Previous letter’s concepts about Mazama Tree Farm sale don’t hold up

Dennis Jefcoat's May 31 letter, "Good ideas exist," implies some interesting concepts regarding the Mazama Tree Farm: Using public funds to purchase the Mazama Tree Farm is OK; taking the property value basis off the tax rolls is acceptable; local management and ownership of the tree farm is preferred; utilization of the resource should provide benefit to the residents of Klamath County.

Does Jefcoat propose a new tax or bond to purchase the property?

I am confused by Jefcoat's contradictory premise that the county is poorly managed, therefore we should give it more property to manage.

Why is acquisition of the tree farm by the Klamath Tribes, in part to settle long-standing water conflict, "giving away" the resource? The transaction has great value to the local economy in settlement, secures local ownership and provides local jobs.

Jefcoat implies that he is willing to compromise conservative principles regarding opposition to public funding to acquire private property and property tax base reduction, as long as acquisition of the property is not by the Klamath Tribes.

The glory days of the Klamath timber industry were when the Klamath Reservation existed - the county prospered and the Tribes prospered.

In our wisdom to terminate tribal assets and culture, we condemned the reservation and converted the lands to national forests - public lands with increasingly restrictive timber harvests and a decreasing source of revenue for the counties. Jefcoat's brainstorm is simply a public statement of prejudice and proposal to enlarge local bureaucracy.

Steve Kandra

Klamath Falls