Will Langley support a noise ordinance to protect residents from the disruptive festivals that have begun invading our County?
As a resident of upper Dufur Valley Road, and very close to the WTF site, I have a very different view.
Such gatherings are totally incompatible with the clearly defined agriculture / timber zoning.
The WTF is a business enterprise that does not belong.
The 'compromise' arrived at by the Commissioners is little more than a smaller 'Kick-Me' sign
on the back of Wasco County residents.
It is clear as a previous editorial suggested, we need a definitive 'noise ordinance'.
Other rural counties in Oregon have them, that should be priority one, before any more
intrusion by those seeking to disrupt our County.
This cartoon is very misleading.
The SCOTUS left in place contributions to any single candidate.
What was changed was removing a limit on how much an
individual could contribute to multiple candidates in total.
This allows an individual to support multiple candidates,
thus protecting their First Amendment rights to free speech.
This is a correct decision by the Court.
Only the free market can fairly set wages.
Look at the unemployment numbers, as well as the number of
illegals that are being paid 'under the table'.
This editorial is not only wrong but seriously naive.
If you want to understand 'real' economics,
read Milton Friedman, not Marx.
After more than a century, what a total waste of time and money.
The cyclists want equality on roads that they do not pay to support. No gas tax, no licensing fees, in effect a free ride.
It is unreasonable for the city and the motoring public to take on added expense as well as give up road space that they finance. If cyclist want special consideration they should pay for it, period. The city is asking for an increase in the gas tax, lets end the cyclist free ride and have them pay their way as well. License cyclists for a fee.
Great idea, count us in.
Several observations and comments regarding the reporting of the second hearing on the What a Festival permit.
First, the article incorrectly quoted David Wherly with respect to the moisture deficit and fire conditions. Quoting OSU Extension statistics, Wherly said "For the period January First 2013 to May first 2013, equivalent moisture has been 3 inches, only 41% of normal, a deficit of two-thirds as compared to the same period last year", not "...two-thirds of the average.", as stated in the article.
Second, the article says "Not all the comments were positive." What it failed to say was that the positive comments came from people that live and or do business ten to twenty-five or miles away from the proposed festival site. There was no support from any of the neighbors that will be directly impacted by the activity, not one.
Third, with respect to the comment that Glen Boyd made concerning Woodstock, putting Woodstock "... In perspective...", he clearly intended to deflect the actual point that was made in previous testimony that "..the residual impact that the Woodstock festival had on that agricultural area of New York, had less to do with the hippies that attended the 1969 festival, than the ever increasing number of gatherings that adopted that venue". Only at the end of the discussion did Boyd admit his intention to not only make this a yearly festival, but to possibly host additional gatherings.
The unanimous decision by the County Commissioners to approve the permit I believe, demonstrated a disregard for those property owners, in a designated AG and forest area, directly impacted by the gathering. Recommendations voiced that the county, if it believed there was benefit to the county, assist the promoters in finding an appropriate, existing venue, were ignored, and the neighboring property owners were left hung out to dry.
A question that continues to perplex me is why people insist on coming where they are not wanted. The only answer I have deduced is that they don't care, and consider their interests above those they impact. I am referring to the arts and music festival proposed to bringing as many as 5000 people to a rural farm, ten miles outside Dufur in late July of this year.
People visit rural communities where the pace of life and environment are quite different from the metropolitan areas they come from, they buy their little bit of heaven, then immediately want to change it.
Dufur is not Portland, or even for that matter The Dalles. If we were to move to Portland, would we try to build a barn, hay our yards and graze our cattle? Not likely, but by the same measure, our rural agricultural community is not the appropriate place for a Woodstock.
The proposed festival not only does not fit the community, unlike the Dufur Threshing Bee or The Dalles Rodeo. It will bring nothing to the community except enormous amounts of traffic on a rural road, noise that will carry for miles, the risk of fire at the height of the season and turmoil to an area that receives NO benefit from the activity.
Having survived the Rajneeshees in exactly the same area in the 1980's, this activity is just as incompatible.
The Wasco County Commissioners should reject the Festival's permit application at this location, and assist them in finding a more appropriate site in the Gorge if they feel it is of an economic benefit to the County.
In recent years Dufur has been unable to sustain a fueling station, largely because of the price fluctuation and differential with The Dalles [15 miles away]. Local customers would, when needed, buy only a couple of gallons of gas to get them into The Dalles where more competitive pricing would provide the fill-up.
As a business model, with the Oregon state requirements requiring an attendant to pump the gas, a profitable business could not be sustained. A card-lock system would eliminate that one aspect of that problem, and it's associated expense.. However, the lack a fuel station continues to significantly impact transient activities in Dufur. In order to make a sustainable fueling business in Dufur, four things must happen.
1] The price differential between Dufur and The Dalles must be a balance between profit for the vendor and value for the individual user or the old buy a gallon and go to town to fill up will return, and the station will collapse, again.
2] Larger users [fleet users] must subscribe to it's use, i.e.,. local businesses, the school district, even the forest service. This may require low bids on the part of the operator to make up margins in volume.
3] The station must commit to a long term presence. Try it for three months and leave was the story of the last station. Building the confidence of the users is paramount to sustainability. The community has been yanked around with respect to fuel service to the extent that only a long term commitment [of at least two years], will win committed support. A number of individuals have made long term investments in Dufur, anyone seeking to provide renewed fuel station support should be prepared to do the same.
4] Some accommodation must be made to pump gas for transients, possibly through the general store and a small service charge, but local traffic in a community of less than a thousand is marginal at best.
Dufur as a community needs a viable fueling station and with the correct business model and commitment to serve the community it will be successful.
Last login: Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Information from The Chronicle and our advertisers (Want to add your business to this to this feed?)