Letters To The Editor

Mon., Oct. 9, 1995

TRIAL AND TRIBULATION

Our system is utterly bankrupt

How many millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on the O.J. Simpson trial? How many hours away from family, friends and life for the jurors and all the people involved? And for what?

Again, the judicial system fails, and one more slam for the victims. How can anyone (with the judicial system we have) expect anything different for our children than we’re getting today? Kids killing kids; why not? They see that it can be done with no consequences. You can rape, murder, rob - anything you want - and walk free.

On the news, President Clinton stood before the American citizens and made a plea for battered women and domestic violence. He said they’re being heard and seen, that “they are not invisible.” As far as I’m concerned, we’re more so now than before because the judicial system has condoned the inhumane treatment that one person can cause to others.

It doesn’t affect only the victim, but all the people who intertwine in their lives - children, immediate family, friends. Only in America could this happen. How sad.

What makes me even sicker is that they’ll probably return O.J.’s children to him, and there will be nothing Nicole’s family can do because that’s the American way. Do we really care about the safety and well-being our America’s children?

I knew before, but I definitely know now, that I’ll never trust the system. It hasn’t worked for a long time. What’s it going to take to get America to wake up, or are we going to have to kill each other first? Maybe vigilantism is what’s needed. Julie Gamanche Spokane

Message is clear, awful

Our judicial system has just proven to us that if you are black, rich and famous, you can get away with double murder. These are sad times to be an American. Marcy Cady Spokane

No dawdling on way to quick bucks

The votes are in, the ballots tallied, a unanimous decision reached - three hours and 45 minutes?

After how many agonizing months of trial? After how many hundreds of pieces of evidence? After how many thousands of pages of testimony? After how many millions of taxpayer dollars?

Three hours and 45 minutes?

After how many countless admonitions not to consider the issues or reach any conclusions until the matter was submitted for deliberation?

Three hours and 45 minutes?

And the winner is: the jury!

Obviously, they wanted to get on with their tabloid interviews. Doug Richardson Spokane

Jurors didn’t want to spark riot

Being predominantly black, O.J. Simpson’s jury had only to look at recent history to know full well what a guilty verdict would have caused.

Polls showed that 70 percent of blacks felt Simpson should go free. These jurors didn’t see the polls, but in their own minds, felt the same way.

If blacks don’t get their way, many of them will hit the streets, burning, looting and killing. These jurors could quickly slip into obscurity with an acquittal. But with a guilty verdict they would possibly feel responsible for hundreds of deaths.

For them there was no other choice. The mountain of evidence proving Simpson’s guilt was totally irrelevant to their decision. Lloyd Brauner Clayton

Final judgment is yet to come

As a Christian, I feel none of the anger that I see in the letters, both pro and con, on the O.J. Simpson verdict. This is an advantage to Christianity.

If O.J. was not guilty, then the jury did right by him.

But if O.J. was guilty, judgment was not deterred. The Bible says, “After thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render it to every man according to his deeds.” (Romans, 2:6)

O.J. did not skip out on justice, if he indeed did the deed. His day of judgment is coming and God will do it fairly this time. Harvey Fritz Moses Lake

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

‘Opportunistic move’ absurd

Re: Rachel Carver’s mother, Lori Beal: For a mother who allowed her daughter to be sexually molested, not once but three times, by her then-husband, a boyfriend and brother-in-law, this is so obviously an opportunistic move as to be ridiculous. While I don’t agree with Dr. Dexter Amend’s actions in this matter, the one who caused Rachel Carver to be used was her mother, Lori Beal. Marge Kerwin Spokane

WASHINGTON REFERENDUM 48

Foe of measure badly mistaken

Guadalupe Flores’ misconceptions about Referendum 48 (Letters, Sept. 27) are nearly as shocking as her ideas of what constitute good government.

Flores claimed that Initiative 164, which later became Referendum 48, was “passed by our state legislators without our vote.” Over 230,000 voters, however, had signed the initiative earlier this year, bringing it to the attention of legislators in Olympia where it passed in April with a bipartisan vote.

The duty of our elected representatives is to review and pass those laws which benefit Washington’s citizens. If every piece of legislation was then subject to a statewide vote, our government would embody the complete opposite of the “effective, efficient and inexpensive” ideals that she desires.

Flores neglected to include a crucial feature of American democracy, the value of fairness, in her description of good government. Are Washington voters willing to sacrifice fair treatment to ordinary citizens simply because it would require a change in the government’s land use management practices?

With Referendum 48, the government would still have the ability to make regulations intended for the public good, but these regulations would have to take into account their impact on citizens affected by them and fairly compensate the owner for loss of value if private property is taken for a “public benefit use.” Clearly, then, Referendum 48 encourages prioritization of government goals and helps ensure the constitutional right of “just compensation” for the average citizen. This is the can of worms that Flores warns us not to open. Dave Baker Spokane

Greedy grab behind flawed law

With the recently released study by the University of Washington, there should be no further doubt about how devastating Referendum 48 would be if we don’t vote it down on Nov. 7. The study concludes that Referendum 48 would cost Washington taxpayers $6 billion through new and unnecessary red tape, economic impact studies and litigation.

Referendum 48 is vague, inconsistent and a massive overreaction to land use regulations. Even the Washington state Bar Association’s Land Use Law Committee has called 48 “badly drafted and fundamentally incompatible with many existing state laws. Its effect will be to create regulatory chaos.”

The Constitution guarantees you compensation if the government takes your land to widen a road. That’s common sense. Referendum 48 goes way beyond common sense and says every time the government regulates land use, the taxpayer pays.

Who paid to get this takings initiative passed in the Legislature without our vote? The Washington state Farm Bureau, big developers, Realtors, Boise Cascade and Plum Creek did. Who cashes in if Referendum 48 passes? The same.

Who loses? Taxpayers like you and me.

So let’s vote to reject Referendum 48 on Nov. 7 and get on with the business of shaping and improving government in thoughtful, specific ways. Bonnie Mager Spokane

Designed to counter abuses

I think our forefathers who wrote the Constitution must be looking down and shaking their heads in disbelief. If only our government would follow the rules they so wisely set down, we wouldn’t have to vote to approve a common sense law that forces government to follow the Constitution.

Unfortunately, government has learned how to take our land without paying the property owner for it. That is exactly why Initiative 164 - now Referendum 48 - was passed with strong support in both houses in our state Legislature, by both Democrats and Republicans. Also, this is exactly why those of us who believe in our state and U.S. constitutions will vote to approve the law our legislators so wisely passed.

The opponents, city planners and officials (the ones whose behavior we want to change), even the League of Women Voters and many environmental groups, want the citizenry to believe this common sense law will wreak havoc on our government’s ability to do business. Just as when the voters put government on a budget diet with I-601, these same groups are crying the blues because Referendum 48 simply places government on a regulation diet.

Referendum 48 will be approved by informed voters because property owners have a right to fair compensation when government regulations reduce the value of their private property. And when environmental protection is needed, everyone should pay for it, not just the landowners.

Referendum 48 sounds like common sense. I hope you will join our effort to counter the misinformation being spread. Don Moeller, Spokane County coordinator Citizens for Property Rights

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

For Gingrich, it’s do as I say

The people of this country called for major political change in the 1994 elections. For their efforts at the polls they bought themselves more than they bargained for.

For months now we have read of Republican proposals for drastic cuts across the board in domestic programs - welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, youth programs, student financial aid and just about any program that benefits the poor, elderly or disadvantaged. We are told by the likes of House Speaker Newt Gingrich that everyone must do their part in rescuing this country from the debt incurred during Reaganomics.

A major tax cut will have to be financed so the wealthy can better secure their future. Increases in defense spending will have to be financed so we can add more high-tech planes, ships, subs and weapons to the already overflowing stockpiles of the Pentagon. Of course, the building of a multimillion-dollar space station will have to be financed to boost the morale of the impoverished and unemployed who did their part to save the country by giving up their jobs and three meals a day for Gingrich’s master plan.

Who is expected to finance the additional $50,000 in Secret Service protection for Gingrich as he tours the country promoting this multimillion-dollar book deal? Not Gingrich! Jack T. Matuska Kettle Falls, Wash.

Payments cut incomprehensible

Several senior citizens and disabled people I know have received notice from the Social Security Administration in the last week that their supplemental security income (SSI) checks will be cut by a portion of the amount they get from Washington state. Some are cut by the total received from the state. These people are already severely limited in what they can do and where they can go due to the limited income they are allowed. They are all asking the same question: Why?

We all want to know why these checks should be cut when it seems everyone in state government gets a big raise every year. We who are paying Social Security tax on each dollar we earn also ask why. Why should we pay these taxes if the whole system is in this much trouble?

In the last few years we have heard of increasing amounts being spent on foreign aid, yet in the same broadcast we hear that the national debt is growing by trillions of dollars. We are also told the Social Security Administration is going broke because money is being “borrowed” from this fund to cover some new program - usually in some other country.

The really big question now becomes: How can we continue to support other countries throughout the world when our own country is in so much financial trouble? David E. Harn Tonasket, Wash.

Skip foreign, keep domestic, aid

Question: In all the talk about cutting welfare, Medicare and other services for U.S. citizens, has anyone heard a member of Congress suggest that we cut foreign aid? Why haven’t we told these countries that they’re going to have to start taking responsibility for their own poor and homeless, so we can take care or ours?

It’s a disgrace that we give money to “friends,” so their people will have food, shelter, clothing and medical care, when we have thousands upon thousands of people in this country who don’t have these “luxuries.” Karen L. Kennedy Elk, Wash.

Opponent of Medicaid cuts is right

I’m writing in response to a an article by Nick Beamer (“Medicaid cuts could be a recipe for disaster,” Guest column, Oct. 1). He stated “Congress is proposing a 33 percent reduction over seven years in Medicaid funding.”

There are enormous amounts of people who are unable to pay off medical bills. Even if they have life savings, sooner or later the money will run out. Medical bills these days simply cost too much. Many people have no other way to pay these costs without the help received.

I agree with Mr. Beamer and I feel many other readers do also. Our Congress needs to take into consideration what is most important to “we the people,” not just in this area, but in all areas.

I appreciate this guest column being published so everyone is able to read it and become more aware of this situation. Sarah Anderegg Spokane