Letters To The Editor

SPOKANE MATTERS

Breaking word costly in many ways

I urge the Spokane City Council to honor the city of Spokane’s pledge of parking meter revenues to River Park Square parking garage bondholders. The pledge was an inducement for the developer to develop the garage and for the bondholders to fund the project.

I further urge the council to reject calls to disband the Public Development Authority. Failure to honor the pledge and/or disbanding the PDA would have serious and long-lasting negative consequences for the city and its taxpayers.

The $450,000 requested by the PDA to fund its cash flow deficit is referred to by some as a loan. To my knowledge, the city’s pledge of revenues does not condition the pledge on advances to the PDA being in the form of a loan, nor for the PDA to demonstrate repayment capacity in regard to the advance.

The magnitude of negative impacts upon the city if the pledge is not honored and there is a default upon the bond payments cannot be underestimated. The council and media should take note of the arguable fallout that could be the historical outcome of public entities defaulting on bond obligations, constricting capital availability and making the cost of borrowing much more expensive over new bond issuances’ lives, potentially far eclipsing the funding requests of the PDA.

I have yet to hear that a comprehensive analysis of the risk of not honoring the revenue pledge has been undertaken and aired. John M. Bennett Spokane

Don’t make this Deadbeat City

In commerce of any kind, trust is a key factor, but in the world of finance it’s the linchpin of any agreement. Documents are signed by both parties, but it’s the trust that binds them. The documents really address how the parties will proceed if the trust is broken.

The city of Spokane in effect entered into an agreement with bondholders, pledging under certain conditions revenues from parking meters. One condition has developed and the City Council is debating, because some members are suspicious of the garage purchase price, whether or not to violate the trust between the city and the bondholders.

It’s important to remember that any representations made to the city by the developers are irrelevant to the city’s obligation to the bondholders. To renege on this agreement with the bondholders would be like discontinuing payments to your home mortgage lender because your contractor didn’t do a good enough job.

The Northwest is already well known for one of this nation’s greatest financial failures, the WPPSS bond debacle. We don’t want the city of Spokane and this region to become an icon for financial failure. If the city may elect not to honor its commitments, is the developer free to withhold the increased real estate taxes that are generated from the project? Would this also be true for the increased sales tax revenue?

City Council, honor the obligations made in our name. If there are legitimate claims against the developer, pursue them in the proper venue. But don’t turn the city of Spokane into a deadbeat institution. Al Payne Spokane

Let `awards’ flow both ways

Re: your coverage of the April 17 Spokane City Council meeting.

City Councilman Steve Eugster has been “awarded” attorney fees for one of his many pre-election litigations against the city. Now, common sense would dictate that he, in turn, reimburse the rest of us, the taxpayers of Spokane, for our attorney fees which were spent defending our city against Eugster’s other unsuccessful legal efforts. His legal record against Spokane, as previously chronicled by your paper, rates well below Shaquille O’Neal’s free-throw percentage. This is to say that Eugster has been found, by the courts, to be wrong more often than right in his legal assertions, allegations and accusations against Spokane.

Eugster may well become a fine council member but how he got there was ugly. Like the most vocal, disgruntled parent who takes over after running off the youth sports coach, Eugster would have done better to help recruit a more qualified, less biased candidate than himself. Now that he’s the main man on the council team, please consider publishing exactly how much Spokane has spent defending itself/ourselves against Eugster’s pre-election charges. I’ll divide that amount into the total number of city residents to figure out exactly how much Eugster should “award” each and every one of us. Don McIntyre Spokane

OVER THE LINE

Freedom mashed behind Spud Curtain

I have been watching with interest the thought police in Idaho’s government who are deciding what it is politically correct for Idahoans to hear or see in the domain of public broadcasting. Not far from there, is it, to the imposition of what it shall be politically correct to think?

But I have noted the slowly growing power of the Republican-right wing-Christian Coalition connection in Idaho - and the suppression of free thought is what history has always shown that kind of grouping to produce. It is no wonder that fascists find Idaho a comfortable place to live in, is it?

But don’t worry, Idahoans who can still recognize the importance of freedom of expression, Radio Free Washington will continue to send out the signals of free speech over the Spud Curtain until the Idaho thought police begin to jam our signals or the fascists (the masters of propaganda and thought control) overthrow our free government in Washington state. George T. Thomas Spokane

HIGHER EDUCATION

Spitzer did the right thing

Father Robert Spitzer owed it to the students, their parents, and the stakeholders of Gonzaga University to not allow Planned Parenthood to speak to the Women’s Studies Club.

Gonzaga is a Catholic school which therefore teaches and upholds the tenets of the Catholic faith. One of those tenets is the protection of life. If you do some serious investigation, you’ll find that Planned Parenthood’s goals, activities and behavior do support abortion and are opposite those of the Catholic Church and Gonzaga University.

Parents do not send their sons and daughters to Gonzaga so they can learn the so-called merits of abortion (of which there are none). They send them there to learn how to live their lives in consonance with Jesus Christ and the church he founded.

Spitzer has done the right thing and to do otherwise would be a betrayal of the values of Gonzaga, the parents, the students and the stakeholders. So don’t try to persuade Spitzer to betray these values in the name of academic freedom. Marilyn Hunt Post Falls

WSU doesn’t deserve all this ridicule

Re: Milt Priggee cartoon of April 19.

I spent the first 18 years of my life growing up in Spokane and being active in the community. I spent countless hours performing volunteer work and working in community organizations for youths. I still consider myself to be a member of the Spokane community, even although I have chosen to pursue my academic career at Washington State University.

Recently, a few incidents have sparked a gross generalization of the student population at WSU. Now the community that once nurtured me, and that I served, mocks my school and my judgment for choosing to attend this university.

I remind you that the recent incidents, although disturbing, have been committed by an incredibly small percentage of the student population. These incidents are in no way related to the level of education provided by the university.

Please take notice that the university is constantly making efforts to improve student and community relations. Maybe before you stereotype members of your own community, you should take a trip down here to Pullman and observe for yourself the level of education your state is providing.

Actually, I will let you know myself: it is excellent. Carolyn Eller WSU College of Business and Economics, Pullman

LAW AND JUSTICE

Young writer on right track to truth

I have watched with some interest the discussion of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which was occasioned by 15-year-old Nowell Bamberger in his April 14 letter concerning his understanding of the phrase. So far it appears that you have collected a series of personal opinions from writers who have strong convictions concerning their position on the issue. However, when Mark Woodrow (Letters, April 22) raised the issue of education on the matter, I felt compelled to inject a scholarly note into the mix.

For anyone who really wants to know what the founding fathers understood by the phrase “to bear arms” as it appears in the Second Amendment, and why the Second Amendment was even proposed by Madison at all, I recommend you read a bestselling book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Garry Wills, titled, “A Necessary Evil.” When you have read this scholarly approach (just look at the bibliography), you will conclude that Nowell is closer to the truth, based upon historical records and research, than any of the subsequent writers. Howard Herman Opportunity

Founding fathers’ intent clear

In response to Nowell Bamberger (Letters, April 14) there is documentation so numerous as to the intentions of the founding fathers that one wonders where to begin. People have the right to arms. This is true and believed to be one of the “inalienable rights.” Patrick Henry: “The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it … The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun.” To say that a wealthy American can then be justified in owning his own personal nuclear warhead is reaching and bordering on the absurd.

The “militia” is also documented well. But rather than quoting the writers of the Constitution, I will summarize with Title 10, U.S. Code, Sec. 311. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age … (b) The classes of militia are: 1) The organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval militia; and 2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval militia.” This last item would be all the remaining citizens.

To obtain a more substantial viewpoint, I would then refer to Samuel Adams, “The said Constitution shall be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press … or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Mark Liptrap Spokane

THE MEDIA

`Wonderland’ an inexcusable horror

March 30, ABC television premiered a new series titled “Wonderland”. I am writing to express my shock and dismay over the airing of this program.

This show depicts people with mental illness in the most dehumanizing and stigmatizing ways. It demeans and denigrates people, and I urge ABC to drop the series. Not only is Wonderland stigmatizing, it will discourage many people from seeking treatment for illnesses that are highly treatable.

I am appalled at the dehumanizing and disrespectful portrayal of people with mental illness. As the title suggests, Wonderland has a zoo-like quality, depicting one bizarre and strange character after another. The show atmosphere portrays those with mental illnesses as freaks.

The shows are incredibly violent, with intensely graphic portrayals of every violent incident. Throughout the show there is a persuasive hopelessness, with little hope of recovery for anyone with a mental illness.

In addition to the incredibly stigmatizing effect of this show, there are also mental health risks. For people who may be seeking treatment, this show will quickly discourage them from doing so. For some that are at risk of suicide, the grim portrayals of violence and hopelessness can increase their personal risk. For consumers, family members, and practitioners, this show will have an upsetting and depressing effect.

People with mental illness are not the violent, uncontrollable people that the show depicts, yet the show leaves millions of Americans with exactly that impression. Please help remove the stigma from mental illness. Joyce Hughett President, National Alliance for Mentally Ill, Coeur d’Alene

Writer makes a good case, all right

Re: the April 21 “Random computation” letter by Dr. James A. Foster.

Foster’s letter about the plausibility of the creation of order through random processes was the most eloquent argument in favor of intelligent design I’ve ever seen in this paper.

Foster uses his work in “evolutionary computation” as proof that evolution in nature is possible through “competition” of large numbers of randomly selected programs, with a slight bias toward the more successful programs. Sure enough, that slight bias allows the more successful programs to eventually overwhelm the less competitive ones - just as Foster designed the system to work.

He is the man behind the curtain.

If Foster or anyone else thinks that evolutionary computation could happen without that man pushing the buttons in the background, setting the system in motion and maintaining it, they are probably just as willing to ignore the presence of the Man behind the Veil who set our universe in motion and maintains it. Steven D. Gilchrist Pullman

Gun rights tie-in lame

I am deeply disappointed with The Spokesman-Review. I have noticed a lack of unbiased news reporting in your “news” paper. Now I see nothing short of a blatant attempt to push it’s own political agenda through the use of tabloid-style tactics.

“Yates sided with NRA” and “Suspect defended guns.” Indeed! Shame on you for your meaningless reporting. This is news?

What if you printed “Yates enjoyed reading books” or “Suspect defended instant replays for baseball.” Would this mean these activities were less than appropriate for the rest of us? Your attempt to offer Yates’ opinions as proof that guns are bad (you don’t even get specific, i.e. handguns), you just group all guns together. What if we grouped all of anything together? All cars are bad (they kill too!) all sports are bad (hey, I’ve seen people get hurt) etc.

I suggest The Spokesman-Review gets off whatever high horse you are on and get back to reporting facts. Stop pushing your political views on your readers. The very minimum you should do is print equally inflammatory statements of the opposing viewpoint, such as “Lots of law abiding citizens support” or “Prominent, good person defends guns.”

You have a responsibility to your readers. That responsibility does not include attempts to sway public opinion with ridiculous statements like those found in the April 21 edition. Paul Schenkenberger Spokane