Letters for Oct. 25
Ballots for the 2017 autumn election have been mailed and may be sitting on your counter waiting for action. Ballot measure 3-518 is an important vote for a neighborhood community without a voice! Every ballot and vote of NO is important to stop the annexation of this Altamont property by the city of Happy Valley and protect the Altamont neighborhood. Please vote NO on Ballot Measure 3-518.
This spring's door-to-door petition to place this measure on the ballot was extremely successful, with over 1,200 valid signatures. I can tell you firsthand that every family that I spoke to was sympathetic to my community's cause and backed it up with signatures! The property perched up on top of Johnson Creek Boulevard is not appropriate for the development of a large commercial senior-living facility. Prestige Care is manipulating and side-stepping the Clackamas County's zoning requirements. For additional information and photos to back up my claim, please visit the website no-on-3-518.com.
With few "high ticket" proposals, this year's election may be destined for a low voter turnout. Please give us a voice, by voting NO on 3-518. The voters in the city of Happy Valley can prevent annexation of these 7 acres, adjacent to the Altamont Park. Presently we are a well-planned community of single-family homes, condos and apartments. The assisted-living and memory-care facility is not an appropriate fit. It would be surrounded by residential properties. The location halfway up Mt. Scott puts the seniors at risk for isolation, especially during inclement weather, when the road is closed and impassable.
As a resident of the Altamont neighborhood I am reaching out with the only voice available to inform the voters in the city of Happy Valley, to open their ballots and locate Measure 3-518. VOTE NO on Measure 3-518. STOP the "closed-door wheeling-dealing politicians." Please say no for me!
Priscilla Wells Robinson
Unincorporated Clackamas County
Help continue progress for Happy Valley
As we mature, many of us will be looking for options as to where to spend our later years. Some of us will remain in our homes, some will downsize, and some will join the growing numbers who reside in retirement communities that allow both freedom and community, while providing support services that can prolong our independence.
The retirement community being proposed on the property under consideration for annexation in Happy Valley is another of those options. It isn't a convalescent center, care facility or a rest home. It is a very nice retirement community available to senior citizens who make the choice to live there.
I cannot understand the opposition to this annexation. The opponents aren't in the city of Happy Valley, and their complaints about this new facility seem overblown to the point of selfish dishonesty.
The opponents say that the residents would be in danger during inclement weather, but if the danger is so high, why do they and their families live there?
They claim the traffic will be terrible, but while these are active senior citizens, they surely won't use the roads as much as the homes or the apartments right next door to the site.
We should support choices for senior citizens. If we deny seniors the chance to live as they choose now, what choices will WE be denied later?
The elderly citizens in this retirement community will help us support the services the city of Happy Valley provides, and will be active participants in our community. The opponents of this measure use our parks, our police services and other facilities for free.
I am voting yes on Measure 3-518. We should welcome these senior citizens, not exclude them.
City of Happy Valley citizen
Yes on seniors
We support our seniors and the senior-living communities within our city of Happy Valley.
They are a vital part of our Happy Valley family. Property owners wishing to annex for future senior-living communities should be allowed and neighbors opposing seniors is intolerable.
Yes on seniors! Yes on M3-518!
The Martilla Family LLC
City of Happy Valley property owners
What is wrong with this picture?
Oregon's PERS 30-year actuarial deficit was recently reported as $25.3 billion. The state treasurer is preparing to return the "kicker," recently reported as $463.5 million, through a credit on 2017 state income taxes.
Gov. Brown has appointed a special committee which is looking for "one time" money to pay down the PERS deficit. My suggestion is to have the governor call a one-day special session to pass a bill for a moratorium on the "kicker" distribution and use it to reduce the PERS Tier 1 deficit.
Why does this make sense?
1. The kicker was enacted, in part, because a periodic windfall could tempt the state to spend it on programs requiring ongoing revenue sources.
2. The moratorium doesn't eliminate the kicker. It just redirects its use to solve a huge problem.
3. By using the kicker to reduce the PERS Tier I deficit, the money addresses the "one time" nature of the PERS deficit caused by Tier 1 not the reformed PERS Tier 2 & 3.
4. By reducing the Tier 1 portion of the deficit, there is an opportunity to decrease the two scheduled PERS increases over the next four years enabling schools to avoid more teacher layoffs.
5. Taxpayers have already paid the kicker dollars because of a growing state economy with low unemployment.
6. The state can redirect the kicker back to the taxpayers as soon as the PERS Tier 1 deficit is addressed.
John K. Anderson