite the same concerns these neighbors had — that they don't want sex offenders living near them.
Commissioner Patti Adair was vehement in her support of moving the facility and moved to put it up for a vote that same day. Commissioner Phil Chang, on the other hand, suggested tabling a decision until the Commission could get a better picture of what the costs and other consequences of the move might be. County staff working on the issue advised against moving the facility, offering reasons why simply moving the facility elsewhere would not work. But in the end, Adair's motion led to a 2-to-1 vote in favor of selling the property and moving on, with Commissioner Tony DeBone siding with Adair.
Elected officials have the responsibility to be good stewards of our tax dollars. To that end, it is imperative that they understand the impacts of their decisions fully before they make a vote. It is also their responsibility as leaders — to not only listen to the concerns of neighbors (which may be valid), but also to the counsel of the experts among the County staff, who in this case advised that moving the facility would be a losing game. This is exactly how you lose qualified staff — and that, also, comes at a price that we all pay.
Whatever moral issues are at hand here, there's a lack of professionalism that is stunning and costly surrounding this issue. Chang asked for more time to analyze the fiscal impacts of this turnabout and yet his fellow commissioners — Adair and DeBone — would not consider their wider responsibilities and rushed to vote.
If the decision stands, perhaps there's one small sliver of a silver lining: Ideally, this time around, the public notice process will involve ensuring that all neighbors know what's coming. And hopefully, during this reset, County staff can rein in their exasperation as they start the whole process over again.
