Bend Parks & Rec Bond 9-86 proposes many fine recreational opportunities that are “nice-to-have” but in this economy, and with critical water, sewerage and school obligations, not essential for Bend. I recommend that Bend citizens vote against the bill. Alternatively, BPRD should then reprioritize, redefine some projects and then resubmit the bond as a set of smaller proposals that will allow voters a fair evaluation of each project.
For example, the proposed purchase of three properties in the North Deschutes Canyon, adjacent to BPRD- owned Gopher Gulch, includes the 28-acre “Jeffers property.” For approximately $3.5 million, BPRD plans to purchase this charming house and barn on acreage with a great view of the canyon. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to simply purchase a right of way in which to cross the river and extend the DR trail?The purchase of two other properties in the area of comparable size is also proposed. Is a nature reserve or park needed there? Unlike the majority of beautiful parks in Bend, to which most families can walk, this area is far from the population center. Is there any unique natural area there that is not already found in nearby Tumalo Park, the High Desert Museum or National Forest land?
The proposed ice rink is also a “nice-to-have,” but at what cost? There is a balance point here—why should all Bend voters pay for a small population of skaters on prime real estate in an area that is still under consideration for the proposed university extension?
Vote against BPRD 9-86. BPRD, reprioritize and resubmit to voters.
—David C. White
This article appears in Nov 1-7, 2012.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Thank you for this reasoned view of the bond measure. Voters should really think seriously about a bond measure that received a majority of it’s funding from out of state interests that do not pay taxes here. We still haven’t received a detailed break down of how Parks and Rec. plans to spend our money. The Bulletin reported today that sports fields at Pine Nursery are included in the bond measure, but the fields will only be built if additional funds are raised. This is the type of misinformation that is rampant in this campaign.
I used to work for a park district and do not support this measure.
The political timing is horrible. BPRD knew that Bend LaPine would be proposing a measure next year yet they moved forward anyhow. This leaves us with a choice between schools or parks. Well, our park to population ratio is one of the best in the country and our school student population is over capacity at many of our schools. It’s a pretty clear choice where the need is stronger.