Letters To The Editor

Unpublished correction: The name of Sheri Barnard is misspelled in this story.

MEAN STREETS

Seems some people own the streets

I am surprised and disgusted that the City Council agreed to have barriers placed on Garfield, at a cost of $17,000.

This is politically motivated. I assure you, the council members will find out after the November election that it was not very smart.

I’ve always believed we pay various taxes so we can drive on city streets. I didn’t know the City Council and people who live on South Garfield own the streets in that area.

I live nearby area and like to shop at Manito Shopping Center. We weren’t notified that a barrier would be placed there. Everyone east of Grand and south of 17th to 29th should have been notified. However, the mayor did say, “We made an agreement with the neighborhood; let’s get it done.”

This could happen in your neighborhood, if enough whining takes place. Joan O’Brien Spokane

Privileged characters get their way

Re: “City making it tough for drivers detouring into Rockwood area,” Aug. 21: Everyone living on the South Hill knew well in advance there would be minor driving inconvenience once Grand Boulevard was closed for resurfacing.

I live on the lower half of Rockwood Boulevard and certainly don’t appreciate the increase of traffic flowing through my neighborhood, but such is life. It’s only for a month. I can deal with it. But apparently, people living on the upper half of Rockwood Boulevard can’t.

How were these homeowners on Hatch, Arthur, Garfield, etc., able to convince the city to install cement barricades to restrict through traffic flow in their neighborhood? More importantly, who’s picking up the $17,000 cost? Is it the let’s hold our breath to get what we want homeowners or the unfortunate stick it to us again taxpayers? How can so few disrupt the lives of so many over a minor, temporary resurfacing job?

I frequently patronize Manito Shopping Center. I now have three options driving home from there. I can take Bernard Street and go roughly four miles out of my way. I can drive to Southeast Boulevard near Lincoln Heights and go roughly five miles out of my way. Or, I can bypass the cement barricades via your front yards. Nancy Alann Spokane

While we’re at it, do it right

I am extremely happy to see the city has decided to repair Grand Boulevard on the South Hill. This is long overdue.

I hope the improvements will be better than those recently completed on 37th between Havana and Regal. It’s virtually as difficult to navigate after the repair as it was before. The recent stock market changes are flatter than this road.

I would rather see the city do nothing than throw away money on a project that will need to be redone. Let’s make the Grand Avenue improvement worthwhile and do it the right way. Joel Bonvallet Spokane

Barriers rooted in politics

As a resident of the South Hill, I was appalled when I read “City Making it tough for drivers detouring into Rockwood area” (Aug. 21). No longer will I argue that we are friendly, nice people! With this episode, we have earned the reputation of being snobbish.

How about the people on Southeast Boulevard and Bernard? I use Bernard and 29th daily. I find the traffic much heavier, but do I complain? No, because Grand will once again be a pleasant drive.

I plan to drive around those barricades anytime I choose. If I receive a ticket, I’ll be in court the next day telling folks where to go, and it won’t be Southeast Boulevard or Bernard.

Shari Barnard put up the stupid barrier at Pittsburg and 29th to protect her home. Mayor Jack Geraghty says “Let’s get it done” so he wont lose voters from that area for a second term. Marie Yates Spokane

Bad streets could be in commercial

This evening, while watching television and enjoying some of the commercials, an idea for a very realistic and effective television ad to market a denture adhesive came to me. It would show an older couple cruising Spokane’s bone-rattling streets in a convertible, smiling at each other, and, with their dentures still in place.

Ray O’Keefe Spokane

IN THE PAPER

Sarcasm out of place in headline

Your Aug. 20 front page photo of firefighter Jerry Pitts, taken near Marshall, was fine. The headline, “Can’t get enough,” made me burn.

It’s not only a put-down, but a sarcastic, judgmental attempt at humor. I’m sure firefighters are cautious, courteous smokers, as are most of us addicted smokers. It would have been better to have written, “Job well done,” or simply, “Thank you, firefighters.” Carol A. Kelly Spokane

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Prairie no place for trailer court

A lifelong Five Mile Prairie resident, I fear for my rural lifestyle if the Spokane County Planning Commission approves Prairie Breeze, a 138-unit trailer court. This is to eventually become a 238-unit trailer park.

North Five Mile road is one of only three steep hill roads for access to the prairie. The first spring thaws wash it out because of its narrowness and poor drainage. This is a nuisance to residents and a key reason why Spokane Transit Authority won’t serve the area. We can’t expect two cow trail-type roads to accommodate all the additional vehicles from Prairie Breeze.

To the recent rash of wildfires we’ve seen, figure in 138 trailer homes surrounded by wheat fields and pine trees, with only a volunteer fire station. Factor in rooftop-to-rooftop lot configuration. A wildfire would be almost impossible to stop.

Boosting population would increase the crime rate. We depend on the sheriff’s department, which is already spread thin, for protection. Adding so many residents, response time will be further delayed.

Who will be responsible for the impact on Mead School District? The district has already refused to add more transportation for Five Mile Prairie because of dangerous steep hills that are nearly impassable at times during winter.

Most Five Mile Prairie residents own acreage and their lifestyle isn’t compatible with a massive-density trailer park.

This proposal is not a good use of some of the county’s last open space and quality farm land. Amy L. Johnston Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

To veterans, killing is not a sport

I was appalled to read the commentary, “Send well-armed ‘Animal Advocates’ to bag hunters” in your Aug. 24 Roundtable.

In that adjective-enhanced, unsuccessful attempt at humor, Street Level columnist Russ Moritz implies that he would like to again see Vietnam veterans going into battle only this time, against each other, to collect, “ears, fingers, and scalps”.

Come on, this article was a direct affront to those of us who at 20-something went off to fight our nation’s war. Vietnam ended, except for the memories and dreams that will haunt us for the rest of our lives. Now, you let some sicko advocate that we do it again for “sport.”

Really, this type of article only belongs in a newspaper if that newspaper is used only on the bottom of a bird cage. Duane Cocking Spokane

Arguments against gun law lacking

Re: Opinion writer D.F. Oliveria’s Aug. 12 editorial objecting to a proposed law to limit gun ownership for people convicted of domestic abuse.

Oliveria argues that the law would punish men who made a “one-time mistake” or were convicted unfairly. He pointed out that it would affect families that rely on those convicted and that the government doesn’t have the resources to perfectly enforce this law.

Unless I’ve missed something, those defects apply to every criminal law ever written.

Although the proposed law ultimately sounds like a bad idea, Oliveria’s objections to it sound queerer, as do Rep. Helen Chenoweth’s. In the past, Chenoweth has supported curtailing the Second Amendment rights of some federal law enforcement employees (read “American citizens”) by requiring them to receive permission from a county sheriff to carry firearms. In this context, her sudden skittishness over infringing on similar constitutional rights of wife beaters must seem oddly out of place to her female constituents. Paul S. O’Doherty Rathdrum, Idaho