Letters to the editor

Given our present dire economy, I'm totally against Oregon Senate Bill 536 for the following reasons: First of all, the plastic grocery bags are very thin yet waterproof, strong and useful for bagging groceries and many, if not most, people reuse their plastic grocery bags for their wastebaskets and trash.

Also, many of our increasing elderly and debilitated population use these bags to dispose of their incontinence supplies, including disposable diapers, bed pads and ostomy bags.

I believe eliminating plastic grocery bags could cause many people to resort to hazardous and unsanitary trash disposal, due to low income. (Should Medicare pay for them?) Additionally, all of us would simply be forced to purchase plastic trash bags, which are many microns denser than the grocery bags and deteriorate much more slowly, if ever.

Moreover, our government should not dictate in such matters: the stores wish to offer them and the public, now so voluntarily green conscious, can certainly be educated to recycle their plastic grocery bags, and this is much more cost-effective overall, as others may retrieve those bags from recycling centers and reuse them.

Finally, the bill, in my opinion, quintessentially represents extravagant government spending on impractical matters. — Patti Morey, Ashland

The article about the proposed Givan Park/Elks Picnic parcel swaps sadly exposed a lack of concern for the conservation of the ancient Takelma site by both Jackson County and the developer.

Was the benefactor's intention initially disregarded even with a state survey filed confirming its historic importance? Focus on the easement issues without concern for the historical issues seemed more like a bid to fast track the deal at the cost of proper land management. Because the county is the actual steward of the land, this caused many good citizens to become concerned for the preservation and protection of this ancient Takelma site.

The county has a requirement to provide better awareness training in terms of recognizing the importance of site archeaology for all Planning Department representatives, from the first agent one approaches to the department official with final approval authority.

Since the documents did not mention the need to preserve and honor the site or address the impact of any possible loss, are we then to understand such things carry no importance to the principals?

If so, the community loses something precious and the future of society hastens toward decline. — F.K. Price, Medford

Share This Story