It is ironic that the Jan. 1 Gazette-Times contained both Sam Hoskinson’s letter to the editor correlating damage with greed (“Development greed is flooding Corvallis”) and an article about a request to the Corvallis Planning Commission for a waiver of flood-plain regulations so that a developer can build townhouses on wetlands and a 100-year flood plain.

By approving the waiver, commissioners have allowed greed to trump concern for the public good in Corvallis.

Every year, a house built on a 100-year flood plain has a one-in-100 chance of being flooded.

Thousands of people buy Powerball lottery tickets, yet according to a Web site calculator, each ticket has only a one-in-

146 million chance of winning the jackpot.

Which odds would you prefer to have?

I wouldn’t even buy a house in a 500-year flood plain.

Last month, many people won the 500-year flooding jackpot, to their sorrow.

People depend upon city building regulations to protect them from shoddy construction that would lead to unsafe houses and high repair bills. Yet when they go house hunting, few think to ask about the possibility of flooding.

The developer who builds on a flood plain walks away after the houses are sold.

Homeowners — and taxpayers everywhere — are left to flee for their lives, clean up the mess, and pay the bills when the inevitable flooding occurs.

Sometimes they even hit the jackpot two or three times.

Ella May Wulff, Philomath

Some pieces of land indeed unbuildable

The Jan. 3 article about the Planning Commission approval of the Ashwood Preserve development states that “The new provisions were adopted to prevent property owners from claiming that land development rules protecting natural features effectively render some properties within the city unbuildable.”

The property impinges on a wetland, and part is within the 100-year floodplain.

The implication is that city rules devalue the property, an argument that drove the adoption of Measure 37.

In fact, the mapping of the 100-year floodplain protects the unwary homeowner who purchases a home here only to get flooded out when we get a storm such as the 1996 deluge in the Mid-Willamette Valley or the 2007 flood at Vernonia and Tillamook.

It’s not just the homeowner’s problem, because flood insurance is subsidized by the general taxpayer. We all pay the price.

People build businesses in floodplains because of their location, gambling against the 100-year (or 20-year) flood.

They build houses on hillside lots north of Corvallis because of the view, and the city does not require independent geotechnical review of development plans for possible landslides and for the effect of increased water flow from hillsides on existing homes downstream.

It’s not the city rules that devalue the property; it’s the underlying geological hazards that will destroy homes if not taken into account.

The first thing the injured owner will say is that “the city said it was OK.”

Ordinances are needed that protect all of us: the developer as well as the homeowner.

Some property is, indeed, unbuildable.

Bob Yeats, Corvallis

Local or big box, it’s all about service

A diverter valve on my kitchen sink was not letting water through in one position, so I went to two local plumbing supply stores to get help figuring out what was wrong.

One place said the part was just worn out (after looking at the outside of it). The next acted like I’d brought in something from Mars.

I went to Home Depot, and a man there looked in five different places trying to find something that might work as a replacement.

Finally, he got out a wrench and took the part apart, and lo and behold, the screen was full of “stuff.”

I brought it home and washed it out and it works fine.

Big box or locally owned, it all depends on whether the guy or gal behind the counter feels like helping that day.

Thanks, Home Depot guy.

Lee Lawton, Philomath

Gay rights opponents aim to deny respect

I have longed for the rights that domestic partnership would insure.

I’ve looked for my partner in the hospital and dreaded the question, “are you family?”

I’ve argued with businesses that would not let us share an account.

But as we work for these legal rights, there is an often unspoken goal, as well. What we really want is respect.

Gay couples and our supporters know this. Anti-gay activists know this, too.

No one argues against domestic partnership because it would allow two men to share an insurance policy. No heterosexual family is threatened by a woman inheriting her partner’s estate.

The law promises important rights and responsibilities, but they are largely symbols. Our opponents aren’t working to keep us from receiving mundane benefits they already enjoy.

They want to deny us the recognition of our government and society.

Anti-gay activists don’t care about the practical results of the law. They fight because they do not want us to exist at all.

If they cannot accomplish that, then they’ll just deprive us of as many rights as possible.

We will prevail, and I believe it will be soon. But even if domestic partnerships are delayed for years, the anti-gay movement has not won.

We will still be here, with or without this law. We will continue to live next door to them, paying the same taxes, sending our kids to the same schools.

Even if their victory lasts, it’s a hollow one.

Curt Smoot, Corvallis

Bicyclists, motorists must share the road

I read Pat Wray’s column about bicyclists and bike lanes on Ninth Street (“It’s all about location — even in the bike lane,” Dec. 28).

I’ve been riding my bike in Corvallis and environs for more than 30 years. I decided early on that Ninth Street, with or without bike lanes, is an unsafe riding environment.

When I want to travel north/south, I use 10th Street, which has bike lanes and only one lane of automobile traffic in each direction, and is also a much slower street.

When I’m visiting a business on Ninth Street, I use the sidewalk (being especially cautious at driveways and intersections).

The response to Pat’s column by Rocky Sloan (“Kudos to columnist for bike lane reality,” Jan. 3) in which he essentially says bikes should stay off roads which don’t have bike shoulders is, however, off the mark.

It is true that bikes have the same rights and responsibilities on all Oregon highways as do motorists. On blind corners, which he cites as an illustration of why bikes shouldn’t be on those roadways, I have often had logging trucks approach from the rear.

They are always courteous and shift down to allow me to round the corner (yes, that little pedal to the left of the gas pedal is called a brake).

It’s not the logging trucks I worry about — it’s the in-a-hurry sedans who speed up to get around me when there’s oncoming traffic rather than take their foot off the gas for 15 seconds or so.

“Share the road” is more than a slogan. It describes how both motorists and bicyclists should regard their joint traveling space.

David Wallace, Corvallis