To the Bend City Council: We who live in residential districts have made a pact to participate in society in a certain way and to live together in that way. Introducing a homeless camp in a residential area is unacceptable as it breaks the tenants of the agreements of the residents that has been made and held for many years. City zoning is used to support these societal pacts made by the residents. If one is not living in a structured dwelling according to local codes and zoning there is no place for you or me in a residential neighborhood.

I strongly believe that no residential area should include any allocation for homeless camps. Residential districts have been established to set a standard of living for the residents. Homeless people are not participating in this agreement that has been made among the people in any residentially zoned neighborhood. This infringes on the rights of the citizens that have been established which must be upheld by our government representatives.

An organized homeless camp is obviously needed, but it must be out at Juniper Ridge or elsewhere, not in the residential areas of our town. This issue is rapidly changing the safety and charm of this town. The trash, waste, vagrancy, and misuse of public property in Bend is out of control. Thank goodness ODOT cleaned up the ramps to Highway 97 and the city got Emerson managed. There is more to do. It is up to you to represent the citizens.

— Lia Webster, Bend

Sewer hookups comes with a price

The Bulletin editorial of Nov. 26 states that Terrebonne must solve its sewage problem. True. The editorial also states that replacing a failing septic system can be very expensive for homeowners. Also true; but if you think it’s less expensive to hook up to a sewer system, especially one that doesn’t yet exist, please hear my story. Twenty-five years ago I lived in an unincorporated residential neighborhood that Portland and Gresham warred over to capture our taxes. Portland won and years of construction ensued to lay pipe to extend the city sewer system. Miles of neighborhood streets were ripped up, filled in and ripped up again. Homeowners were given a deadline for trenching their yards and laying pipe from their homes to the curb on their own dime, forcing most homeowners to take out loans they would struggle to repay. And that was the least of it — Portland put liens on every single home for the cost of piping miles from the existing system to the curb. In my case and others, every penny of equity was sucked off the top by the city when homes were sold. Add to that, monthly sewer bills and higher property taxes. It was devastating and more than a few fixed income residents were wiped out. Terrebonne homeowners, your situation may not be exactly the same as mine, but before these decisions are taken out of your hands, explore your options, compare true costs and get involved.

— Penny Tooley, Redmond

Another bill that would be out of touch

On Nov. 12 the Bulletin ran a short editorial inviting comment on the question of whether to “allow people serving in prison to get their convictions vacated if they were convicted by a non-unanimous jury.”

It is true that a bill will be considered, just another of many bad ideas by legislators out of touch with reality.

Oregon’s non-unanimous juries were a product of voter approval in 1934, not the racism of Louisiana in 1880. Nobody in Oregon said anything for 80 years, until a law professor moved here from New York and suddenly claimed it was racist, or more specifically anti-Semitic.

The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed non-unananimous juries in 2020, but specifically refused to make their decision retroactive, while gratuitously pointing out that the state can give criminals as many rights as they want.

Just as Oregon’s legislative leadership (particularly Gov. Brown, Speaker Tina Kotek, and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum) assured us that tampering with the death penalty (S.B. 1013) or their abolition of juvenile accountability through Measure 11 (S.B. 1008) would not be retroactive, both have now been been so applied, so that the courts now do go back and free killers and others convicted, well before the law was changed.

Expect them to do the exact same thing with juries. Legally, there is no limit on many rights you can give criminals, only the rights you can take away. Now it takes 10 jurors to let an accused felon loose. What is next? Six votes to acquit?

—Joshua Marquis, Astoria

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