Letters To The Editor

WASHINGTON STATE

Facts needed to fight West Side abuses

So, it would be “bad public policy” to stop dumping West Side prison inmates on Spokane? Are we to become the state’s new penal colony, a little Australia? It certainly underscores the attitude of West Siders toward us, doesn’t it?

The problem is compounded by finances. Property taxes per thousand dollars of actual selling price used to be far lower in Seattle than here, and probably still are. In addition, I remember an article in The Spokesman-Review years ago that showed the percentage of state taxes actually spent in the county of origin. East Side percentages were low but West Side percentages were far higher. If I remember correctly, King County got back 120 percent of its tax revenues from the state.

This may well explain the chronic money problems in our city and county governments. Why does the other side of the state seem to have enough money for roads, police and such while we do not? This has the result of compounding the problem of criminals being dumped in our city.

This problem may be partly perceptual. Certainly my complaints are not based on current statistics. On the other hand, it does Spokane no service either to ignore injustice or to allow unfounded resentment.

It is time for The Spokesman-Review to fully uncover the truth about this problem. Disseminating a true accounting of state finances overall and in relation to the dumping of state criminals wholesale in Spokane is necessary to give Spokane citizens the information needed to level the playing field. Bradley W. Donaldson Spokane

Munro brainstorm just an ill wind

“Munro urges state to avoid hiring smokers” (Jan. 5) dealt with effects of tobacco on employment. The article outlined Secretary of State Ralph Munro’s proposal to disallow government employment of people who use tobacco in any form.

The proposal itself is structurally flawed. The use of tobacco products, cigarettes in particular, is not illegal. Hiring on the basis of this requirement, therefore, would be fundamentally unconstitutional.

As stated in the Constitution, all citizens have equal opportunity under the law, which in this case extends to the work force.

Secondly, the proposal defines “tobacco users” as employee-hopefuls who smoke not only in the work environment, but also in their personal life. If other regulations, such as the restriction of sexual promiscuity or even a dress code, cannot be enforced outside of the work environment, then it seems illogical to demand employees not to smoke outside of their job.

Although I am in favor of the idea behind the proposal, it is undemocratic to impress such requirements on those seeking jobs. This proposal might be more plausible if tobacco use were to become illegal. Enforcement of the prerequisites would then be possible. Until that time, however, tobacco use may be legally prohibited only while working. Jeffrey W. Steen Liberty Lake

SPOKANE MATTERS

Annex decision is a done deal

In response to Lindy Haunschild’s letter of Feb. 2 and all those in favor of keeping the Lewis and Clark annex, I would like them to realize who this annex decision is for. It’s for the students who will be using the facilities and benefiting from the renovation.

I am a student at Lewis and Clark High School and was ASB secretary last semester. In an ideal world, anyone would like to keep the annex. We don’t live in an ideal world, though. To keep the annex, construction time would increase, the amount of money necessary to complete the project would increase and the space where the annex sits couldn’t be utilized as well.

I’ve been to some of the meetings concerning the renovation project. At all of these meetings, there were people for and against demolishing the annex, but the one constant on both sides was to do what is best for the students. This is what is important. The original vote was unanimous when the annex decision was voted upon and that is what ought to stand.

Do we as a country say, Oh, the president I wanted didn’t win so we should re-vote? I don’t think so. Financially, it’s much wiser to demolish the annex and the pros for keeping the annex don’t outweigh the cons.

The decision has been made. All the debate over the annex is going to do is potentially slow the renovation project altogether and hurt the students. And the students are who count in this decision. Scott A. Wolf, age 17 Spokane

Keep `beautifully made’ building

Milt Priggee’s Feb. 3 cartoon hit a nerve already raw from looking at the state of Spokane’s architecture. The depiction of the Lewis and Clark annex as an historic outhouse actually reflects more the outhouse state of mind of “modern” bizarre architecture and its lack of historic perspective.

It’s one thing to tear down an ugly outhouse; quite another when it’s a beautifully made brick building - especially when the proposed changes so lack the grace of the old design.

Only history could bring back the beauty of the Greco-Roman legacy as the Renaissance. Only history could give the Gothic Revival to the Victorians. And only history can be the wakening kiss from the architectural sleep of the Depression and world wars, which is all the likes of Priggee and current Spokane government have evidently known.

The nation must again have naturalistic decoration for its boxy buildings; people, animals and plants and related forms, not just garish geometrical circles and triangles.

Of course beauty and quality construction are expensive, but so are dull, depressed, angry children whose legacy has been demolished. How can students admire the beauty in themselves and others if they are stuffed into ugly schools? Who would want to live, work and pay taxes in a “modern” Spokane?

Perhaps Priggee doesn’t like the courthouse, St.John’s or Spokane’s many other historic beauties, either. They were maybe “too expensive” then, but they were built and give us joy. Reed R. Lockwood, M.D. Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

We’re with loyal Steelworkers family

We support the Kaiser Aluminum Steelworkers! Our mom, Kim Haight, worked there for 25 years. When Mom unexpectedly passed away last summer, the Kaiser community showed us their care and concern. Many of them attended the graveside service. They gave us each Olive Wood Bibles and filled our house with beautiful flowers. The Kaiser employees were more than just co-workers; they were our mom’s best friends.

For many years we have watched the workers help each other and their families at different times. We have seen them willing to work overtime and stay late on short notice. They always would watch out for and protect one another.

Our mom’s friends from Kaiser showed us their love and support. Now, it is our turn to do the same and show our love and support for them. We hope Kaiser management will soon settle the lockout so all will get a fair deal. Tammy and Janelle Haight, ages 15 and 13 Post Falls

Surplus calls for prompt refund

It’s not a budget surplus, it’s a tax overcharge. I want my overcharge back, and I want it now! Jon J. Tuning Spokane

Conviction doesn’t require removal

Conviction in a Senate impeachment trial does not require removal from office. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Hamilton states impeachment trials will result from “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Here Hamilton sets the minimum requirement for impeachment. The key word is “misconduct.”

The founders chose their words very carefully, and the word isn’t “crime” or “high crime,” it’s “misconduct.” There’s clearly a distinction between misconduct and crimes listed in Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution.

Removal of a president is a required punishment for only the worst of crimes: “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Punishment for conviction of a lesser offense isn’t mentioned in Article II, Section 4. One must look to Article I, Section 3: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” Here, the founders are setting the maximum punishment for conviction. The key word here is “further;” a lesser punishment is allowed.

The president can be convicted of an offense that doesn’t rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and not even receive senatorial punishment. Those who say conviction equals removal need to simply read the words.

Unfortunately, our political process is being increasingly controlled by the extreme elements of society. Please bring control of our government back to the middle. Support conviction without removal. Roger Whitten Oakesdale, Wash.

Remember, it’s `through’ whatever

Re: Starting of the new millennium. One decade is 10 years - 1 through 10. One century is 100 years. One millennium is 1000 years. So, the first decade would be year 1 through 10, the second decade year would be 11 through 20 and so on. The same applies to centuries and millennia. Therefore, the new millennium starts will Jan. 1, 2001. When counting, you don’t start with 0 through 0; it’s 1 through 10, “through” being the key word. Kay M. Cameron Spirit Lake