Document text
January 05. 2015 12:01AM Letters to the Editor, Jan. 5 RVTD cuts hurt workers Thank you for the Dec. 31 article on the proposed RVTD route cuts. I was glad that general manager Julie Brown commented on the impact concerning workers being forced to quit their jobs because of the upcoming route cuts. In reality, almost any public transportation system is primarily used by those with limited incomes and subsidized by taxpayers, many of whom will never use the system. Who are the users of the system? Most are hardworking members of our communities, trying to survive on low wages. They are often required to take on additional part-time work, just to make ends almost meet! They are also the people that assist you and me every day, making our lives a little easier. They are the folks that make our morning coffee, pump our gas, and bring us our lunch. Many people don’t want to pay additional taxes. Often times with sound reason. But transit funding stays in our community and helps members of our community. I think the general manager is correct when she says; some voters may have been confused about what the tax was being used for, “primarily maintaining existing service.” This valley has many caring citizens. I believe if a sound reasonable funding source is presented to the voters at a future date it will succeed. Alan Triplett, Ashland Here's what's wrong The Coos Bay Liquefied Natural Gas Pipeline designed to stretch across Oregon from one side to the other would be independently sponsored by a Canadian energy company (Veresen) for a cool $7.6 billion. Its primary aim would be to export LNG to foreign markets. What's wrong with that? Here's what's wrong: To start, the state's Global Warming Commission chairman, Angus Duncan, says this Coos Bay LNG pipeline plant will hurt Oregon's ability to meet its goals. Whether it's coal exports or LNG, Oregon should impede, resist, and slow these activities. This proposed LNG terminal in Coos Bay would become the second largest source of greenhouse gases in Oregon as it would release 2.1 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually. This is the heart of the matter. There's more: To stretch a 30-inch pipeline across the state requires a 50-foot wide swath along its path. Picture such a swath as it cuts across numerous privately owned properties (much to the dismay of many owners) as well as many dedicated wildlife sanctuaries. Eminent domain is at play here. How can this tactic be enacted by a private Canadian company? I always thought this to be within the dictates of a municipality or state government. Who truly benefits financially from this pipeline is one question I'd like answered. Another question I'd like answered is what holds Governor Kitzhaber from taking a stand on this in keeping with his Global Warming Commission's posture on greenhouse gases? Phil Gagnon, Ashland http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20150105/OPINION/150109963 © 2015 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->