Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

animals, we are left. to trap sick or injured individuals, take care of them, and pay for their veterinary care. We are expected to dispose of dead deer and other animals if they happen to die on our property. We are left. to deal with the advance of Lyme disease and parasites untreated animals bring into our environment. Yet whenever the increase of such problems is brought into the discussion, the response is a dismissive, "that is not relevant to the 'issues' we are discussing". Those of us who live here cannot stick our heads in the sand in such a flip manner, however. We do not live in a computer version of the South Hills, we live in the real City of Eugene. Whether planners consider an increase of wildlife-related problems relevant or not, such problems are extremely relevant to those who will be left to deal with the results of your protective measures. As you evaluate the need for proposed setbacks, please remember property owners are not the enemy. As have most of our neighbors, we have developed our property in keeping with the South Hills. Obviously, the property would not exist as it does today had we done otherwise. We like the South Hills for what they are and along with our neighbors, we have fought long and hard to keep our environment as site-appropriate as we can. Those efforts include decades-long, ongoing, often difficult discussions with the City of Eugene to help formulate the manner transportation can be accommodated in this neighborhood. We have also spent thousands of hours to try and raise the City's interest in preserving at least some of this area's extensive historic resources for future generations. We care about our neighborhood and we have been and remain active in the Crest Drive Citizens Association to continue our involvement in neighborhood issues. More and more often, however, our involvement produces little other than frustration and dismay. We do fully understand the enthusiastic endorsements of the proposed setbacks by those unaffected by such rules. it all sounds so right and noble and to be sure, no sane person can condone a reduction in environmental quality. But seizing control over private properties without carefully considered outcomes or even an interest in such outcomes shows a lack of good faith toward affected residents and is bound to produce endless legal challenges that can be easily avoided by more reasonable solutions. We feel compelled to make this effort to comment on the proposed setbacks, but to be honest, ear1ier experiences leave us to doubt our comments will make a great deal of difference. We have tried very hard to stay involved in the process yet we were so consistently dropped off the interested parties list and otherwise left out of the loop that at one point during this process, we even sent a complaint to the City Manager's OffICe, something we have never felt we needed to do before. We have provided stacks of input, spent weeks researching and assembling documentation, yet our concerns have not been addressed. We have been told repeatedly this is a political process and the resutts will satisfy only a handful of vocal activists. During the adoption of the inventory, it certainly looked that way: our property became a political football and no matter what we said or did, the goal of the process appeared to be a political "win-win" forthe City - and the owners of smaller properties be damned. Still, we continue to believe we will be heard, and we respectfully, again, request you consider our comments. Bruce Wild and Francina VelTijt