Letters To The Editor

WASHINGTON STATE

Greatness is only a vote away

I would like to thank everyone who contacted their legislators, all who give a damn and had the guts to speak up and vote; to those with the insight to see that we, the residents of Washington state, are standing on the verge of what looks to be a great opportunity for all of us.

Let me paint a very imaginable scenario:

First, we pass Referendum 48. Paul Allen buys the Seahawks. A new team is being formed and is headed for a Super Bowl. A proudly built stadium is in place to house our champions. This, along with major league soccer, while our state remains the front-runner for the world Olympics!

My fellow voters, this and so much more awaits our reply.

Please don’t get caught up in petty nonsense that opponents would have you believe.

Allen calls to us. Do you want to be a part of greatness? If this still isn’t enough for you, then just think of all the revenue that could be generated for the general fund. Conservative estimates have the Seahawks generating $67 million annually and the Olympics a whopping $4 billion. Let the opponents put that in their pipes!

I’m just another volunteer who wants to do something good for us all. A “yes” vote on Referendum 48 is all you’re being asked to pay. Mike S. Hart Elk

It’s a bad deal - vote ‘no’

There are many good reasons to oppose the Seahawks’ stadium plan.

First, taxpayers bear the cost of building the stadium while virtually all benefits go to Paul Allen, and he has complete control of its construction.

The state operates within a debt limit; not more than 7 percent of the budget can be used to pay off bonds. Stadium bonds would take us over that limit. The Legislature will have a choice of either accepting an increased debt load or reducing future capital budgets in order to pay off debt.

Capital budgets pay for public facilities statewide, including school construction and repair, parks, museums, convention centers, water treatment facilities, etc. All other public facilities statewide would suffer until our stadium debt was reduced. The assumption that the tax package would pay for the stadium is flawed. Most of the revenue is from existing taxes that pay for the Kingdome. Those taxes won’t be available to pay for the new stadium bonds until after the Kingdome debt is retired in 2013.

The plan also assumes that $6 million a year in new lottery revenue will be realized. Lottery revenues are steadily declining, and adding more scratch tickets will not likely reverse that trend. Rep. Helen Sommers, senior ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, estimates the annual cost to taxpayers at $25 million for the next 20 years.

I don’t feel a moral imperative to take money from taxpayers or from other worthy public facilities simply to keep the Seahawks in Seattle. Vote “no” on Referendum 48. Rep. Brad D. Benson 6th Legislative District, Spokane

Facts convinced me to vote ‘yes’

Now is the time to vote “yes” on “Proposition No.” That’s what Proposition 48, the stadium issue, should be called. When in doubt, vote “no.”

That’s the tendency I’ve had myself, when I have been too indifferent or lazy to investigate the consequences or advantages of an issue.

This time, though, I haven’t been quite so lazy. I’ve read the literature and listened to the arguments, and this is what I’ve learned.

My “yes” vote will not cost me one red cent, nor will it cost anyone else in this part of the state anything unless they choose it to. If I buy a special lottery ticket, that will cost me. If I could afford to go to a game, that would cost me. Since we are on a limited retirement income, it isn’t too likely that we will be going to games in the new stadium. But we will be able to watch the Seahawks on TV without cost - if they are still in Seattle.

I love that team, good or bad. If we lose it, it will never return.

I ask you to vote “yes” on the stadium issue. Eileen D. Klett Spokane

Say ‘no’ to ‘welfare for the rich’

Looking at the exotic financing that’s proposed for Referendum 48, you have to wonder why our Legislature didn’t put the same effort into expanding the Washington state health insurance fund, so that the thousands of our citizens not included in the plan could be included.

Paul Allen, the proposed new owner of the Seattle Seahawks, is worth over $3 billion. He doesn’t need, nor should he be subsidized with, public money.

I hope that you’ll join me in voting against welfare for the rich. Vote “no” on Referendum 48. Gerald W. Adams Walla Walla

Spare us all 23 years of debt

Is there such a thing as a free lunch?

Sure, if you believe the editorial in the June 1 Spokesman-Review about a “free” sports stadium in Seattle. Maybe you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

Paul Allen didn’t become a billionaire by giving things away. He wants us to commit $300 million in public money so he can have a new stadium in Seattle. We, the state taxpayers, will be in debt for 23 years if this scam is approved.

Vote against Referendum 48. Greg J. Works Spokane

Skip stadium and trade with Denver

While in Denver recently, I learned that the Denver Broncos are pushing hard for a new indoor stadium. It appears they no longer prefer the outdoor atmosphere, real grass and occasional inclement weather of Mile High Stadium.

Now, isn’t it ironic that the Seahawks feel just the opposite and are demanding a new outdoor stadium, rather than the continued use of the climate-controlled Kingdome?

This presents a novel idea. What say we just trade the Seahawks straight across for the Broncos? Then, both teams would have what they want and no one would be burdened with the cost of a new stadium. We Northwest fans could root for our Seattle Broncos, even though John Elway might still be the quarterback! Ken C. Oberg Richland

Consider this carefully, then vote

Shall we put ourselves on the hook for $321 million, not to mention the interest on the bonds to be issued and the cost of ridding ourselves of the now despised Kingdome?

Assuming 10 or 12 Seahawks home games per year and 20 years until the proposed stadium is obsolete, we will be paying a cool $1 million to $1.5 million per game. For this nominal fee, we will be able to keep a number of millionaires and even one billionaire from going broke. Investors (taxpayers), is that a great deal or what?

Can you think of other areas where we could better obligate our resources?

Next, consider the proponents’ strong appeal to our emotions. Do you think that your state pride, self-esteem and quality of life are really dependent upon another new stadium or even a professional football team in Seattle?

Don’t believe everything or be held hostage or stampeded by the media blitz.

No new taxes? What about indirect taxation by tax credits, extending certain taxes (that’s new) and tying up tax revenues that could be used for more important projects?

Think for yourself. Above all, be sure to vote. Robert P. Campbell Spokane

Why is this an issue for taxpayers?

All the discussion about building a new football stadium in the Seattle area (or anywhere else) is troubling me.

I hope we are still living in a free-enterprise economy. It seems that if a person wishes to enter into a business venture, that should be at his own risk, or profit, and not be any concern or obligation of the populace at large.

If a new business wishes to come to my town, am I to build it a place in which to carry on that business? Why in the heck are we even being concerned with the new football stadium question? Wil R. Mohney Davenport, Wash.

LAW AND JUSTICE

Put McVeigh in prison for life

“An eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind.” Mahatma Gandhi said that and Chelsea Clinton quoted it in her high school yearbook.

It seems particularly appropriate now, as we all cry for the blood of Timothy McVeigh. Even I, a staunch opponent of the death penalty my entire life, have said, kill him!

But one of the purposes of government is to protect us from our baser instincts. We have laws against murder. We should expect our government to uphold and obey those laws, not pass new laws making the people as a whole exempt from such laws and party to murder.

I saw a victim of the Oklahoma City bombing express her fear that the death penalty was not enough of a punishment for McVeigh. She wanted him in a small room surrounded by pictures of the children he had murdered for the rest of his natural life. She wanted the children to inhabit his waking and sleeping hours. She wanted their memory to haunt him.

I believe we use the death penalty to assuage our pain (and, perhaps, our guilt). It isn’t a punishment or deterrent. How many times have we heard convicted murderers ask for the death penalty because they cannot stand the thought of living their entire lives in prison? Frequently, prisoners have said that prison is much more terrifying to them than death.

Let’s have a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Let’s mean it. That would be the real deterrent to heinous crimes. Deborah Lawrence Hale Greenacres

McVeigh doomed, a scapegoat

Does might make right? Do two wrongs make a right? Is the federal government - which, indirectly through our tax dollars, murders people every year - justified in killing Timothy McVeigh?

Are we so bloodthirsty with fear, and so completely uncreative in evolved thought, that we can think of nothing better than to snuff him out?

Jannie Coverdale stated, “I believe that if he is ever allowed to walk the streets again, he will murder someone else.” Walk the streets again? Are you kidding? Even if his sentence were life in prison, the “biggest domestic terrorist act” would surely land him consecutive life sentences. The government would see to no less.

I’m sure someone who “had so much to offer this country” could have positive impact sometime in the future. The man is, after all, a living, thinking, feeling human being with a past and a memory and a family, with hopes for the future like you.

All you oh-so-righteous Christians calling for blood should go home and study your Bibles. Was Jesus’ mantra “an eye for an eye” or “off with his head!”?

Guilty or innocent, McVeigh is an American scapegoat who was doomed from the beginning. The justice system a “well-oiled machine”? Bah, humbug! The man was guilty until proved innocent. With so many calling for blood, the trial was almost a stage act. Krist Ronan Anderson Spokane

Hold negligent mothers accountable

The only way we are going to save our little ones, such as Amanda Welch, is to change our laws. We need to fight hard for these little children, to protect them from mothers who are totally guilty of putting their children in danger.

The law should provide for jailing mothers who choose to live with abusive men. Surely, these mothers see and ignore signs of abuse in some form.

The public should be outraged as these children are abused and their mothers are not held responsible. The mothers should be put on trial along with the abuser.

A few cases of the mother being held as responsible as the abuser could possibly save some of these little ones from this horrible abuse and sometimes fatal actions.

I am praying for Amanda and for a better future for the children who cannot protect themselves. Sandy M. Hoskins Clark Fork, Idaho

OTHER TOPICS

Ranking people should know more

In response to staff writer Rebecca Nappi’s June 6 editorial, “Dumb, dumber … and along came Jones”:

I admire Nappi’s intelligence and her work, but I think she would agree that if, at a political meeting at the Ridpath or elsewhere, the mayor or some other dignitary sent her a note to interview him, she would go, assuming that all was on the up and up.

We may all be equal under the law, but we are not all equal. Some are richer, some are smarter and some just have more rank.

Gen. Joseph Ralston has more rank than Lt. Kelly Flinn and President Clinton has more rank than the general. However, neither gentleman should need someone to advise him or give him a direct order to behave properly. Their very rank suggests they already know this.

If they don’t, they should resign or reinstate Flinn. Donald M. Reid Spokane

No more subsidies for Amtrak

Re: “Amtrak needs real commitment,” editorial, May 28:

This is one of the most absurd pleas for anything I have ever read. Here’s my experience with Amtrak.

In 1993, I went from Spokane to Los Angeles to visit my sister. I thought that by taking the train I, too, could witness the splendor of the United States - the sunrise over the Pacific, a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, etc. Instead, the minute my sister’s family got on, we found that not only did Amtrak sell the same seats twice, but when it did get us seats, it gave us ones dispersed throughout the cabin. Amtrak expected us to sit all over, even when her two young sons were with us.

It didn’t stop there. The same thing happened when we changed trains!

As for subsidizing our worthless train system, I recommend a great recent article on Amtrak in U.S. News & World Report. It makes clear why we should do away with Amtrak.

We have no business subsidizing trains in the first place. Why not let the market decide? There are reasons no one uses trains anymore. They’re called the interstate highway and the airliner. Mike J. Powers Rathdrum, Idaho

Hemlock Society spurned

The June 5 Spokesman-Review article on Washington State University’s class devoted to dying and death was of interest.

I am a member of the Hemlock Society. Last summer, I requested that I be allowed to speak and show a video on the concept of assisted dying, with which the society and others are attempting to obtain favorable legislation. Margaret Young refused. I tried again on June 6 but there was no reply to my call.

While the instructor has control over course content, I believe students are entitled to all data available and attempted to have her tell her class I’d meet with them at any time. To my knowledge, she has not done so.

Although the assisted dying concept is controversial, students should be aware of all alternatives of avoiding suffering and fiscal loss for days, weeks and, at times, months or years.

To me, this is a major responsibility of teachers on all levels. Bruce C. Harding Hemlock Society, Pullman

Travel section doesn’t go far enough

John S. Caputo (letters, June 9) was right-on when he wrote to complain about the inadequacies of The Spokesman-Review’s Sunday travel section.

I, too, am an avid traveler who finds it discouraging to always have to read The Seattle Times to find interesting international travel information. The “Vagabond” is great, but can’t you include more? The world is getting smaller every day. Get with the picture, Spokesman-Review. Michael J. Baumgartner Pullman