Bonny Slope should be developed at lower density

Your article regarding the proposal to enable development of Bonny Slope by moving the boundary between Multnomah County and Washington County quoted Dave Hunnicut of Oregonians In Action as saying the area is not suitable for suburban density development. This is contradicted by the feasibility studies for sewer service by Clean Water Services and water by Tualatin Valley Water District as well as the transportation study by Washington County’s own traffic engineers that were done as part of Multnomah County’s aborted concept planning process. These studies found that the existing sewer, water and transportation infrastructure would support developing Bonny Slope at 10 units per acre with minimal off-site infrastructure costs.

In my humble opinion, Bonny Slope should be developed at a somewhat lower density. Perhaps the estimated 80 net developable acres at 6 units per acre to both be more marketable for the location and to respect and preserve the Ward Creek canyon. However, the motives for mandating such low density in an area where the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District has been engaging in aggressive negotiating to buy land at the lowest possible price are suspect. Is the lower density being suggested to reduce the potential value of property in the area so that THPRD can purchase it cheaply? This would certainly be consistent with the decade of obstructionism that has denied the property owners the opportunity to develop their land.

Aside from the obvious corruption inherent in such tactics, continued attempts to reduce the potential development value of the area will only further alienate the land owners of Bonny Slope who once intended to donate the spectacular Ward Creek canyon as a park.

James W. Crawford

Bonny Slope property owner

State Sen. Burdick is taking wrong path on gun control

I found it very disheartening when I read state Sen. Ginny Burdick’s article headed “Oregon must take a lead in gun control.” The senator seems to regurgitate Washington’s ill-informed proposals rather than doing some basic research to find a real solution to keep our kids safe. FBI data shows that rifles account for 2.55 percent of murders, so assault rifles are a fraction of that. Murders by punching equal twice this; knives equal 4.5 times rifles; and hammers equal 1.5 times rifles!

The solution: The Clackamas, Sandy Hook and criminal shooters used stolen guns, so surely the surefire way of making a real difference — rather than just being seen to make a difference — is mandating that all owners have a gun safe? The pro-gun lobby won’t have their 2nd Amendment rights affected and numerous accidents will also be avoided.

Alex Fox


Giving all for nothing is not a good trade to me

Can you see it? All of America’s scofflaws, criminals and dangerous people are huddled around their TVs anxious about having to comply with new proposed laws to limit their access to guns. They’re shaking in their boots, afraid they’ll never get the firepower they need to intimidate, threaten and kill. They know if Congress makes a gun or a gun transfer illegal, they’ll have to stop in their tracks.

Not. Criminals will continue to buy whatever they want on the black market. Think how easy it is to buy illegal drugs. Oh yeah, I guess a black market would continue to operate just fine. However, Johnny Paycheck and Brenda Business who are otherwise 100 percent law abiding and never even roll a stop-sign, will feel compelled to obey and disarm themselves of anything the government says is “too dangerous,” register their arms in a nationwide database and submit to background checks as if they were already a criminal — just to “keep and bear arms,” a natural right, a human right by the way. At the core, what we have at risk is our personal sovereignty.

Furthermore, our founders rightly recognized that if ultimate power rested in the federal government, then individuals would be powerless to check an out-of-control government. Being disarmed as a people is about as foolish an idea as one could have. Check your history books. If we disarm ourselves, you can consider the great experiment of America’s days to be numbered, and our children’s children to be eventual slaves of the state. That’s just the nature of being disarmed.

Granting the federal government these proposed new powers would disarm the wrong people, give away all — our personal sovereignty — and do nothing do reduce gun deaths.

Does “all for nothing” sound like a good trade? Not to me.

Mike Hall

Lake Oswego

Contract Publishing

Go to top
Template by JoomlaShine