Letters to the Editor 10/10/2024

“Wildflower Wednesday: this week’s feature is Indian Paintbrush. Perhaps my favorite of all. The display around No Name Lake was spectacular.” Thank you so much @vitalityinfocus and @trezbuckingham for tagging us in this lovely photo of wildflowers at Broken Top. Don’t forget to share your photos with us and tag @sourceweekly for a chance to be featured as Instagram of the week and in print as our Lightmeter. Credit: Courtesy @trezbuckingham Instagram

Guest Opinion: City Council candidates agree there’s a housing crisis; new tree code suggests otherwise

By Kirk Schueler and Jesse Russell

On Monday, Sept. 30, the candidates for Bend City Council gathered to share their views at a forum on affordable housing. Despite their differences, the candidates all agreed that Bend is facing a serious housing “crisis.” Notably, several current City Councilors expressed the need for “urgent” action.

To date, the City of Bend has made great strides to increase housing production so more residents can access stable housing they can afford. We commend the City on increasing permitted densities, working to expand Bend’s urban growth boundary and championing the need for more homes.

But aspects of the tree code recently adopted by Bend City Council will undermine the City’s momentum to increase housing supply and lower housing costs. The new tree code risks stalling the City’s urgent response to the housing crisis.

That’s because the new tree code will make building houses – especially affordable and workforce housing – more expensive.

Instead of studying the negative impact to the City’s housing crisis response prior to passing the tree code, current city councilors decided to look at the code’s effects after one year and make changes if harmful impacts are determined.

We believe establishing evaluation criteria in advance of the annual review is important. The City Council who passed the code should also set evaluation standards before the end of its term on Dec. 31, 2024.

As colleagues representing building and pro-housing advocacy communities, we are united in asking the current Council to finalize evaluation criteria for the tree code, including:

Has the code increased the cost of residential development and by how much?

Has the code led to fewer homes being built?

Has implementing the code increased permit review times, therefore increasing the daily interest cost incurred by builders on the capital required to fund homebuilding?

Have building permit and subdivision application fees increased to pay for added staffing to administer the tree code, including a staff arborist?

Has the code prevented loss of trees, or were trees cut at the same rate, with builders simply paying payments-in-lieu fees – creating a new revenue stream for the City?

In a time of rampant political division, we are heartened by the consensus candidates for Bend City Council have for our current housing crisis. And we all share a desire for a livable community – green space and an urban tree canopy help make Bend special.

But we must understand how this major City policy affects housing costs. City codes must not undermine Bend’s recent progress to address the housing crisis. Bend families struggling with affordability are depending on City leaders to honestly evaluate the impacts of this code and act accordingly.

— Kirk Schueler is the president and CEO of Brooks Resources Corporation. Jesse Russell is the CEO and founder of Hiatus Homes.

Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation District tax levy on ballot

As an At-Large Director on the Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District (DSWCD) Board, representing all county citizens, I offer some perspectives, not representing the Board, on the proposed tax base to fund the DSWCD.

Increased stable funding from a tax levy would allow hiring of more staff and possibly fund a wider variety of projects.

I have concerns about the proposed tax base that you should know. To be elected to five of the seven Board positions who decide on spending, one has to own or manage 10 acres or more in a zone (until the county’s population reaches 250,000, perhaps in 10 years). I estimate only 1-2% of the population of Deschutes County is presently eligible to run for these five Board positions. More than 70% of Deschutes County lives in urban areas and will pay the bulk of the tax levy, but would be eligible to run for only two of the seven Board positions. I’m concerned about this unequal representation.

To be eligible to run for the five zone positions, a person has to live or manage in that zone. The present zones are very unequal in population with some including a small fraction of the county population, and boundaries somewhat mimic irrigation district boundaries.

I fear the irrigation districts could be motivated to unduly influence the Board if the tax levy passes since their employees can serve on the Board (districts exceed 10 acres) and could use monies primarily for irrigation. Federal monies have been available for that. Historically, cheap water led to minimal investment in water use efficiency. Today, many properties are just hobby farms, although many still benefit from farm tax deferral. While conservation of water is a priority, there should be fairness of who pays for it. Every incremental tax, even if small, adds burden to those financially strapped. I suggest the county provide DSWCD with small base funding to assist with grant writing.

—Robin Vora

Letter of
the Week:

Thanks for the information, Robin. Come grab a gift card to Palate!

—Nicole Vulcan

This article appears in Source Weekly October 10, 2024.