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

Bend residents support river bridge

For the second time in less than a year, there is legislation under consideration in Salem that would disallow the residents of Bend a pedestrian footbridge over the Deschutes River accessing the Deschutes National Forest, which has been in the works since the early 1980s.

Bend residents demonstrated overwhelming support (72 percent approval) for the building of a pedestrian footbridge in River Rim’s Deschutes Scenic Waterway “Community River Area,” by way of a survey conducted in April 2017.

Additionally, residents voted in 2012 to fund a $29 million bond (Measure 9-86), intended to complete the Deschutes River Trail, providing a seamless 14-mile trail along the River, connecting Tumalo with Sunriver. This pedestrian footbridge is essential in completing the Deschutes River Trail system.

A new House Bill 4029 is under consideration in the House Interim Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources for Oregon Wild. The bill specifically states: “Prohibits person, public body or local service district from constructing bridge on Deschutes River within certain segments of Deschutes Scenic Waterway.”

If House Bill 4029 passes as written, it would:

• Prevent the construction of a pedestrian footbridge that has been overwhelmingly supported by Bend residents.

• Prevent the only direct access trailhead to the Deschutes National Forest and associated trail networks for residents that reside in southeast Bend.

• Prevent completion of the Deschutes River Trail system connecting Tumalo with Sunriver.

If anyone desires to share input for the committee’s consideration, please send emails and letters to committee staff at .

Bruce Willhite


Buehler spreads falsities on clean energy bill

As my representative, Knute Buehler positions himself to run for governor as a Republican. I am not surprised that he opposes the Oregon Clean Energy Jobs Bill, even though a market-based approach to curbing greenhouse gas emissions was for years the preferred Republication approach, and similar efforts have successfully been implemented in 10 other states.

I am, however, deeply disappointed that in opposing this legislation, Buehler is deliberately spreading misinformation. Buehler has characterized a policy to put a limit and a price on greenhouse gases from only the largest emitters in the state as a “tax.”

Buehler has also asserted that the money generated through pricing pollution would create “a slush fund for the governor,” when in actuality both Senate Bill 1507 and House Bill 4001 are clear about how monies raised will be invested, which entities will oversee dispersal, and which communities will benefit.

Though I have studied this legislation over the years as it has been developed and strongly support it as a sensible approach to improving our environment, protecting public health, and creating a number of well-paying jobs, I can respect an honest difference of opinion. What I cannot respect is disinformation.

Connie Peterson


Trump talk can corrupt children

This letter is to parents of elementary school children. Unfortunately, you might receive a phone call or letter from your child’s teacher informing you that your son or daughter has been using profanity and calling other children derogatory names.

As good parents and role models who don’t allow such behavior in your home, you probably will wonder what influenced your child to behave in that manner.

Is it possible that they have heard Donald Trump on television either delivering speeches or in news broadcasts of his tweets? If so, I would suggest that you turn the television off when he speaks or his tweets are quoted if children are in the room.

After all, in the rationale of a child, if the president speaks like that it must be OK. If we must protect our children from being corrupted by the president of the United States, the state of the union is definitely not good.

My feeling about this situation is best expressed by the most well-known line from the old radio and television show “The Life of Riley.” When Riley, as portrayed by William Bendix, was completely perplexed and disgusted by events, he simply said, “What a revolting development this is.”

Frank Barnes