Don’t walk on the road at Pilot Butte

Happy summer! It is apparently time to discuss the road access up Pilot Butte. I agree with the June 10 letter stating it’s time to repave the road and include a paved pedestrian trail adjacent to the road. In addition it should be separated from the road by some kind of barrier.

Where I part with the writer’s comments is where she says she walks herself, her two pet dogs and frequently her nephew in a stroller on the road up the butte. She says the adjacent dirt path is slippery, ankle twisting and not conducive to stroller use, and that it is only a matter of time before someone is injured or killed.

My question is: Are you willing for it to be you, your kin or your dog who is injured or killed walking on the road up Pilot Butte? No one, and I repeat, no one should be walking on the narrow, poorly paved, motor vehicle road. It is dangerous and a fool’s errand to do so. The fact that no one has yet been killed should not be a license to act in this foolhardy way.

Carolyn Hammond


Brooks column errs

David Brooks errs in his June 10 column (“After Bergdahl, a case for unity”). As he states, the president and vice president may indeed have a special responsibility to nurture national solidarity, but protecting the lives, property and interests of Americans will trump that each and every time.

Brooks goes on to say that the president “had to take all measures necessary to secure the release of … Bergdahl.” All measures necessary? No, he did not, no more than was the case with four dedicated Americans who fought for their lives (and to their deaths) in the line of duty in Benghazi in September 2012. Where was this imperative then?

Basic to democracy itself is to generally defer the needs of the individual to the needs of the majority. Americans are now put at risk both by the terrorists released and thus empowered by President Barack Obama and the precedent he has set in doing so. And Brooks would have us believe that this brings about cohesion? Perhaps among al-Qaida.

Brooks of The New York Times tries to make a case for the president and his mistakes rather than one for unity.

Ross Flavel


OSU needs to pull back the curtain

At the June 10 meeting, the presentations and comments, for the most part, were informative. The parking management plan (complete with “Traffic Management Analytics”) seemed to address about every variable except a projection on how winter weather will affect students’ mode of transportation while getting to and from the campus.

Lacking at the meeting was any discussion about a possible future enrollment of up to 5,000 students and supporting staff. Isn’t it fair to inquire, now, what is OSU’s strategic plan regarding projected growth and the requirements of this growth over the next five to 10 years? That growth will certainly impact the community’s “Quality of Life Analytics.” Doesn’t OSU owe the community of Bend this information? And if OSU’s planning did not include such strategic growth plans, the institution is strategically remiss. If its planning did include future enrollment projections and the infrastructure that would be needed, why is the information not being shared with the community?

I am strongly supporting Bend having a four-year university for all the points that were made last week as well as in the commentary in The Bulletin. What concerns me is that OSU appears to not be totally transparent.

My public service experience has taught me that there is always something behind the curtain that the public isn’t supposed to see. OSU: Please pull back the curtain (that we pay for) and let’s see everything.

Bill Gregoricus


OSU headline shows bias

With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I say thank you to The Bulletin for the time you save me each and every morning. Seeing such biased headlines as “Skeptics slam OSU campus plan” saves me the time of reading the content, knowing there will be no fair and impartial reporting content therein.

Becki Bloch