Honor our community by enforcing land-use code

Corvallis has a growing reputation as a green community whose citizens value protection of our natural environment and quality of life. Over the years, thousands of citizens participated in city-led processes to define a vision of what our city will look like in the future (2020 Vision statement, Sustainability Action Plan). To meet statewide planning goals, we conducted environmental inventories to guide land-use decisions and protect what we say we care about: hillsides with special upland prairies and tree groves, scenic vistas, wildlife habitat, natural hazards such as steep slopes, water quality, and archaeological resources that connect us to previous inhabitants (Natural Features Inventory). We seek to balance protecting our natural environment with maintaining a healthy economy and social justice (Prosperity that Fits).

The test of our commitment to these principles, and to citizens who volunteer their time, is the advice planning staff and city engineers give the Planning Commission and City Council, and land-use decisions these bodies make. Their interpretation of our comprehensive plan and land-use code can help implement the citizens' vision or derail it. Brooklane Heights is an example of abject failure to enforce codes, community vision and state law. The developer illegally cuts trees, grades, puts in roads without required permits. There are no consequences. Citizen requests to enforce codes are ignored. It's time to change the way we do business in Corvallis. Protect the broad public interest, not those who think they are above the law. Enforce the code. Honor the community.

Susan Morré, Corvallis

SS is best safety net out there for retired

Social Security (SS) is a social insurance to provide retirement, disability and survivor benefits on a "pay-as-we-go" plan. For a "stationary population" (think of census reports that never change) a constant SS tax rate could be calculated that would make the monthly income equal the monthly benefits. Random fluctuations can cause income to be more than or less than benefits. The overages are accumulated into the Trust Fund, shortages are withdrawn from it.

There are many ideas about how, where and who should invest the Trust Fund. Some would have the fund allocated into individual accounts that would be invested as directed by the individuals. This form of privatization was soundly rejected when twice proposed by George W. Bush during his administration. Some others reject the individual direction and want SS to invest the Trust Fund in the private market. Conservatives call this possibility nationalizing our private industry. The 2008 markets have shown the risks of investing in private industry and also shown that there are greedy hands there (Madoff, et. al.) just as there are in Congress.

Social Security is intended to be a safety net in retirement, disability and untimely death. Its Trust Fund should be in a risk-free investment. And what is the common risk-free investment? U.S treasuries! SS chooses a risk-free investment, U.S. Treasuries, or Government IOUs as they were called in the aforementioned letter to the editor. As a bonus, this is investing at home, not in multinationals.

Donald A. Jones, Fellow, Society of Actuaries, Enrolled Actuary, (IRS), retired, Corvallis

Octuplets' birth raises some hard questions

I am writing regarding the announcement last week of the birth of octuplets in California. Am I the only person who this news filled with dismay? When I learned of the four delivery rooms, 46 medical staffers, and who knows what total expense, it stuck me as totally irresponsible. When did we as a society decide that the delivery of multiple children as a result of fertility treatment was how we wanted to spend our limited health care dollars? Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

When I was in high school, the magic "zero population growth" number was 2.3 children per couple. I do not know what that magic number is now, but I am sure it is less than eight. Perhaps individuals should start thinking more about how their choices effect the plant.

I also do not know what the carrying capacity of the Earth is, but I am sure it is a finite number, and yet the human race persists in reproducing at an alarming rate. I read somewhere that total population is projected to be 8 billion by 2030! And yet we are not adequately providing for the planet's current 6 billion inhabitants.

I have seen reports that the number of uninsured Americans ranges from 25 to 30 million. Let's take care of the people that are here before adding more at an unsustainable rate. It is time to face up to some unpleasant truths and make some hard choices.

Carol A. Clark, Corvallis

Kind comments about Bush's term appreciated

Thanks to Chuck Wenstrom for his letter of Jan. 27 speaking to the "churlishness" of responses (that came with the departure of) the recent administration. We generally quite agree with your assessment of George W. Bush's recent presidency, although we remain a bit confused about how your positive Bush rhetoric has made it to print in this publication.

Jay Wilson, Corvallis