Typewriter

I wanted to comment on your thinning article on Jan. 13. Taking out and thinning the younger trees so the older mature trees can thrive is a good thing as these trees can withstand fires more readily. That makes sense. Also as stated in the article these larger trees absorb the most carbon pollution. But according to Shannon Berg, the timber operator team leader for Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District, emphasized that cutting large trees is part of forest management.

What the Forest Service doesn’t tell you is they make more money cutting larger trees. It’s the reason we are in this mess with unhealthy forests now instead of cutting sustainably from the get go. It always comes down to the almighty dollar, doesn’t it?

—Steve Navarra, Bend

Inadequate parking

I support the current Bend City Council, but I was confused to hear the mayor support minimum parking, which means developers do not have to provide adequate off-street parking for their developments. Until there is adequate public transportation, cars are necessary in this town. They will be parked on the streets. At the same time the mayor promotes minimum parking, the city planners are reducing on-street parking completely or limiting parking to one side of a street to accommodate the volume of traffic safely. The city council needs to check with its own planners to see if on-street parking is really a good plan. Not having to develop space for cars allows a possible increase in housing density, and more profit for developers, but is the trade-off worth the sacrifice of safety for our cars, pedestrians and bicycles? On-street parking limits visibility for cars and pedestrians, narrows streets and obstructs bicycles. For the livability of our city, all developments should provide adequate off-street parking. I hope the City Council makes it so.

— Patsy Kestner, Bend

Don’t allow Santos to stay in Congress

In response to letter-writer Nancy Henderson’s “What?!” after reading Mathew Yglesias’s column; here’s a thought:

The people of New York elected George Santos to Congress. But this person now posing as George Santos, is not in fact George Santos. He may be Anthony Devolder or Kitara Ravache, but he is not George Santos. This much is apparently a known fact.

Therefore, all his lies aside, he must not be allowed to remain seated in Congress because he is not who the people of the state of New York elected. Simple as that.

Persons elected to the House of Representatives are given high secrecy clearance and it’s very obvious that this person (whomever he is) is not a person that can be trusted with the United States highly classified secrets, and especially if he has Russian connections.

Therefore, I contend that he must be removed for the simple fact that he is not the person that the people of New York elected. They elected George Santos. This person is not George Santos.

—Diane Hopson, Redmond

Suggestion was no help

Per Yancy Lind’s column from earlier this month it seems he wants to change a contract that people have had for over 100 years. It doesn’t matter how much water each farm is allotted they still have to pay as if they were getting their full share.

If Yancy wants to put more water into the river, he is more than welcome to go buy all of the farms and then all that water would stay in the river.

But to now try and force these farms to pay for water it would put them out of business. If Yancy thinks it is all right to change a contract then I guess everyone that has a mortgage on a house would accept the banks to come through and raise the interest rate after the original contract was signed. Would that be fair? You can bet there would be a revolt.

I think Yancy should help the farmers get more funding so they can pipe the canals. His help to this point is not wanted.

— David Roth, Bend

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor.