It might have been an offhand comment not meant for wide public consumption, but when you make a comment at a public hearing, expect people to listen.
According to media reports, state Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, let fly that the current bill aiming to ban a pedestrian bridge over the Deschutes River south of Bend would be “Whisnant’s retirement gift.” Rep. Gene Whisnant, R-Sunriver, is leaving the legislature following this 2018 legislative session. Last session, Whisnant raised the ire of a number of locals with his effort to stuff an existing 2017 bill with language that would have banned a pedestrian crossing on a portion of the Deschutes designated as a State Scenic Waterway, as well as a Wild and Scenic River.
This session, Whisnant tried to distance himself from a new bill that would go even further in banning a bridge forever—but judging by Clem’s offhand comment, it’s still Whisnant’s bill. Want to watch the video of last week’s legislative committee hearing to listen to Clem’s comment? While that video is available online, the audio mysteriously drops out during that portion of the hearing. Thank goodness members of the press were in attendance.
We have weighed in before about how the whole legislative aspect of this ongoing Bridge Battle smacks of intrigue and hypocrisy. As we write this, the 2018 version of the amendment has had several proposed amendments and changes, and more are sure to materialize.
While we respect the environmental community and their efforts to keep wild areas wild, we recognize that the area slated for this particular proposed bridge is surrounded by giant homes—homes that have a great impact on wildlife. When we asked Erik Fernandez, Wilderness Program Manager for Oregon Wild—a group supporting the bill—about the conundrum posed by working to protect an area already so developed with large homes, Fernandez told us his organization didn’t necessarily have control over the private lands adjacent to the river, but they do have the ability to work to protect public lands and an obligation to hold onto any level of protection they can muster.
We respect that sentiment—but in this case, we argue that a pedestrian bridge that allows users to cross the river, and to possibly commute via bicycle from Sunriver to Bend, would also be a more important asset for the overall environment. And, most of the trail that would connect the east side of the river to the proposed trail on the west side is already built. The apparent hypocrisy of using an environmental argument to protect NIMBY homeowners with large properties seems to be getting lost in political translation.
In short, homeowners with pockets deep enough to contribute large sums to legislators willing to bend their ear are making strange bedfellows with environmentalists.
And then there’s the issue of local control. In this case, we believe legislation was not the right mechanism to approach this local issue. Local collaboration would be better than this no-name bill. Note, readers, that no Central Oregon legislator’s name is on the current bill. No one’s is, in fact.
In the local halls of government, city councilors and county commissioners are coming out in opposition to the new proposed bridge ban—a signal that perhaps local action and collaboration could materialize—that is, if this current bill goes nowhere.
We expect a better process from our legislators at home and statewide – one free of the sway of back-slapping politics and political influence. Bend Park and Recreation deserves accolades for this kind of planning and foresight. Instead, Central Oregon is being burdened with uninformed, ad hoc land use restrictions in the name of environmentalism. There are better ways to say goodbye to Rep. Whisnant.
This article appears in Feb 14-21, 2018.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I would like to give Gene Whisnant a slap on the back myself. His bridge ban in 2017 was passed unanimously by the Legislature, including our local representatives . It was a clear reassertion of state authority. Just because you can pervert property tax laws to convert a wildlife refuge into subdivisions doesn’t mean you can say the elk are gone, let’s bulldoze the river too. As a tourist destination, the rest of the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the protected areas for the rest of Oregon’s citizens.
Your apparent hypocrisy of using a transportation argument to destroy a sensitive, irreplaceable habitat and saying it would be good for the environment completely looses sight of the concept of wild and scenic.
If you seriously want a trail from Bend to Sunriver for commuting, there is a gravel roadbed of the old 97. It goes from Knott road up to Lava Butte. It is smooth and straight with no traffic or sensitive riparian areas. There is a paved trail from the Lavalands visitor center to Sunriver. It would make an excellent route.
The proposed river bridge and trail have nothing to do with commuting, however. It’s a lame, last ditch argument to save a bad idea. It is planned as a tourist event attraction. Marathons, bike races and commercial outfitters are lined up to help destroy 20 river miles of protected habitat from Bend to Sunriver. Bend Parks should not be allowed to distort the law, the truth, and your credibility to achieve this.
Sadly, the Source is emulating the Bulletin in its personal attacks on legislators and joins the Bulletin by publishing half-truthy editorials and being on the wrong side of this issue. You should acknowledge that Whisnant had good intentions when he introduced his bill in last session, hoping for a rate environmental win. His bill passed the House unanimously, but died in a Senate Committee. As in the current session, everything is totally transparent. The only “intrigue and hypocrisy” is due to BPRD and the Bulletin’s disingenuous campaigns against the legislation.
Had you done your homework, you would know that this section of the river is protected by State and Federal legislation (1987-88), Oregon Administrative Rules, and a Management Plan signed by 16 local (including BPRD!), state and federal agencies.
Even if BPRD and a group of locals want a bridge, they can’t overturn all these laws and rules–they just can’t. The Deschutes belongs to all Oregonians
and all citizens of the US. Lots of other options for completing trails to Sunriver don’t have a bridge. Let’s get to it.
Good points TimB. As an avid cyclist and dweller of the SW, I would like to see the bridge. I would definitely start more rides from home if the bridge did exist. However, I’d have to agree that utilizing the commute option from Sunriver is a weak element to base an argument on.
I remember the opposition to the Healy bridge being pretty strong as well, but imagine life in Bend without it? I wish Bend’s growth would stop, but that’s not reality. There will be a bridge eventually, maybe not this go round, but growth will necessitate it ultimately.