Lori Chavez-DeRemer shows us her true colors as a MAGA House representative in Oregon District 5. She voted in lock-step with her far-right colleagues in her salute to Donald Trump.

She voted for far right extremist Mike Johnson for House Speaker who appears to be taking orders from Donald Trump to kill the Senate Bill that keeps the government open, adds resources to border security, and supports Ukraine.

Having already lost twice in state elections to State Representative Janelle Bynum, who is running to take back the congressional seat lost by long-term Democrat Kurt Schrader, Chavez-DeRemer actions fall short of supporting District 5.

So, why did Lori Chavez DeRemer lose twice to Janelle Bynum in 2016 and 2018?

Since she was elected state representative in 2016, Janelle Bynum has a proven track record of working hard for Oregonians.

As a hard-working small business owner, some of her achievements include: lowering the cost of prescription drugs, protecting women’s reproductive freedom, protecting LGBTQ+ and civil rights, investing in innovation, advocating for small businesses, building more affordable housing, taking on the climate crisis, and finding pathways for all of our young people to get ahead.

Her endorsements to take on Lori Chavez-DeRemer in the May 2024 elections include an impressive group of state and federal elected officeholders worth viewing on her election website including Gov. Tina Kotek.

Chavez-DeRemer can’t hide her voting record or her far right associations. We deserve representation that isn’t associated with Donald Trump and the far right.

— Dianne Crampton, Bend

Hooray, the Neff/Purcell intersection is open to traffic. Thank you to all.

Now, another major east /west segment is closed: the Portland Avenue bridge. In reasonable terms that means all the traffic that used Portland Avenue is essentially diverted to the Newport bridge. The westbound traffic is diverted to the Newport Avenue bridge thus greatly increasing traffic heading to the west side of Bend.

Those traveling from the west side toward downtown and beyond are also directed to Newport Avenue and that bridge.

The city has designated Awbrey Road as the connecter /detour for east bound Portland Avenue traffic to get to Newport Avenue. In advance of the detour, “No Parking” signs were placed on one side of Awbrey road to ostensibly widen and enhance traffic flow.

Did anyone think about the impact on the intersection of Newport and Awbrey?

The eastbound Portland Avenue traffic likely will want to continue east. That traffic is now routed south on Awbrey and will need to turn left (again east) onto Newport and cross the river.

A left turn from Awbrey Road onto Newport Avenue has always been sort of a challenge. I have lived in the neighborhood for over four decades and am familiar with the challenges.

By closing the Portland Bridge, the city has essentially doubled, in both directions, the traffic on Newport Avenue.

It is almost impossible for those on Awbrey Road to make the left turn. Traffic on Awbrey is nearly backed up to Portland Avenue.

When the Neff/Purcell intersection was closed, the city and or the contractors realized the forthcoming impact. Alternative routes were identified. Detour signs were abundant even miles away from the construction.

The same level of planning cannot be seen with the closing of the Portland Avenue bridge.

At the very least a three-way (all directions) stop should be implemented at the intersection of Newport and Awbrey.

Better yet a temporary traffic signal like those used at prolonged construction sites (i.e., bridge replacement projects) could be placed to mitigate the obvious problem at this intersection.

Another deeper question might be why close the Portland Avenue bridge to all motor vehicles. It is open to pedestrians and bicycles, why not open one lane of travel (preferably for east bound traffic).

If it is safe for pedestrians and bikes, seem like it would be safe for vehicles too. Were these alternatives considered?

— Don Ptacnik, Bend

As Congress struggles to reach agreement over federal spending, it is my hope members come together to make a wise and significant investment in the Peace Corps.

While many lawmakers argue for fiscal austerity, the Peace Corps had already been faced with congressionally mandated belt-tightening for nearly a decade. In fact, agency funding has increased by only 5% over the last eight years.

Some 58 years ago, as a Peace Corps volunteer, I lived in Costa Rica in 1964-66 teaching classes at the Universidad de Costa Rica.

Living at the same economic level as other teachers, I learned that most people simply want to make a decent living, to be with their family, and to be treated like any other human being.

The Peace Corps is worth every penny for the good that comes from putting a personal face on the United States by placing volunteers in countries that request them. It is equally valuable here at home, for putting a human face, that of the returned volunteer, on a country whose name and location we may be challenged to identify.

The Peace Corps has always enjoyed bipartisan support. That support needs to include the annual appropriation. I urge Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkely and Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer to demonstrate their support and increase our nation’s investment in the Peace Corps.

— Johanna “Joan” Landsberg, Bend

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