I write in response to those who are hanging our nation's flag on I-5 overpasses. 

There is nothing patriotic or respectful about breaking state laws, cutting holes in the U.S. flag, stretching it like a hide on a chain link fence, not allowing it to hang free and hanging it in the wrong position and leaving it in the dark. 

All of these violate Federal U.S. flag code laws. ODOT assured me it will remove them as soon as they are put up. By flag code regulations these hole-filled flags will have to be respectfully destroyed by fire. 

I first learned how to respect and honor the flag as a Cub Scout flag monitor in fourth grade, putting our flag up, taking it down and folding it at the end of the school day. 

As a veteran first responder, I came to realize the honor and sacrifice that our nation's symbol deserves.   

And that is why I feel so strongly about this "in your face" disrespect. 

The article "Legislators can't afford to serve" (R-G, April 18) made it seem like legislators are living on poverty wages. They are not. As stated in the article, a legislator serving in Oregon makes a baseline of $33,000 a year. The median income in Oregon is just $30,710. Senators in Washington state earn an average of $56,881 a year, plus $185 per day. The average median income in that state is only $35,989. In Connecticut, perhaps the only convincing case to be made for a salary increase, legislators make $28,000 a year in base pay, below the $37,865 earned on average by workers in this state. 

In addition, the only real scientific evidence cited in the article (American Political Science Review 2016 study) showed no real gains in the number of working-class people running for office as a result of increased pay. Instead, evidence seemed to show that higher pay was more likely to attract those already making a bigger income. 

In light of this, I favor keeping legislators' salaries as they are. Since they are elected to serve the people, they should live on the wages their constituents are expected to live on, no more and no less. 

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit,” and, “Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.” The foundation of such a method is love. Unless love is at the core of our actions, then we cannot truly transform human relations.  

Harmlessness is a reflection of our highest potential, which is love. Wise love, purposefully directed, is the essence of harmlessness. 

Harmlessness speaks no word that can damage another person, thinks no thought which could produce misunderstanding and performs no action which could hurt anyone.  

Harmlessness brings about caution in judgment, reticence in speech, the ability to refrain from impulsive action and the demonstration of a non-critical spirit. Importantly, harmlessness is a positive, dynamic force and not negative tolerance. Because strong aspiration and enthusiasm, misplaced or misdirected, could easily harm another, we should look not only at our harmful tendencies but at the use of our virtues. 

Practicing harmlessness is how we lay the groundwork for our future and our children’s future. In these uncertain times, the practice of harmlessness will be the tipping point into unifying possibilities. 

Christopher and Deb Michaels, Eugene 

Disgruntled by "more regulations for landlords," John Quilter (Letters, 4/24) believes tensions between tenants and landlords would be relieved by opening up and developing "inexpensive land" outside urban growth boundaries for Oregon's growing population. 

When he was governor in the 1960s and early '70s, Tom McCall was alarmed by urban sprawl onto rural lands and knew their protection was essential to the health and livability of the state he had come to love. While the land use laws he generated have gone a long way in conserving our rural landscape, interests such as Quilter's have resulted in a wholesale assault on areas outside UGBs that have made them not only unhealthy but also more expensive, not less. 

The major flaw in Oregon's land use program is that it allows a UGB to expand when a 20-year supply of buildable land within it has been exhausted. Until we draw the line and hold to it — and the UGB is just one place to do it — overpopulation will continue to generate the symptoms Quilter thinks are root causes. 

Eugene desperately needs more basic working-class housing for the people who do all the physical work that keeps this city going. Working-class renters have a huge stake in making sure this housing gets built. 

Right now, there are few places to legally put it, because 80% of Eugene's residential land is zoned single-family homes only. 

That will change after June 30 when Eugene is required to comply with state law HB 2001, which abolishes single-family home zoning. 

The Eugene Planning Commission has proposed that we go beyond HB 2001 minimum requirements so builders, profit and nonprofit, can reduce the building cost, which will lower rents. 

Their proposed zoning code would allow: increasing building height by five feet, smaller lots, covering more of a lot, more flexibility in placing buildings on lots (which would also help preserve trees), detached buildings on the same lot and not requiring parking near mass transit or for low-income housing. 

Renters are 53% of Eugene residents. If you want more rental housing you can afford, tell the Eugene City Council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendations. You can reach them via email at mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us. 

The Register-Guard story about the plans of private electric utilities to reduce fire risk from their power lines suggests that PG&E and similar utilities may be concealing ulterior motives.   

The plans appear to assume that long-distance power transmission lines are the only way to power rural communities. That assumption is flawed. 

No mention is made of strategies for small-scale, distributed generation from solar, wind, mini-hydro and geothermal. By placing power production and rural consumers close together, utilities could reduce the need for long-distance transmission and the fire danger associated with it, cut normal grid wear — saving millions in upkeep — and render far-flung rural communities more resilient against fire and the climate emergency. 

Distributed generation is such an obvious approach that one wonders why it would be omitted from the utilities’ fire-mitigation plans. Worse, why didn’t the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission require plans for distributed generation in the first place? 

It looks as if the commission and the utilities are more concerned with preserving the 20th-century status quo than in dealing with 21st-century realities. That’s not a good look.