Letters To The Editor
SPOKANE MATTERS
‘Ditzy reasoning’ behind bridge ruling
The forces of ignorance are apparently going to triumph again, with the aid of the Department of Ecology.
How can a responsible public official kill the Lincoln Street Bridge project after years of studies, an approved environmental impact document, expenditures of more than $3 million in design, Department of Transportation recommendation for construction and, not the least, public participation in selection of bridge type? Apparently, the work of professionals is meaningless when “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state to the greatest extent possible” is endangered. (I wonder how Ecology views Washington Water Power’s hydro dam adjacent to the falls?)
Considering the deteriorated condition and antiquated structural design of the Monroe Street Bridge, it may not be feasible to rehabilitate it to meet today’s requirements. Also, in case it is forgotten, the majority of construction funds are from other sources and not from the citizens of Spokane.
The Department of Ecology’s ditzy reasoning and belated ruling to kill a needed project because “the bridge casts a shadow on the falls,” or some other giddy statement, is inconceivable.
Spokane is growing, despite the wishes of the bridge opponents, and to reject this opportunity for a new bridge at a relatively small cost to the community is insane. Fred C. Malstrom Spokane
High-cost parking unacceptable
On Friday, April 17, my girls and I rode with a friend down to the Convention Center to pick up Jr. Bloomsday packets for our kids. We went to park in one of the Diamond Parking lots across the street. We were told it would be $6 to park there.
Needless to say, we moved our car and looked for another parking space. We found one in front of the Convention Center, but it was a 10-minute parking space. We then had to hurry in and get our packets, and not stay to enjoy any of the trade show.
It is outrageous to have to pay more for parking than we had to pay to run the race.
Next year, if the packet pickup is at the Convention Center, my children will not participate in Jr. Bloomsday! The Jr. Bloomsday committee should highly consider moving the packet pickup to a place where parking is free. It’s too bad that money-hungry people have to ruin the nice things that Spokane does for its children. Pat L. Richling Spokane
THE ENVIRONMENT
Bill would prevent species act debacle
The February listing of several salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest may end up affecting the daily lives of more people than any other action in the Endangered Species Act’s 25-year history.
According to state officials, within 18 months on the outside, every watershed in Washington could contain listed species. If that happens, then all of the restrictions that are part of the current ESA will come crashing down throughout the state. The Puget Sound area will become the largest urban area ever affected by the ESA, and significant restrictions on water use will likely follow.
Does it make sense that a well-intentioned law like the ESA should cause anxiety? Most of us genuinely want to help imperiled species. Unfortunately, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service come knocking, they normally are bringing restrictions on property and water use.
There is legislation pending in the Senate, S1180, the Endangered Species Recovery Act, which makes common sense changes to the way the ESA is implemented. The bill will greatly improve how scientific decisions are made under the ESA, provide for greater public involvement in the decision-making process and provide incentives for private landowners to cooperate in species protection.
By requiring better science, people can feel more confident that a species listing is necessary. Local citizens finally will have a say in how the fish are protected.
S1180 will enhance the protection of endangered species while providing some relief to those citizens and businesses that may otherwise be prevented from going about their normal activities. James A. McClure, chairman National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, Washington, D.C.
Loomis settlement fair, helpful
Disputes have arisen regarding Department of Natural Resources (DNR) management of the Loomis State Forest, located west of Oroville. On one hand, there has been opposition to a slate of timber sales planned in virgin forest because these sales may harm lynx, grizzly bear, outdoor recreation and water quality, and on the other hand, to DNR’s purported failure to provide optimal return to their trust beneficiaries: state schools.
I believe a reasoned resolution of this dispute, that saves time and money, has been forged. The settlement requires conservationists challenging DNR actions in the Loomis forest to pay fair market value of resources and land. Estimates say this will generate between $8 million and $12 million for schools.
The settlement is focused on just 30,000 acres of the forest, or about 22 percent of the 134,000-acre Loomis.
Elsewhere in the Loomis State Forest, DNR will continue to remove timber to generate revenue for the Common School Trust and manage forests for a variety of objectives.
Portions of the Loomis Forest, and those involved in the settlement, are very special and provide for rare wildlife species, along with excellent outdoor recreation opportunities. The area is the home to the healthiest lynx population left in the contiguous 48 states.
The settlement provides a way out of costly litigation, fair-market compensation for natural resource withdrawals and protection of outdoor recreation and critical wildlife habitat.
Commissioner Jennifer Belcher has indicated funds generated from the settlement will be reinvested in new timberlands. Tim J. Coleman Republic, Wash.
Stimson agreement ‘a sick joke’
The Colville National Forest recently proposed a project called the Stimson Cost Share. Located southeast of Ione, near Molybdenite Mountain, this project would build roads, with a $35,000 tab to U.S. taxpayers, in order for the Stimson Lumber Co. to clearcut its inholdings in bull trout, caribou, lynx, grizzly bear and gray wolf habitat. The logging project is within critical habitat for all of these endangered wildlife species.
Stimson’s agreement with the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to “conserve” the grizzly bear by clearcutting amounts to a sick joke. Despite grizzly specialists’ recommendations, Stimson can build an unlimited amount of road.
Forest Service research in this grizzly bear area shows an increase in illegal road use every year on roads that are supposedly closed. An unlimited road density will allow poachers to decimate the wildlife in this area.
The LeClerc grizzly bear population is so sensitive that scientists state not one bear can be lost if this population is to survive. At present, grizzly specialists recognize this grizzly habitat as being the best in the entire lower 48 states.
The Forest Service blatantly shows its collusion with the timber industry as this project reeks of corporate welfare. It seems the only way to protect public lands for wildlife habitat and clean water is through wilderness designation. It’s no wonder a growing sector of the public supports more wilderness designations for our national forests. Elizabeth Allen Republic, Wash.
Ruined environment hurts poor most
Edmund Peterson (“Earth first, underprivileged second” Opinion, April 18) is obviously an educated and intelligent man, which makes it difficult to understand how he can take the position he does. His understanding is that by protecting the planet, on which we depend for life, we are discriminating against the poor and minorities. How can he not realize that the disadvantaged everywhere are the first to suffer when clean water, air and even food are in short supply?
Peterson talks about the cost of countering global warming. What about the cost of doing nothing? If you believe that global warming is real (and most of the scientific community not prejudiced by corporate money does) the consequences will be felt most by poor people. People in low regions of Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines, for example, will be flooded as the oceans rise. Rich people will move. Changes in weather patterns will cause crop failures. Rich people will pay more but poor people will starve.
Predictions that reducing greenhouse gasses will have dire consequences on the American economy ignore the opportunities opened up to business and industry by new technology in alternative energy sources, electric vehicles, environmental cleanup, etc.
The bottom line is that taking care of our planet benefits everyone. The rich and poor alike need clean water, air and food. Industrial polluters put their factories where the poor people are for a reason - so they can pay them pennies and they will not complain because they have no choice - while the fat cats set us to fighting each other. Judith Snider Coeur d’Alene
Did computers choke on low standards?
Idaho missed the deadline to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency a list of the almost 1,000 streams and lakes that are polluted and don’t meet water quality standards.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality claimed computer problems caused the delay. It should be noted that Idaho recently lowered the water quality standards of the Coeur d’Alene Basin by 265 percent to try to keep up with the mining filth pouring out of the Silver Valley.
Rather than enforce standards, corrupt politicians force state agencies to meet the needs of the polluters, in total disregard of water quality standards enacted to protect human health and the environment.
Maybe in this case the DEQ’s own computer system couldn’t compute this blatant violation and disregard of the purpose of water quality standards. If the standards are lowered to keep up with festering pollution, is the water then clean because it now meets the standard? Or, did the computers judge this garbage-in, garbage-out mentality and refuse to compute? Nancy Lynne Coeur d’Alene
GRASS FIELD BURNING
Growers’ notions about fairness odd
Re: Art Schultheis’ letter of April 12, “Zero emissions unfair to growers.”
Grass growers are again complaining about the “unfairness” of regulations. How ironic that they should speak of fairness. Was it fair when they ousted Spokane’s representative to the SCAPCA Board and stacked the board with industry supporters? Was it fair to deny 195,000 citizens of Spokane the right to choose their representative to that board? Was it fair when they went to Olympia behind our backs in 1995 and changed state laws to protect their “right” to pollute? Was it fair when they quietly derailed proposed regulation in 1971, 1977, 1983 and 1990?
Were they being fair when they promised us an end to burning in 1969 and then proceeded to increase their burned acreage from 16,000 to over 100,000 acres over the next couple of decades? Was it fair to tell us they were searching for alternatives when they were using taxpayer dollars to fund research to justify burning?
The industry has been neither fair nor honest with us. Grass growers have had 30 years to prepare for life without fire. That they used this time to engage in backroom politicking instead of learning to maximize their profits without matches is unfortunate, but it was the choice that they made. It is only fair that they should now have to live with it. The only thing that would be unfair would be to allow this industry to continue to injure us with their smoke. Laura L. Ackerman Spokane
LAW AND JUSTICE
Trigger lock law rationale faulty
Kudos to Carol Bordeaux (Letters, April 9) for coming out and saying what needed to be said about prosecuting gun owners if their guns are stolen and used in a crime.
But let’s not stop there. Let’s also prosecute car owners when their cars are stolen and used in a violent came. After all, they should have installed The Club on the car before they left it. Let’s prosecute anybody who’s ever had anything stolen that was later used in a crime. Then, the prisons will fill up so fast that the real offenders can be set free early and be put back on the streets, where they belong.
I’ve got a better idea. Why not prosecute the criminals who commit the crimes and make them pay with hard time - no cable TV, workout rooms, etc. - instead of making the victims pay? Dan J. Wright Hayden Lake, Idaho
Amendment applies to militia
G. Kendall Wilder (Letters, April 19) requests proof that the Second Amendment applies only to the militia, not to individuals. Rather than get confused by legal gobbledygook, lets look at a couple of simple examples.
The first part of the amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …” This portion designates the militia as applying to this amendment. Organizations that lie about the Second Amendment leave off this statement and quote only the last part.
If the Second Amendment applied to individuals, the Brady Law and banning of assault weapons would be overruled on Second Amendment grounds. They’re not - further proof that the amendment applies to the militia.
Wilder should provide a case where the Supreme Court overruled a gun control law on the basis of the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens, to believe it applies to individuals. Otherwise, the Second Amendment applies to the militia, not individuals. Walter A. Becker Pullman
Even Nazis have their rights
Dave G. Henderson’s Golden Pen letter (April 20) misses the point about U.S. democracy. He writes, “A law that permits Nazis to parade through an American community is wrong.”
It isn’t a law, it’s a right and it is embedded in our precious First Amendment. This very special right, so rare in other countries and so often under assault in our own, protects Nazis, communists, nudists, flag burners, flat Earthers, pacifists and any other group or person who wants to demonstrate for an idea that is not popular, or against one that is.
Henderson may be appalled and disgusted by Nazi vermin, as I am, but they have every constitutional expectation of being able to exercise their rights peacefully under the First Amendment.
The United States of America wouldn’t be the same without it. Fred Glienna Coeur d’Alene
IN THE PAPER
So right about telephone rigmarole
Three cheers for staff cartoonist Milt Priggee’s cartoon of April 10! I get so tired of getting layer after layer of recordings whenever I make a business call.
It doesn’t seems to matter who you call - the IRS, local governments, utility companies, banks, insurance companies, civil agencies, etc. I don’t know what demented person thought of that way for “sorting” out callers, but I hope they are roasting in hell.
Some day I shall stop doing business with all organizations that use this method. I miss the old fashioned receptionist who could listen to you for a few seconds then transfer you to the correct person right away.
I wish they would paste that cartoon on the front page of every major newspaper in the country. Michael E. Mayeau Spokane