With recent discussion (and Bill Varble's March 24 article) regarding the "Big One," shouldn't we be taking a more serious approach on what to do for Medford and Southern Oregon?
If indeed the "Big One" occurs on a scale of 9, my guess would be that our West Coast civilization would be decimated. All the infrastructure we take for granted would be destroyed or seriously impaired. Think of all the underground water and sewer lines, natural gas and auto fuel lines, electrical service, phones — both land lines and cell (no relay towers), highways, byways and bridges, TV (not during the Final Four, I hope), et al. In my opinion none of these services could be replaced, repaired and functioning for several years. Add to that the destruction and debris of buildings and dwellings.
I don't think individuals could safely hoard enough water, food and comfort items to outlast any repair and reclamation schedules.
Regarding ODOT plans, I'm familiar with Highway 97, but if I'm correct, Highway 58 runs from Eugene southeast to Highway 97 just south of Gilchrist. Where's the plan for Medford and Southern Oregon?
I'd be interested in your candid opinions. — Bob Higgins, Medford
Regarding the editorial regarding dog licenses: Some time ago, I had a run-in with a neighbor who was a cat fancier. I complained about her cat considering my yard as his personal latrine — I resented it. If I had to buy a license for my dog, had to walk him on a leash and had to pick up his "leavings," why didn't she have to do the same for her cat?
This lady just opened her door at night and her cat hit the trail till the a.m.
She advised me that cats are free-spirited animals and shouldn't have restrictions placed on their movements. I took exception to these comments.
I told her that I was going to put out a trap and if her cat failed to show up one morning, to check with me or the pound. She said I couldn't do that and called me several unfriendly names and told me that if I put out a trap, she'd sue me.
Why does Jackson County want to increase the dog license revenue and totally ignore the potential revenue from requiring owners to buy licenses for their cats? — Murray LaHue, Medford
There was an article on tankless water heaters in the March 17 Mail Tribune. There were a few glaring errors in the article that someone considering a tankless heater should be aware of.
The article is about gas water heaters — not electric — and states that tank heaters last nine years. Tank-style gas water heaters last much longer than nine years, usually 16 to 22 years before starting to leak.
The article is very pro-tankless heaters, and I ran the supplied numbers and came up with some surprising results. At the low end of installation, the payback figures out to about 10 years, and at the high supplied figures the payback works out to be 25 years, just to break even!
On a side note, both people quoted in the article promoting the install of a tankless water heater stand to make a lot of money on such installs. — Charlie Shirey, Medford