Letter To Editor

Please accept this letter in the context that it is intended. In your March edition, Vol. 1, No. 3, you have published an article by Brit Allen about "Annexation of Sandy Fire by Clackamas Fire." I think it would be prudent to give equal time to the opposition side.

My understanding is Clackamas Fire has a contract with Sandy to supply fire protection at the level Sandy residents are accustomed to. If you drive by the main station in town, you see empty bays. There was a time when all bays had equipment in them. The Dover station is not fully staffed with qualified personnel to operate all trucks, if staffed at all. 

It seems to me that Clackamas Fire needs to be asked why they can't provide the protection they promised under the existing contract, which expires sometime in 2030. Someone needs to ask the Fire Chief, the Clackamas Fire Board, and the Sandy Fire Board why their contract is unsustainable, instead of scaring residents so they worry they may not have ample fire protection. It seems like Clackamas Fire proposed a contract they knew was low, just to get their foot in the door and then scare residents into annexation. Sandy residents have to ask themselves why we should trust an organization that cannot honor a submitted contract and why they couldn't, instead, put a sustainable contract together.

Sandy residents already voted the annexation down four months ago. We are now going to have to vote again in an election cycle that is known to have a very low turnout. Seems like a lot of "Big City Politics" to me.

I think there is more to this story that Brit could look into if she and your paper would like to serve the community. There are professional firefighters, retired Sandy firefighters and long time residents that can supply more information that would help residents make an informed

decision.

                           Thank you,

                                 Bob R