Letters To The Editor

SPOKANE MATTERS

Salty’s deal questionable for city

I’ve been following the discussion regarding the sale of Salty’s former restaurant site to the city of Spokane. While I can appreciate a true businesslike decision to simply acquire the property, rather than spend a like amount to build around it, this would appear to go substantially beyond that concept.

Given the city’s comments that it would have cost approximately $2 million to build around it, a purchase price of $2.78 million seems inappropriate in it’s own right. Perhaps it is all relative, but $780,000 seems like a lot of money.

When you compound that sum with the removal of a property valued at somewhere between the $2.78 million and the $4.5 million in cost from the tax rolls, the immediate and long-term loss of revenues to the city are substantial.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the city’s decision to block development of riverfront property behind the downtown library. Again, a substantial project with material tax revenues for the city was killed.

Both projects get at another issue that appears to not be well thought out. Cities with vibrant downtown cores have one thing in common: a diverse downtown residential community. Both of these properties, under private development, would have contributed much more to that objective than the alternatives created by city government. Somehow, it seems a nice restaurant with a great view of the falls is much more attractive than the view of a bridge.

Let’s allow quality private development of the riverfront and expect more fiscal responsibility from our city. Robert L. McKean Spokane

City Hall ignores will of the people

I have a concern with the focus of city government. If we look at the last couple of weeks alone, we will find that it’s not in tune with what the people want. Local radio shows are filled with residents complaining about the state of our local government.

Why is Spokane’s government changing from a democracy to a dictatorship and aristocracy?

One issue that proves my point is the renovation of downtown Spokane. Our City Council refuses to allow the citizens to vote. First, they take millions of public dollars to help fund downtown development, then the City Council gave approval and passed the renovation as an emergency situation. As an emergency situation, people can’t collect signatures to force the matter onto the ballot.

Our city officials are using their own objectives and telling Spokane residents they know what is best for them.

Another issue is the debate over whether Clinkerdagger will get to use the old Salty’s location. The City Council is forcing Clinkerdagger to find a new location after it has already spent time and money on the old Salty’s location.

City government is supposed to reflect residents’ opinion, yet time and again, city officials bypass that opinion. Rachelle Way Mead

Redevelopment will succeed, briefly

After all the facts are considered and a little common sense mixed with a spoonful of knowledge about human nature is thrown in, I’ll make this prediction: If the River Park Square project is constructed as it is currently conceived and without some major changes, it will be way over budget. After the initial thrill, it will fall far short of expectations within three years. It will fail. You can chisel that in stone. David Bray Spokane

HUD funds come from taxpayers

Tax revenues will be used on the River Park Square development. One must realize that low-interest HUD loans are in fact tax dollars. All government money is derived from taxes, fees, fines or some other means of revenue generation.

As for coming up with a better plan, since when is it taxpaying citizens’ responsibility to make business decisions for private companies they have no interest in?

If I were a developer, I would pay for 100 percent of the project, including the garage. If I could not afford to pay 100 percent, I would sell up to 49 percent interest to outside investors. Therefore, nobody could call me a freeloader who’s feeding at the public trough. Steve Thompson Spokane

Time to get past wallet cramp

Yes, buy the land under Salty’s. Yes, repair these roads properly. Sound barriers along Maple and Ash. You have your north-south corridor already in place. Of course, time our traffic lights and install necessary left-turn lanes.

The money? Well, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to pay again for our enhanced life in paradise. No one told me doing time on planet Earth would be cheap. Did they you? Susanne Huyler Spokane

I plan to make officials job seekers

As I write my $453.35 check to license my 1995 Buick for 1997, I would like to thank the state of Washington, the county commissioners and our City Council for allowing me the privilege of driving on the award-winning potholed streets of Spokane for another year.

Keep up the good work. The elections are coming and you can count on my support for you finding the unemployment line. John B. Coffey Spokane

BUSINESS AND LABOR

Promote commercial property reuse

Don McCracken may be on to something (“Make Shadle Center a Wal-Mart,” Letters, Feb. 27). Not that I am a big supporter of Wal-Mart, but I very much agree with recycling of commercial properties into new ones.

Maybe we should start to consider new policies and zoning laws structured to encourage adaptive reuse of existing vacated or rundown properties. This could be applied not only downtown, where there are several excellent but empty buildings, but elsewhere in the county, such as along the Newport Highway and in the Valley.

For example, it’s crazy to see the sort of development that is occurring along Sullivan Road, where new super stores are built virtually across the road from empty super stores. Could Future Shop have moved into the vacated Smith’s Furniture building, instead of constructing another large structure?

Maybe some sort of disposal fee could be levied on all new commercial buildings constructed in green field locations, so that when they are vacated funds would be available to encourage new developers to adapt or modify an existing structure to their needs, rather than contribute to further sprawl and strip mall blight. Gerry Snow Spokane

Latest corporate panacea: comp time

From those who brought you downsizing comes another brilliant idea: comp time.

Since the great downsizing idea went into effect, the need for overtime has greatly increased. Lay workers off without decreasing production and you have to make up the work somewhere, hence, overtime.

Now, corporate America has decided out of the goodness of its collective heart that working men and women need more time with their families. I’m sure they do; they have to work a lot of overtime.

So, corporate America will let you work overtime. But, instead of paying you overtime pay, you get comp time off. Meanwhile, back on the job, someone will doing your job for straight time.

Instead of trying to do away with overtime, couldn’t they just hire back enough people to do the job?

As for spending time with our families, it’s too bad that in most families both parents must work just to make a decent living. If caring corporations would have increased our wages at the same percentage rate their profits have grown in the last decade, our families would be much better off.

Little perks like overtime were hard come by. If they go away, they will be even harder to get back. Some people need some overtime pay once in a while to make ends meet. Bill Carter Newport, Wash.

Comp time bills bad deal for workers

I want to clarify some misconceptions regarding the socalled Working Families Flexibility Act (HR1 and S4).

Supporters say the legislation is directed primarily at helping working Americans balance their work and family responsibilities. This is a sham. Under the proposed legislation, employers get to determine when you work and when you can take time off.

“Comp time” is not flex time and should not be confused with flex time. Nothing in the proposed legislation would give workers greater control over when or how long they work or when they may take time off. No matter how much comp time an employee accumulates, the employers will maintain control over when a worker may use that time.

Comp time is a luxury many workers cannot afford. They and their families have come to depend on overtime to maintain their standard of living and make up declining real wages.

Substituting comp time for paid overtime could cut a worker’s take home pay by over 25 percent.

Enforcement protections are inadequate and there is no practical way to enforce them. In the real world, a law that makes it possible for employers to work an employee 50, 60 or more hours per week - without cash compensation - will be abused by greedy employers seeking competitive advantage.

For these reasons, we oppose this attack on our current overtime laws. When changes can occur that support true flex time provisions and an enforceable remedy for abuses in the system, we could support those changes. Larry L. Kenck, business representative Teamsters Union Local No. 582

OVER THE LINE

Hagadone plea a nonstarter

Chris Peck’s Feb. 16, editorial was outstanding. I hope Duane Hagadone read it. I have just one thing to add.

I wonder if Hagadone has ever surveyed the population of Northern Idaho to see how many residents bring home paychecks from Eastern Washington. There are many of them. This says that Washington dollars are supporting Idaho, too. His comment to Idaho residents to spend their paychecks in Idaho to keep money in Idaho is a slam at Washington employers.

Many people from Washington pay property taxes at Idaho lakes, patronize the merchants and pay out-of-state fishing license fees. If Hagadone would take a closer look at the license plates at Silver Lake Mall and the Post Falls Factory Outlets, he see that many Washington people are spending money they earned in Washington at those Idaho businesses.

Hagadone should quit his crying. We really don’t feel sorry for him. Shirley Wilson Spokane