Letters to the editor for Thursday, Sept. 23: Concerns about HB 2001's effect on Eugene housing

Why promote more fear?

Larry Laitinen is another example of what is happening with the self-righteousness out there, who did vaccinate (Letters, Sept. 20). Thanks to our today’s media, which amounts to opinions, this is appalling. Throwing people into one category, such as antivaxxers, is another divisive, ignorant untruth. It isn’t that simple.

Why are you promoting more fear and now suggest playing God on who should not be admitted for hospital care?

Laintinen:Letters to the editor for Monday, Sept. 20: Building the next normal

Is this what we want in our country?

Beverly Bowker, Eugene

Antivaxxers win

Congrats, antivaxxers. You've managed to hold the hospitals hostage so others needing surgeries and treatments can go whistle Dixie, all without firing a shot (pardon the pun).

You've certainly put one over on the medical community. They let you get away with it. Those who subscribe to medicine and science are denied.

Barry C. Smith, Eugene

Concerns about HB 2001

I honor and share Todd Boyle’s concerns for the suffering of those challenged to find safe, affordable housing (Letters, Sept. 18). However, his letter reveals false assumptions about HB 2001. No one expects the City Council to block implementation of the law’s basic requirements. Those of us critical of HB 2001 are most concerned that Eugene city planners, utilizing minimal public input, developed code radically exceeding the requirements of HB 2001, expanding the risks of gentrification, displacement and loss of desperately needed permeable surfaces and mature trees.

Boyle:Letters to the editor for Saturday, Sept. 18: HB 2001 continues to be a debate in Eugene

The proposed code extends maximum flexibility to developers at the expense of protecting critical and equitable social needs. Boyle presumes the new code will result in smaller, centrally located housing. HB 2001 is a “blanket” plan and applies citywide. There is no requirement or incentive to build smaller, affordable units; and while some motivated souls will elect to build them, perhaps at a loss, there is no reason to believe most builders will do so.

They will naturally seek the highest return on investment by continuing to build larger more expensive units. The minimum requirements of HB 2001 provide plentiful stimulus. Why not start with that and reserve extra incentives for affordable housing and trees? 

Pam Wooddell, Eugene

Submit a letter of 200 words or fewer to rgletters@registerguard.com. Include your full name, mailing address and phone number for purposes of verification.