New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Trees & Tree Commission
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Street Trees.Urban Forestry
>
Trees & Tree Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2014 2:24:44 PM
Creation date
7/9/2014 2:24:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
344
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
;udders concerned Learn from David <br /> As a Eugene native and a university etu We here in Eugene have an opportunity to <br /> lit, I was appalled to read Don Bishoff's col- learn from the scalping of Mount David in Cot - <br /> on in the Sept. 20 paper regarding the pro - tee Grove. This beautiful, tree-covered hill, a <br /> sect tree preservation code. He must have part of the visual boundaries of Cottage Grove, <br /> tended a different meeting was denuded — changed forever in a matter of <br /> hours by a developer who couldn't care less • <br /> Contrary to popular belief, the home build- <br /> about residents' concerns and values. And it <br /> s in this area do not *ant a sprawling,.tcee- was done within existing law. <br /> ss metropolis. With regard to the proposed At present, the planning commission of <br /> m preservation code, and the public testimo- <br /> t heard both for and against it Tuesday night, Lane County, working with the planning com- <br /> pt. 18, I- am worried that some key argu- mission of Eugene, is struggling to develop a <br /> nits were misinterpreted. Even some propo- tree ordinance that would cover the area be- <br /> nts of the proposed code agreed that it was tween the city limits and the urban growth <br /> acceptable as written. boundary, also called : the urbanizing area, <br /> slated for annexation. <br /> The builders did not reject the proposed Without a change in the law, we here in <br /> de solely on the basis that it would make <br /> listing homes more difficult. I recognize that Eugene will see and perhaps hear what can <br /> ere Is a need for some regulation within the happen to the tree-covered area in the south <br /> ban growth boundary. however, the existing hills that we take for granted as being a part of <br /> de within the dty limits already effectively Eugene's ongoing history and tie to the place <br /> abets tree cutting. Second, any added costs that we call home. <br /> the building process because of the proposed Those who choose to become involved may <br /> de (Le., surveying lots to map every tree, do so by contacting members of the Lane Conn- <br /> icing off "preserved" trees, possible 60day ty Board of Commissioners and Eugene City <br /> lays in the permit process, etc.) are added Council Remember, when you hear the chain <br /> sts to the property owner, not necessarily the saws this winter or next spring, it will be too <br /> ilder. _ late to save our tree-covered south hills. <br /> MARY BENTSEN <br /> In defense of the home builders' "straight- 950 W. 16th Ave. <br /> ed" mention of worsening homelessness, the Eugene / p <br /> `9 t7 <br /> ded costs have a trickle-down effect They <br /> xe probably straight-faced because afford - <br /> le, housing is a serious issue, and the provi- <br /> ∎n cf It is the responsibility of the dty; county <br /> d the public, not Just the home' builders in <br /> area. When new -home costs increase, so <br /> es the cost of used homes, rentals, apart- - <br /> mts — and low -income homing. - <br /> HEATHER McK INNON <br /> Eugene <br /> ..�012 <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.