Letters To The Editor

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

On balance, change seems ill-advised

Re: The recent semi-public meeting regarding publicly funded mental health services. The process was interesting, with trained professionals’ views diverging. One neglected item was the effects on patients caught in the middle.

Not part of either system, I felt free to draw my own conclusions.

1. The state in no way is mandating the death of possibly their most successful program. It provides guidelines but can easily live with our local decisions.

2. Spokane Mental Health (SMH) cannot survive its loss as the lead provider agency. Everything from its budget to its personnel and all its physical plant depends on an integrated program. It cannot become “just another agency.”

3. RSN staff are more interested in controlling rather than working with an existing, well-functioning, awardwinning mental health service.

4. Costs can only go up because of service duplication. Do we really need 37 offices? SMH has held administrative costs to 12 percent. Even RSN’s optimistic projections envision 23 percent overhead.

5. The money source is relatively fixed and limited. Increased overhead for these many competing agencies can only come out of patient care. Naturally, the least desirable (but often most necessary) of these programs will be hit hardest. Who wants to bid for a money-losing service?

As Dr. Mark Mays said, a leg, once amputated, cannot be put back on. RSN would be better served by cooperating with SMH, working to resolve what few differences they have. SMH has, from the beginning, been very responsive to change and evolution. John F. Driscoll, M.D. Spokane

SPOKANE MATTERS

Developers too often get their way

Recently, the owners of property located around Woolard Road in Colbert received a “notice of application” letter from county planners. It informed us that a 491-acre parcel, now zoned five-acre minimum build, was under consideration for rezone to two-acre minimum build lots.

We, as neighbors and property owners, met and wrote our objections to this change. The location of 189 homes with septic tanks next to or around our property was unacceptable.

Our concerns centered on the effect the sewage from these homes would have on our water wells as the effluent would eventually seep into the aquifer and pollute our water supply. We currently are monitored for seepage from the old Colbert landfill for the same reason.

Our second concern was the impact on the local schools, of which some are already at the bursting point. There were other concerns as to the ability of the roads to carry the additional traffic, who pays when the wells are polluted and new taxes for school expansion.

I left a packet with our concerns and other information with the senior planner and for each of our county commissioners. I know the planner will read them but how about our elected officials? I am waiting to hear from them.

Why do we have zoning requirements that we must live by but developers pay no attention to or get changed faster than we change our socks? Is is because developers contribute large sums to election campaigns?

When will elected officials begin to listen to needs and desires of the majority? Anyone want to take bets on who wins and loses on the rezone? William W. Waddell Colbert

Pupo’s going about it all wrong

I am not in favor of City Manager Bill Pupo’s latest proposal to raise the fees on parking meters downtown and to increase the fines for parking tickets. Actually, I am not in favor of any proposal that would put more money into the city coffers to be spent on overpriced consultants’ fees or expensive pieces of real estate.

I suggest that angle-in parking be used and limited to one side only on the downtown streets. I suggest that meter fees be lowered and that parking tickets be dispensed sparingly.

It would be useful for members of the meter patrol to attend classes in public relations so they can learn how they can help create a friendly image for Spokane by issuing warnings occasionally and giving drivers a little leeway, instead of standing in front of meters waiting for the time to run out.

Spokane’s downtown merchants need such measures in order to survive. The City Council should be working creatively to help them survive instead of trying to find ways to wring more money from them.

We have a wonderful downtown in which to shop, do business and have fun. Let’s work to preserve that unique area that can only enhance our city’s image as a great place to live and work. Mary Lou Joseph Spokane

We deserve better than study fiasco

I am alarmed and outraged by the reckless manner in which the city of Spokane officials have handled the incinerator study. It’s bad enough that I have to read reports from time to time that Spokane’s air quality in certain categories is among the worst in the country, but to know that we have a potential serious health risk which the city itself generates and that the city seems unwilling to do a thorough and credible study of is unacceptable.

What is going on? Don’t these people live here and raise their children here? I want to know the real risks the incinerator poses to my community!

Why should Kathryn Kelly be given a third or fourth chance? She’s years late with a faulty, unusable study on a problem which could have very deleterious health consequences for Spokane residents. With her delays, as well as her faulty science, I find it incredible that the city has kept her on the job. Perhaps there are more romantic liaisons yet to be uncovered?

I find it even more incredible and disheartening that city officials aren’t profoundly embarrassed by this obvious breach of public trust in them. They should be doing everything in their power to give Spokane residents the information we deserved to have had years ago. Sarah L. Conover Spokane

Looking good along North Monroe

Spokane is my adopted city. I confess that I am just as guilty as the next person writing a letter to the editor when it comes to grousing about this and that. But this letter is a song of praise to the businesses along Monroe Street north of the bridge.

Derelict buildings are slowly being removed, replaced or restored. Business owners are planting trees - wonderful green, living trees - along the sidewalk edges. The latest plantings went in this week in front of an ambulance company. Trees keep marching north and it looks so good!

Way to go, North Monroe! Tina Wynecoop Colbert

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

Hippies generation strikes again

Republicans say the crisis in the White House isn’t about sex, but about perjury, abuse of power, witness tampering and sexual harassment - all serious legal charges. They’re right, of course, but I’m compelled to suggest that the crisis has as much to do with sex as law breaking.

This effort to minimize all the immorality and lawbreaking is part of a prolonged episode to legitimize sex outside of marriage. It is about the radicals of the 1960s and their modern fellow travelers who have struggled for decades to advance the idea that sexual activity of any kind between consenting adults should be accepted by the culture and evoke no serious condemnation, even if it is lied about before a grand jury, and even if it’s sex in the workplace with a subordinate!

Their advocacy of this radical view of sexual freedom is so important to them that they can even overlook serious crime connected with it.

But common sense and the destructive statistics of our social retrogression of the last decades tell us all we need to know.

To protect the president and sexual freedom, some liberals and feminists have modified their ideas about the Constitution, sexual harassment laws, perjury, etc. They say sexual harassment laws don’t apply in this case because it was consensual sex; perjury doesn’t count in this case because it was just about sex, and everybody lies about sex. If they get their way, we can close the book on sexual harassment convictions and certain other crimes in high places. What a dark day that will be. George E. Weber Colbert

Think about the precedent

For those who insist there is a huge difference between Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachment conditions, I offer the following excerpt from the Wall Street Journal.

In Nixon’s Articles of Impeachment, the first three listed offenses were:

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers of the United States.

2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers of the United States.

3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers of the United States.

Pardon me, but I don’t see much difference. What’s that, you say? One was about illegal entry and the other was just about sex. Everyone does that. No harm done.

Well, what about setting a precedent? How can our county commissioners fire Public Works Director Dennis Scott for having a consensual relationship with an employee if it’s OK for the president to have one? Will Scott be entitled to sue the county for damages using the Clinton defense?

If there is no other reason to impeach Clinton (and there are many) he must be impeached to preclude the Dennis Scotts of the world from emulating him without consequences. Hal R. Dixon Spokane

Precedent goes way back

I read in a newspaper that President Thomas Jefferson had illicit sex with a female minor. Whether or not he was questioned on this matter, and if so, whether or not he lied to a high court was not determined for sure. However, Thomas Jefferson was not impeached.

It appears we have had character of low morality in the top office of this country in the past. Why pick on Clinton for his lying and loose morals when the precedent was establishment almost 200 years ago? I suggest that we let the president off the hook. To all you young aspiring politicians, I suggest that later, when you get in office, if you are ever questioned about your extracurricular night life, just admit it and maybe you won’t even have to pay the lady. Waldo Larson Laclede, Idaho

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Back off from applying ‘hate’ label

The D.F. Oliveria and Jamie Neely editorials of Nov. 6 regarding hate in our society merely contribute to the problem. Liberal Neely’s inflammatory labels leave the impression all Christians are far-right-wing gay bashers and all talk show hosts are spewing venom. Oliveria suggests both Democrats and Republican are radicals who foment hate.

As was pointed out, words and their usage affect the way we respond. For several months, both Linda Smith and Patty Murray recklessly branded one another as extremist hoping to incite a negative reaction, but not to cause someone to do physical harm.

Part of the Clinton legacy is James Carville’s vitriolic vendettas against anyone who dares disagree with them - perhaps the most disgusting political strategy since yellow journalism attacks early this century.

Politicians and the media carelessly apply negative terms to broad groups such as religious folk and radio talk show hosts. We know there are conservative-Christian Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. I’ve listened to talk show hosts on both sides of the political fence.

In reality, the Democrats would dearly love to have the despicable conservative Christian Coalition on their side, just as the Republicans would be thrilled with the support of those miserable unions. Most radio talk shows that I’ve heard are often funny and at least give rise to examining my own viewpoint.

It’s time to drop the word “hate” from media lingo as being destructive to our resolving society’s disagreements and problems. Surely, less-provocative terms can be found. We need to live in a softer, kinder world - please. William H. Allison Medical Lake

Keep S-R endorsers short and sweet

In regard to The Spokesman-Review’s endorsement in the last election, I suggest that in the next election, you get some third-graders from a local school. Your endorsements stunk. I am almost sure the third-graders could do a better job. Oscar S. Peterson Coeur d’Alene

OTHER TOPICS

Funny money: Look who’s talking

“Records paint GOP donor as bully” featured Thomas Stewart, Seattle businessman, who paid the third-largest fine in U.S. history for campaign violations. Many readers probably thought, Serves him right. But wait! Compare the campaign violations of the Washington Education Association and National Education Association, and the fines Attorney General Christine Gregoire levied against them.

Stewart contributed, but hid from the public, private funds of $60,000 to a city ballot measure campaign. For this, the state received $570,000 in penalties and investigation costs, plus $62,250 in civil penalties.

For hiding roughly $100,000 of contributions to candidates (federal violation), Stewart was penalized $100,000, 60 days confinement, 160 hours of community service and his company was fined $4.8 million.

The NEA contributed, but hid from the public, $410,000 paid to a statewide initiative campaign. The WEA contributed $430,841, but reported only $58,000 to the Public Disclosure Commission. Almost $4 out of every $5 contributed to the No on Initiative 177 & 173 Committee came from teachers union payroll deductions. WEA also spent $219,000 on television advertising.

For admitted violations of $695,304 laundered into just one anti-initiative campaign, WEA was fined $430,000. (Until a group of teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation blew the whistle, only $208,500 of the total $1,059,841 was reported to the PDC.) Penalties were paid with teachers’ dues.

Stewart gave $160,000 and was fined $5 million. WEA admits to $695,304 and was fined $430,000. Worse yet, WEA has written “guidelines” that establish a “tolerance policy” to assure that in the future unions will not need to hide their use of involuntary payroll deductions for politics.

Who’s the real bully? Alexandra Ockey Spokane

Children mean too little - how true

How timely, that article regarding the outrage people express when an animal has been abused versus the more usual lack of outrage to the same treatment of a child.

One child abuse expert said the fundamental reform needed is that “kids would have to matter in ways that, right now, they really don’t.” The article writer noted that “It would be nice if as many people worried as much about protecting our own young.”

How tragically appropriate is such an observation in the wake of the good citizens of Spokane and Washington state overwhelmingly defeating an initiative to ban the gruesome and barbaric partial birth murder of a child. R. Paul Unger Spokane

Money trail leads to sorry conclusion

I recycle almost everything, my bank checks are through Greenpeace and heck, I’m a native Californian. All the above should qualify me as an environmentalist. But after reading the articles regarding the battles the Makah Indian Tribes have been fighting to harvest four whales a year to feed their people, I’m getting a little irritated.

To add to my irritation, I recently read an article in Life magazine stating $12.8 million-plus has already been spent to save another whale that may or may not make it. Add that to the $22,000-plus legal fees the protestors at Neah Bay have incurred. I’m sure you get the picture.

Imagine how that money could have been spent to better humanity. Anita F. Newman Newport, Wash.