The responsibilities of the gun culture

There can be nothing more grotesque than the slaughter of school children.

The nation has recoiled in revulsion at the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Nobody wants to see this happen again ... and again and again and again. So the national dialogue turns to gun control. Some want a ban on "assault weapons" while gun-rights advocates argue that a ban is cosmetic, ineffective or actually counterproductive. Some come at this issue with entrenched ideological positions; others plead for "common sense."

In the midst of all this, America's gun culture needs to take a good hard look at itself.

I am part of that gun culture. I have owned firearms since my early teens. My firearms use is for sporting purposes, but I have had occasion to wield a firearm in self-defense (thankfully, no shots fired). The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is also a clause that includes the words "well-regulated."

It's time for effective licensing of firearms owners (some states already have licensing provisions). That's unwelcome to many in the gun culture, who fear that it is the camel's nose in the tent toward more severe ownership restriction or outright gun confiscation. I don't think so. Firearms licensing can be implemented as an extension of hunter safety and concealed carry programs, with the active participation of organizations including the NRA, which has excellent instructor certification programs.

Perhaps "assault weapons" should fall under a separate, more rigorous licensing tier.

Making the process of acquiring a firearm more serious across the nation would not prevent all gun crime, and it would not deter a disturbed individual from attempting mass slaughter. But it would create an opportunity for red flags to pop up, a window for intervention. And it could instill a more focused culture of responsibility in the gun world.

Yes, more regulation is onerous for those of us who already take our responsibilities seriously. But I'm willing to put up with some hassle I don't need to have more assurance that the guy who shows up next to me on the range has some basic level of competence. And regulating the user is more to the point than banning certain classifications of firearms, an exercise that has often been merely cosmetic and of marginal effectiveness.

I worked in the gun business, during and after the Rodney King riots. It was an intense time. The shop where I worked refused to sell to people we knew would buy a gun for "protection" and never learn how to use it safely and properly. We didn't want to arm people who would be a menace to themselves and their loved ones.

An appropriate licensing procedure would likely deter at least some of those types, and give an opportunity to flag others for further review. A quick criminal background check just isn't enough.

Real training and education would be a good thing overall, instilling safety, skill and a level of respect for the potentially deadly weapon you are keeping in your home, your vehicle, on your person.

There are many factors that contribute to mass killings - a mental health crisis and significant civic breakdown being primary among them. But we can't pretend that there's not something especially toxic in the combination of a disturbed young man and a lethal weapon. We know we have to separate drunk people from the car keys - and we've reduced drunk driving without banning either alcohol or cars.

Those of us who value our gun rights, our heritage, and our sport can't just stick our heads in the sand and accept the status quo. We can reduce violence. The gun culture can be part of the solution.

Lincoln

-->
The film “Lincoln” now showing at Sisters Movie House is well worth the two-and-a-half hours of seat time. Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of the 16^th President is uncanny — something beyond acting — and the rest of the cast is excellent as well.

It’s talky and long, as befits an essentially political drama centered around the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery in the United States, so it may not appeal if you’re simply looking for entertainment.

The film’s value is more than cinematic. It’s a good reminder after a bruising election in a starkly divided political culture that American politics has often (if not always) been built more on contention than consensus. We tend to think that our present partisan bickering is worse than what has gone before; it’s good to be reminded that 19^th Century politics was practically a contact sport. Some of the personal vitriol that is flung about in “Lincoln” would scorch the eyebrows of our snottiest commentators.

As the film makes clear, this signal piece of legislation got passed mainly through arm-twisting and blandishments, not through pure oratorical persuasion. It is an example of the adage apocryphally attributed to Bismark: “To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.'"

No Marble Man could have orchestrated the sausage-making of Civil War era politics. It took a president who was a savvy operator and that is the Lincoln portrayed in the film. Here is a president who won’t lie to his allies… exactly… but is more than willing to shade the truth and allow them to believe things that ain’t necessarily so.

Abraham Lincoln is often treated as the closest thing we have to an American political saint, but he was far from that. In fact, the portrayal by many of his contemporaries of the president as a tyrant was not far off the mark. The film doesn’t shy away from this; Lincoln acknowledges that he took immense wartime powers upon himself because he believed it was necessary to preserve the Union.

And perhaps it was…

Yet, preserving the Union in and of itself was legally problematic. The seceding Southern states had a very strong case that the Union was a voluntary construct at its founding and that no state would have entered into it without the clear right to leave it at will. Lincoln simply refused to accept this premise, declaring said states to be in rebellion. And he used extralegal means to win the war and preserve the Union.

As Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens asks pointedly in the film: “Did you  conquer us with democracy?”

“Lincoln” offers up plenty  of resonance.  We have seen our executive take still more immense power upon itself to combat terrorism. And we have seen a dysfunctional Congress churn over legislation with the power to profoundly shape the future. History offers us a different lense with which to view our own times. That’s what “Lincoln” ultimately does, and does well. It’s worth soaking it in.

Imagine there's no 'floppers'

The NBA is cracking down on floppers — those who fake being fouled to draw penalties on their opponents.

Sports Illustrated notes that “The ugly trend of faking physical contact began in soccer, a sport in which gamesmanship has given way to players writhing in false agony around the world.”

This is an idea that should be extended to all arenas of life. Imagine: No more exaggerated or phony outrage. How would political campaigns fill the news cycle?

No more airtime for those who George Bernard Shaw called feverish selfish little clod(s) of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making (them) happy.”

Imagine…

I don’t much care for basketball, but I think I love the NBA.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Seeking infamy

The motive behind the mass killing in Aurora, Colorado, last week may never truly be known. Who can truly plumb the black void of a soul capable of such slaughter of innocents?

Yet, if past events are any guide, it is likely that one component of the motive of the killer was a desire for infamy — the desperate need to make a mark, to be seen, heard and remembered.

It’s tempting to think if such twisted narcissism as a modern disease. Certainly the culture of celebrity encourages fame for its own sake, regardless of worthiness of character or deed.

But such behavior is present across history. 

Bob Ford, the killer of Jesse James, wanted to be a famous bandit. Failing at that, as in all else, he settled for shooting a famous bandit in the back of the head. He later toured a stage performance based on his exploit. Jesse James himself was a preening megalomaniac, who cast his own a sordid career in a heroic light.

Would denying the infamy make a difference? Perhaps. But it will never happen. Such events exert a perverse fascination on the public and every aspect of the case will continue to be dissected until exhaustion sets in or a fresher horror rises to take over the public consciousness.

Such it has ever been and always will be as long as one will seek to affirm his existence by extinguishing that of another.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Who pays the cost of rescue?

Earlier this month, a National Park Ranger named Nick Hall was killed while rescuing climbers on Mt. Rainier.

From NBC News:

Hall was on Rainier’s northeast side at about 13,700 feet when he fell around 5 p.m. local time Thursday as he was helping the climbers aboard a helicopter, the service said.

“As the first of the climbers were being evacuated by helicopter, Mount Rainier climbing ranger Nick Hall fell, sliding more than 3,000 feet down the side of the mountain,” the service said in a statement.

…The climbers, two men and two women from Waco, Texas, had been walking on the Emmons Glacier Route on their way down from the summit when two of them slipped and fell into a crevasse, said Kevin Bacher, a park spokesman.

One of the climbers had a working cell phone and was able to notify park rangers. Rescue crews on foot located the climbers and lifted the two out of the crevasse, then began the process of transferring the climbers to a helicopter.

Every year we here in the Sisters Country hear of someone who gets themselves into a bind and needs rescuing. Such incidents often involve people who head out for a day, totally unprepared for something to go wrong that keeps them out over night or in a sudden onslaught of bad weather.

This kind of incident, especially something tragic like the Rainier episode always raises questions. A blog reader forwarded these:

·      Are we as a society are socially obligated to rescue adventurers who put themselves in harms way, or should they be ignored, since they know the risks, and let the chips fall where they may?

·      Should the rescued be held financially responsible for the costs of S & R, or, since they are (probably) tax paying citizens, should they be afforded S & R benefits? 

·      Should there be a superfund set up to pay for search and rescue, funded by said adventurers, to defray the costs of S & R, and give death benefits to the families of rescuers who are injured or killed in the process?

·      Should adventurers be require to purchase S & R insurance?

The SAR volunteers and professionals I’ve talked to often express frustration about people’s cavalier attitude to the wilderness in which they enjoy their adventures, their lack of respect for the elements, their lack of preparation for emergencies. But I don’t think a one of them supports making people pay for rescue. The reason? They’re afraid people will not call when they need to because they’re worried about the bill.

Anyway — interesting questions. What do you think?

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Voice concerns/priorities for Sisters School District

A group of Sisters Country citizens has requested a forum for soliciting community opinion on priorities for the Sisters School District as the district wrestles with cuts and approaches a critical vote on local option.

The Nugget made this space available for this dialogue. The citizens’ request is as follows:

If you have a child in the school district, you may have an idea of the issues that are facing current students.  If you don’t have a child in the district but have had or have an opinion on what are the pressing needs facing the local schools, YOUR INPUT IS VITAL as we will all be faced with voting on a local option for schools.

Please consider making suggestions in a sentence or two format.  By summarizing top 3-10 concerns as you see it, the information will be presented to the school board as soon as it can be organized …  as there are many pressing issues in a short time frame that may or may not be possible to address before school starts in the fall.

 Jim Cornelius, Editor

Sportsmanship and nobility

We’ve done enough commentary about athletes behaving badly that it seems appropriate to highlight something on the other side of the coin: http://espn.go.com/high-school/track-and-xc/story/_/id/8010251/high-school-runner-carries-fallen-opponent-finish-line.

Now that’s a noble act of sportsmanship right there. Hats off.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Hatfields & McCoys

History Channel’s miniseries Hatfields & McCoys began Monday. It’s good — damn good. Quality acting, excellent period detail and a respect for the actual history are all here in this depiction of America’s most famous feud.

The yellow journalism of the day (the 1870s-80s) depicted the feudists as exotic primitives, a stereotype that has come down to our day, one which the miniseries effectively dispels. Sure, the folks living in the Tug River Valley in the late 19^th Century were rough-hewn; they were living in frontier conditions. But they weren’t all that different than folks anywhere. Some were entrepreneurial visionaries, some just hardworking plain folk, some were ne’er-do-wells.

They mostly tried to settle their disputes in court.  Occasionally, though, a personal dispute would get out of hand. Mix together tangled kin networks (cut my cousin and I bleed), weak law enforcement, easy access to weapons and add a little whiskey and you have a recipe for bloodshed.

It’s only conditions that make things different here in Sisters, Oregon. Human nature still feels that atavistic tug toward the feud.

I’ve seen old men come near to blows in the courthouse over property setbacks; battles over irrigation ditches and water; homeowners association beefs that turn bitter and personal. Passions run high and hot. The only thing that keeps such feuds from spiraling into violence is the overpowering presence of the law, the certainty of punishment.

Devil Anse Hatfield and Randle McCoy aren’t ghosts from a misty past. They’re still around.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

I want to go to school here

During this past week I attended the Americana Project CD release concert at The Barn and the SALI tournament on Sisters athletic fields. In both cases, there was an abundance of young people pursuing a passion with joy, teamwork and commitment.

I also attended the Ten Friends fundraiser at Aspen Hall. There I heard stories of the life-changing experiences Sisters youth have had trekking in Nepal with the charity, founded by two Sisters teachers. Interviewed Student of the Month Sam Bearzi, whose extraordinary level of engagement he attributes to a desire to give back to a community that has given him “this monumental opportunity at Sisters High School.”

My own daughter’s experience here has been very good. Not perfect — there’s always things that don’t work the way you’d like them to — but overall very good.

I want to go to school here. It’s way better in every way than the suburban California schools I attended way back when. Sure, the quality of the schools has been hyped, but even cutting through all that, there really is something special going on here — but it may not last much longer.

It’s all under threat. After years of deep cuts, we really are coming to the end of our budgetary rope. The school district has done a good job over many years wrapping things in duct tape, plugging holes with bubble gum and making things work. We can do that for maybe one more school year, but after that, it doesn’t look good.

I hope people get that. I hope that nobody is feeling complacent, because, as Superintendent Jim Golden told me, “we’re not down the drain, but we’re circling.”

The district riffed 6.2 FTE last Friday. Good people doing good work in the classroom who are now out of work — and their work has to be covered by others or left undone. The proposed budget spends the district’s reserves. They’ll have to cut days or more people to close the remainder of the $1.3 million shortfall.

By 2014-15, Sisters schools will be looking at the kind of trouble Redmond’s having now. And that’s WITH local option. Without it, the game’s pretty much up. Quality education would be gone.

Everybody with a stake in Sisters should be concerned about this. The schools are a major attractant to Sisters; significant erosion of quality would be a major blow to economic development efforts. Losing all the many points of engagement the schools provide would harm families and reduce the quality of life in the Sisters Country.

So, what’s to be done? Above all, voters must support local option when it comes up for renewal later this year or early next year. That’s all that stands between the schools and real financial calamity. If you’re politically-minded, there’s a crying need for reform of PERS, which has placed an unsustainable burden on schools.

Beyond that, support the Sisters Schools Foundation. Volunteer to help with efforts like Celebrate Sisters, sprucing up the physical plant with volunteer labor. Work with organizations like the Sisters Folk Festival and the Sisters Science Club who are adding enrichment and material support to the schools.

We’ve got a good thing going here. We need to fight to keep it.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

The era of the cheap shot

 

The New Orleans Saints put out an injury bounty on opponents. Meta World Peace (aka Ron Artest, NBA thug) throws an elbow that earns him a suspension and puts a player out with a concussion. The NHL playoffs are a spectacle of mayhem. 

We are living in the era of the cheap shot.

Hard play is great. This crap ain’t hard play. It’s assault with intent to injure. Seriously. If you or I deliberately hit someone in the throat with a stick or threw an elbow to their ear, we’d be up on charges. 

Consider the hit that Raffi Torres of the Phoenix Coyotes put on Marian Hossa of the Chicago Blackhawks last week. Torres left his skates and went for Hossa’s head, well after Hossa had unloaded the puck. Hossa left the ice on a stretcher and is still recovering from a serious concussion. 

A thug took a far superior opponent off the ice in the playoffs. For the Coyotes, Torres for Hossa was a good tradeoff.

Torres’ 25-game suspension is a stern message, but only that. Torres is a serial offender; he should be gone, done, banned from the league.

This NHL playoff season has been rife with cheap shots. Not just big hits, not just fighting where two players square off — we’re talking vicious, inexcusable headhunting. The league needs to come down harder on this kind of behavior. If you’re going to deliberately threaten the career and health of your opponents, your career should be at stake, too. A Torres-scale suspension for a first offense. A season for the second. Next time you do it, you’re done. Three strikes, you’re out.

As for the Saints’ coaching staff… Putting a bounty on opponents is so far beyond the pale, it should be grounds for a lifetime ban for the first offense.

Real zero tolerance would put a stop to this stuff in a hurry. It’s doubtful that any of the professional sports will go that far. 

Given the primacy of sports in American cultural life, what happens in the arena percolates through the whole culture. Unless we want to live in the Society of the Sucker Punch, we’d do well to put a stop to the mayhem.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Stand your ground

The tragic Trayvon Martin case has cast “Stand Your Ground” laws into the spotlight. In some quarters there is a cry to repeal such laws as an incitement to vigilantism.

That would be a bad call.

Stand Your Ground or “No Duty to Retreat” laws extend so-called Castle Doctrine from your home to any place you have a right to be. In short, if you are assailed, you have the right to defend yourself — to the extent of deadly force if you reasonably believe your life is threatened. You are not obligated to retreat.

In a society of free men and women, which we purport to be, such a doctrine is appropriate and necessary to preserve the absolute right to be secure in your person.

Now, retreating from a bad situation — or avoiding it in the first place — is usually the wisest course of action, legally, morally and tactically. However, the law should not put the onus on the citizen. On the other hand, if you deliberately place yourself in the position of initiating or pursuing and escalating a confrontation, Stand Your Ground should not apply.

No law can be written so as to address every situation absolutely in its every nuance. Ultimately, we must rely on the judgment of police, district attorneys, grand juries, perhaps a jury of one’s peers. Justice, being in the hands of humans, is imperfect.

Stand Your Ground should remain on the books.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

The debasement of language

Tribune Media Services, which provides syndicated columns for The Nugget’s Page 2 opinion section, recently sent out a “Sensitive Language Advisory.” It read thus:

“In Joel Brinkley’s American Voices column for release 4/3/2012 (‘China’s social ‘harmony’ more fragile than it appears’), the word ‘dyke’ appears in the first and eighth paragraphs. While the word is correctly used in its traditional sense, editors may want to use the spelling ‘dike’ to avoid any consternation among readers.”

Oh, for cryin’ out loud! The correct use of a word might cause “consternation” because it can mean something else in a different context? What, are we 12? Scratch that. My 12-year-old is more mature than that.

The language police; a shrinking population of readers; the dumbing down of discourse (if it can’t be said in 140 characters, does it, like, even matter?) — all signs of the creeping debasement of language. For a guy who makes his living and his art out of stringing words together with as much craft as I can muster, it’s more than a little discouraging.

Last week, a friend who is also a writer told me that he suddenly feels like “a man from another age.” No kidding. Nothing left to do but try to stem the tide. I feel like the little Dutch boy…

No! Don’t go there! It’ll cause consternation!

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Politics is a rough-and-tumble sport

It’s always tempting to think that things were better in the good ol’ days. Many of us decry the toxic partisanship that dominates our national political scene and worry that it’s trickled down to the local level, where debates turn into disputes and it gets ugly and angry.

Thing is, that warm remembered glow of collegial behavior and calm consensus is largely an illusion.

Politics has always been a rough-and-tumble sport — sometimes a blood sport. Going all the way back to the Adams vs. Jefferson presidential election, things were nasty, personal and mean. President Obama is no more despised than was FDR; Bush was no more excoriated for his war than were Nixon or LBJ for theirs.

Local politics has never been exempt. Heck, in some parts of the country, political and economic rivalries led to feuds and gunplay.

Sisters has had a couple years of rough stuff. Issue after issue that comes before the city council turns into a fight. But that’s not so unusual either. When the community was debating a sewer project in the mid-‘90s, that business got contentious and often mean-spirited. Tempers flared, feelings got hurt, a city councilor was recalled.

There have been any number of land-use battles, fights over water and homeowners association beefs over the years.

I’m not saying any of this is a good thing. Bitter fights usually end up being destructive to everyone involved.

But it’s important to understand that it’s only human to get your back up in a fight, to lose your temper sometimes, to be harsher than the situation really warrants. As long as there are human passions, they’re liable to get out of hand. As long as there’s a political arena, those passions will be played out there.

The trick is to learn to take a step back, take a deep breath, try to keep things in perspective and proportion. And remember that the other guy has his reasons and his own stuff to carry.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

Is it time to loose the hounds again?

Three young cougars died for their sins last week in the Sisters Country. Their transgression was coming into residential neighborhoods and attacking domestic animals — dogs and probably some chickens.

When that happens, wildlife authorities don’t have much choice: They can’t look the other way — next thing you know someone’s dog is dead, or something even worse goes down. They can’t just chase them off; cougar are territorial and they’ll just come back — same problem for “relocation.”

So we kill them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That’s a shame. They’re beautiful creatures. Many of us love the idea that they are out there playing out their natural predator-prey drama in the forests of the Sisters Country. For those of us who like our wilderness wild, there’s nothing like the frisson of seeing a cougar print in the woods and being reminded that we’re not always at the top of the food chain. And are we not the invasive species? We moved into their territory, not the other way around.

So what’s the solution? We’re not going to move out and leave the Sisters Country to the cougars, and they can’t become vegetarians or read “No Cougars Allowed” signs put up by your Homeowners Association.

Maybe it’s time to let loose the hounds again. I know, I know — the idea of treeing a cougar with a pack of hounds and then shooting it out of said tree is downright repulsive to some folks. I get that. I also get that the baying of hounds, the thrill of the chase, is an addictive potion that stirs something deep in the soul of some other folks.

Set all that aside for a moment. Would it be better for the cougars if they were regularly hounded? As the law stands now (since the passage of Measure 18 in the mid-1990s) it is illegal to hunt or pursue cougar for sport. Only agents of landowners and law enforcement and wildlife authorities can use hounds to chase cougar.

You can still hunt ’em, but the odds are mighty low without the hounds.

If cougars associated barking dogs with being chased and treed, might they stay away from neighborhoods with barking dogs? If the presence of man means trouble, would they not evade our abodes and pursue their natural prey — mule deer — in less trafficked areas?

Maybe hunting a few could save others from dying en masse like the three killed on McKinney Butte. Or, perhaps you could still ban the kill but allow the pursuit; for many houndsmen, the chase is everything anyway.

Wildlife biologist Steven George says a debate along these lines has been going on ever since bans on hounds pursuing cougar have been in place in places like California and Oregon. Evidence of the effects of pursuit — or the absence thereof — is almost entirely anecdotal, he says.

As far as hunting goes, it’s clear that using hounds “is a very efficient methodology to harvest animals,” George says. It also allows more selectivity in which animals are “taken.”

But does it reduce human/cougar conflicts?

“There is some indication that those animals are a little more wary in those areas where hounds are used to hunt them,” George says.

Indication. Seems like it, but we can't say for sure.

What about the mere pursuit — catch-and-release, if you will? Would that have an impact?

“Potentially,” George says. “There’s no science to back that up.”

George notes that there are efforts virtually every year to overturn Measure 18 and restore some level of cougar hunting with hounds. He also acknowledges that there is strong social resistance to the practice that many see as a cruel form of harassment.

In my view, it shouldn’t be a political debate but a scientific one. If we can demonstrate that pursuit with hounds reduces or prevents human/cougar conflicts, it should be reinstated — for the sake of the cougars more than for the peace of mind of humans living in the wildland interface.

Unfortunately, given budgetary constraints, it seems unlikely that any serious scientific studies will be forthcoming, so the question is likely to be argued out in a political arena with anecdotal evidence. It’s still a discussion worth having.

In the meantime, we can do our part to reduce conflicts. George emphasizes that homeowners should remember what brings cougars into neighborhoods to begin with: They are seeking prey.

Don’t feed the wildlife. It’s not good for the critters and it only brings grief down on the mighty cats that are only doing what comes naturally.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

What is it about sports?

What is it about sports?

Sisters is a sports-mad town in a sports-mad nation. While it didn’t generate as much ink as some issues have, there was a lot of chatter sparked by the school district letting two winning coaches go.

As one woman noted to me, you sure wouldn’t see that kind of passion about a math teacher.

Sports on all levels, from Little League to professional teams, rev a lot of engines. It’s big business, sure, but it’s more than that.

It can’t really be about the games themselves. Taken at their most basic, most sports are kinda silly. Throwing a ball through a hoop? Really? Banging a ball back and forth across a net? Who cares? Skating around chasing a rubber disk with a curved stick? Weird…

But such games transcend their raw contents and become all-consuming passions. Sports hit some deep chord within many people. Some of it’s tribal — my tribe against your tribe in ritual combat. Some of it’s personal.

Mr. SHS contestant Connor Morgan made a presentation at pageant about his passion for lacrosse and all the life lessons it had taught him. Primary among these was persistence. He apparently wasn’t naturally good at the sport when he took it up, but he stuck with it and it brings him great joy and satisfaction.

How can you gainsay the value of a passion like that?

My own experience of sports has been sort of ambiguous. While I’m a very physical person, I tend to get more out of the arts than I ever did out of sports. In fact, I guess I really experience the two in much the same way. I enjoy watching football and hockey, but high-level performance is more exciting to me than who wins or loses. The last time I actually cared about a team was when the Kings were vying for a Stanley Cup almost 20 years ago.

And yet…

I love to go out and battle on a tennis court and watching the Nadal/Djokovic Australian Open final filled me with awe and moved me in a way that is usually reserved for music I love.

Powerful stuff, sports.

You can argue that sports get too much emphasis, both in Sisters and in the broader culture. Maybe it’s true; I think so, sometimes. But something that means so much to so many… there’s something important there, something deeply meaningful. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it — and you see it a lot in Sisters.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

What do you do about Wild Mountain?

Ky Karnecki’s request to be allowed to continue operating his Wild Mountain food stand through the winter creates a quandary for a city that is trying to project a business-friendly image while requiring everybody to play by the same set of rules.

Just based on the facts, the situation’s pretty clear-cut. Karnecki applied for and was granted a temporary operating permit for a seasonal business. That permit is expired. He can apply for a new one. End of story, right?

If the city grants back-to-back-to-back temporary permits, the business is, in effect, permanent — and Karnecki can’t make the property improvements required for permanence. Letting that slide wouldn’t be fair to the rest of the businesses in Sisters that have to play by the rules.

But maybe, some say, food stands like Karnecki’s should be treated as a different class of business and allowed to operate year-round. That would require a development code change, which isn’t going to happen in a day or two. Should Karnecki be able to stay open until the planning commission says yea or nay on making that change?

Karnecki says he’s up against it; can’t keep going at all if he can’t keep going through winter. Sisters hardly wants to see another business fail. But if you start making exceptions to clear-cut regulations, where do you stop? Is it the city’s problem that Karnecki didn’t make enough during his operating season to sustain himself? What about other businesses that are struggling? What should the city do to help them?

The city council should certainly make time for Karnecki to make his case — and it looks like that’s going to happen at their Thursday, January 12, meeting. It might be helpful for the citizenry to weigh in.

Jim Cornelius, Editor