Letters To The Editor

GOVERNING SPOKANE

One government better than none

How many of us think the city-county charter provides for a change in our city and county governments? Raise your hands.

OK, would I offend you if I said I think you’re wrong? No, wait, let me finish. I don’t think the charter provides a change in government at all. I think it provides a government where none currently exist!

Look at what we have now. In the county, we have the two-and-a-half stooges: “Steve Hassle”, “Hill Arious,” and their handpicked opponent, “What’s His Name” (who replaced “Chill Skipberg.” They’ve got executive, legislative and judicial powers all in one body and they’re running amok. They have no control over other officials in the county, and we have no control over the commissioners - we can’t recall them, can’t have local referendums and can’t have voter approval of important issues.

Development is helter-skelter and public health and safety issues aren’t being addressed. This is a government? In the city, where things are a little better organized, the situation is only marginally better. Meanwhile, we pay higher-than-average taxes for average and below-average services, partly because of the inefficiency of the local “governments.”

It’s time for a real government. Voting for the city-county charter will give us that. And there’s a safety valve: in five years, if we don’t like it, we can change it. I’m going to vote for the charter and for a real government. Please join me. Tom Hargreaves Spokane

Charter is a plan for the future

As a former county commissioner, I urge the voters of Spokane to support the proposed charter and next week’s election.

The greatest challenge before our community today is planning for the future. Our community has experienced tremendous growth in the last few years and will probably continue to grow. Land use, transportation, public health and safety, clean air and water and much more are at stake in this planning. Planning by one, more representative government would certainly be better than our current two-government system.

Some have suggested combining city and county services and not the governments. If this was done, you would still have competing elected officials who can change things on a whim. The charter lessens the chances for one or two elected officials to trade public interest for special interest.

Consolidation is never easy, but this opportunity to improve local government, make it more representative and responsive, is an opportunity we should seize upon.

I urge all voters to support the proposed charter on Nov. 7. Pat Mummey Spokane

Charter not good for rural areas

I am very concerned about the grave implications and numerous unanswered questions regarding the proposed city-county charter. Representation based solely on population may be best for the most urban areas, but it is not in the best interest of the rural residents.

This issue was resolved long ago by the Continental Congress. The result was our two-bodied legislative system, representation of the people and of the land. We currently enjoy the equivalent form of governance in this county and we shouldn’t change it.

The Spokane County Farm Bureau board of directors is recommending that its 1,150 member families reject consolidation. Say no to taxation without representation. Say no to the charter. Maurice Robinette, president Spokane County Farm Bureau, Cheney

It’s one chance; Don’t blow it

Well, it’s Nov. 8 and Spokane again has voted no on a new idea. The vote was close, but the unified city-county charter was defeated.

Let’s see, the City Council is still representing folks who live in the city. And my favorites, the county commissioners, represent us all. Yes, we can be proud that three astute, forward thinkers are in place to guide us into implementation of growth management.

I wonder which commissioner represents me? Oh, that’s right, they all do - or is it none of them?

I was really hoping I’d be able to use the downtown library, but I live in the county and they don’t want me messing up their library. Of course, I have trouble getting downtown anyway, since the bus doesn’t serve me adequately.

I was looking forward to having our neighborhood park brought up to the condition where it could really be called a park, but that would have happened only with the unified charter.

I wonder how the county commissioners are going to deal with the developer who wants to put high-density housing near me. That land drains right into the Little Spokane River and there’s no plan for a sewer system. I would call my representative but I don’t have one.

You know, we should have passed that unified city-county charter. We’ll have to do that next time it comes up for a vote.

What do you mean, it won’t be voted on again? I had only one chance to pass that thing? Hey, wait. I really did want it!

Oops. Dianne White Spokane

Don’t saddle Valley with city bills

Charter, consolidation and annexation are all wicked words to us in the Valley. We want to be left alone, with no one else’s bill to pay. All those who moneyed the big push to snatch us like ripe fruit would be wise to put their money into helping Spokane get out of debt, and generally raise their own standard of living. Claire Carol Otis Orchards

INITIATIVE 651

State wants its gambling monopoly

The message from opponents to the tribal gaming initiative (651) is pretty clear: They want us all to play, but only at the state’s game.

Opponents tell us they want I-651 to fail because if they can’t regulate (read: control) gaming, the bogeyman will take it over and ruin our lives.

That’s hypocritical nonsense and disguises their motives. The opposition (the state) created gambling in Washington. It enjoys a virtual monopoly. If gaming is good for it, why is it wrong for tribes? The state wants us to do as it says, not as it does.

Let’s get it straight. What opponents really want is to protect gaming’s huge profits for themselves. All this fear-and-smear stuff is a ruse. They’re just trying to muscle out competition. In doing so, they look at themselves like the organized criminal syndicate they say they want to save us from. Don’t be tricked.

I-651 gives an incentive for all citizens to vote. It creates jobs for an impoverished class and holds the promise of self-sufficiency. It creates competition (for the opponents) and provides consumer choice where none exists. It will help reduce welfare, taxes and federal spending deficits. It will build tribal schools, hospitals, housing, museums and new programs for health care and the elderly, among other things.

These benefits are real and needed. The bogeyman is an illusion created by I-651’s opponents to advance an ulterior motive. Don’t let the fearmongers dissuade your vote in favor. D.P. Boswell Spokane

Pass 651, you hurt yourself, others

Passage of Initiative 651 would certainly provide an economic boost for Washington’s tribes, but it would have severe repercussions for the rest of Washington’s citizens.

Fund-raising activities by nonprofit social service organizations would be adversely affected. Many such organizations in Eastern Washington and throughout the state fund their programs through bingo games and similar activities. I-651 would allow the tribes to conduct casino gambling virtually anywhere in the state, which would put most, if not all, bingo games out of business.

Those bingo games not only fund many worthwhile social service programs, they also generate significant tax revenues on bingo profits. These revenues go to cities and counties. The closure of bingo games will mean that both program funding and tax revenues will disappear - a double hit for many communities.

Even the limited illegal gambling that occurs now on some tribal lands in Eastern Washington has had a severe adverse impact on bingo games. This was proven recently with the closure of Red Cross Bingo in the Valley.

There are other reasons to vote no on I-651, such as the lack of state oversight, the fact the state will receive no tax money from those casinos, and the general degradation of our quality of life when Las Vegas-style casino gambling can be operated virtually anywhere in our state.

I urge all voters to consider those factors and vote no on I-651. Greg Smith, president Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Spokane

We don’t need casinos

One thing our area does not need, indeed we cannot permit, is Las Vegas-style gambling casinos on Indian lands. The Indians are pushing Initiative 651 that would allow unregulated casinos on any land owned by the Indians. Even locations off their reservations would be unlimited as to hours and size of bets - all with no tax payments.

We face the spectre of workers losing their paychecks before making their mortgage payments and of seniors betting their Social Security checks.

The Indians should be looking at education as the way to improve their situation, not “get-rich-quick” schemes.

Join me in voting no on I-651. Cal Modisett Spokane

Don’t gamble on the future

When supporters of a political cause have more than $1.3 million to “educate” the public, it’s difficult to counter misinformation, either deliberate or accidental.

Many churches have consistently opposed all gambling, both legal and illegal. By voting against I-651, some Christian voices may be joining those who are protecting their economic self-interest. The ultimate goal for many Christians is to restrict gambling, not to increase it.

I urge persons to vote no on I-651 and any other initiatives which would increase gambling in future years. The stake are high. It affects the future of our state and in many ways, the future of our society. John J. Shaffer Spokane

INITIATIVE 640

I-640 would hurt few, benefit many

I read in our voters guide that the Sierra Club is against Initiative 640, and their reasons for this were given in a letter to the editor on Oct. 1.

Equal or larger numbers of major conservation groups are for this measure. The dissension that’s developed thus far appears to be from those folks who are letting their distaste for the Columbia River Alliance get in the way of saving the salmon. From one end of the United States to the other, states have demonstrated that banning nets restores and improves their fisheries a hundredfold.

One netted Chinook that would have spawned, results in 5,000 less young ones. Ban nets - save salmon, save our sealife.

The economic gains of a healthy recreational fishery, versus our small commercial fishery, would convince most to ban the nets, especially gill nets and purse seines. Add to that the obvious distortions that the anti-640 folks are throwing around about 20,000 jobs lost, when in fact, it’s under 1,000 full-time jobs according to Washington state figures released in 1992. Throw in the mammals, sea birds and other fish killed and wasted by the commercial fisherman using gill nets. Mix in the feud between Canadian and Washington commercial fisherman that decimates our rapidly disappearing runs of salmon up and down our coast, and it’s hard to understand why anyone other than the 1,000 or so fisherman who might lose their job, would vote against I-640. Chuck Scheerschmidt, director Eastern Washington Council of Trout Unlimited, Airway Heights

Initiative won’t save any fish

Initiative 640 will eliminate all commercial fishing except for maybe crab fishing, in my opinion.

The sports fishing will also be lost when it is proved they cannot release under-sized or out of season fish without harming one in 6.6 fish. They are required to harm no more than 15 percent of the non-targeted catch.

When shrimpers and cod boats pull up a salmon in their trawl net, that fish is 99 percent dead when that net opens on deck. This very rarely happens, but it does happen.

About the only fishermen that will survive will be the crab fishermen. Fresh fish will become more scarce and much more expensive in Washington.

If not one environmental group supports or endorses this measure, what does that tell you?

This initiative will save no fish. You will still have the Indian fisherman out there. In fact, due to the court’s “forgone” opportunity ruling, the number of Indian nets will dramatically increase. Federal laws and treaties will supercede this initiative. William C. Olson Spokane

JUDICIARY

Retain Pekelis on high court

I strongly urge the retention of Rosselle Pekelis as justice of the Washington Supreme Court, Position 1.

Justice Pekelis has had a distinguished career as a trial lawyer, trial judge and appellate judge on both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

An overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges throughout the state agree with the rating given her by the King County Bar Association: “Exceptionally Well Qualified.”

Her opponent, land use attorney Richard B. Sanders of Bellevue, is a candidate with a single agenda favoring his land developer and substantial property owner clients. His rating by the King County Bar Association of “not qualified” is understandable.

Justice Pekelis isn’t influenced by such special interests, and her record is one of fair-minded, strict adherence to the law and Constitution, regardless of political trends. Wallis W. Friel, judge Whitman County Superior Court

Rielly background stronger

I would like to add a little to your Oct. 26 endorsement of Judge Neal Rielly - an endorsement with which I completely agree.

During Judge Rielly’s years on the bench as a court commissioner, he spent a good bit of time in juvenile court.

As a juvenile court commissioner, Rielly handled cases dealing with dependency and delinquency. Juvenile delinquency charges range from misdemeanors to very serious felony charges. I represented a large number of juveniles before Rielly then. He ruled against my clients as often as he ruled for them, if not more often.

I can vouch that Judge Rielly was always very professional, courteous and that his rulings were always well-reasoned. I want your readers to know Judge Rielly has even more expertise, and with serious cases, than one might conclude from your endorsement. John Hunt Whaley Spokane

REFERENDUM 48

R-48 represents dismal policy shift

If voters pass Referendum 48, it will signal a whole new era in American citizenship.

Our founding fathers considered widespread private property ownership a foundation of democracy and a protection against tyranny. But, just as all other rights were tempered with accompanying responsibilities, land ownership rights were to be balanced with the responsibilities of good stewardship.

Many landowners have taken the challenge of good stewardship to heart and have managed their property in ways that benefit future generations as well as their own. A few have abused the notion of good stewardship, prompting the public to pass restrictions to protect public values such as clean air and water, endangered by inappropriate land use.

R-48 would divorce the notion of being a good steward of the land from the concept of private property ownership. It’s based on the assumption that it’s the right of every property owner to seek the highest immediate profit from their property without regard to public consequences.

That is a revolutionary concept that must have Jefferson spinning in his grave. Can this nation survive private property ownership uncoupled from the idea of responsible land management?

Please vote to reject R-48, and keep good stewardship a landowner responsibility. Carol Mack Newport