Letters To The Editor

SPOKANE MATTERS

Plenty of precedent for bad decision

The vote by County Commissioners Kate McCaslin and Phil Harris to allow the Market Pointe II development to encroach on the river’s protected zone is bad news for Spokane. However, it fits perfectly with the ragtag look of Spokane - a place that has obviously caved in to the demands of developers through the decades to the loss of much of its natural beauty.

Now, at the expense of public river lands, we get to have yet another shopping mall. McCaslin and Harris must be blind to the boarded-up storefronts and bankrupt malls in Spokane.

We live in a place of low salaries, flat population growth, a five-year high in foreclosures, empty office buildings and, most important, a place with almost one-third of its residents living at the poverty level. Is it any wonder that the people can’t even support existing retail space? This reality of Spokane in year 2000 is the result of past planning/development decisions by officials. Boy, were they wrong!

The Spokane River is our finest natural resource Despite McCaslin’s view, the river shoreline supports not only birds and bunnies, but mink, beaver, the occasional coyote and even the odd moose - as recent tracks attest. The river is the lifeblood of our aquifer and could be the linchpin of a major beautification and reclamation of Spokane. But not if our officials sacrifice protected shoreline to parking garages and shopping malls, etc.

Hopefully, the Department of Ecology can provide the vision so sorely lacking locally. Judy A. Belous Spokane

A bad call badly made

I am dismayed at our county commissioners for the way they voted on the Hansen project by the Spokane River. Commissioners Kate McCaslin and Phil Harris have obviously not cross country skied or hiked, or biked by the river. Otherwise, they would not have so eagerly and thoughtlessly given up a beautiful, serene and peaceful part of Spokane.

There is only one river that flows through this valley. Therefore, every effort should be made to preserve this natural icon. We already have plenty of places to shop. Now they want to shop on the river?

And McCaslin, you buckled under because of developers? Haven’t you figured out that developers will not be happy until all the land is used up? I will remember come voting time your casual comment, “What’s the big deal, there’s only a few birds and rabbits there.”

I appreciate John Roskelley’s compassionate concern for our county. Maybe losing one’s temper isn’t the way to go about it, but at least he didn’t give away something so beautiful and irreplaceable because of pressure from big business. He also had a right to have his opinions recorded. McCaslin and Harris and the rest did not give any thought to the voters - the people who live here and love the river in its natural state. Marion Bageant Spokane

Roskelley alone gets it right

I was disturbed to read that the county commissioners approved Raymond Hanson’s mini-mall project along the Centennial Trail. As a nearly daily user of this treasure, I feel it is sad to lose more woods, peace and quiet along the river and replace it with trash, neon lights and polluting cars.

I fully expected county Commissioner Phil Harris’ support for the project, since he has never met a parking lot he didn’t love. But Commissioner Kate McCaslin was a great disappointment in cowering to the likes of Hanson.

Only Commissioner John Roskelley is mindful of the quality of life in Spokane County and continues his hard fight to preserve it.

Even though I have been a lifelong supporter of the party of the great conservationist, Theodore Roosevelt, I will have no trouble working for Roskelley’s re-election by giving him my full support. How did the Republicans ever lose that great legacy?

Commissioners Harris and McCaslin, take me off your mailing list now! Jake Laete Spokane

Roskelley, yes; Wasteland, no

John Roskelley as an elected county official may not speak for all those who would define natural beauty as more black asphalt and gray monoliths of concrete. He does speak for me and many others who are increasing alarmed by the seeming willingness of two county commissioners continuing to encourage the development of an aesthetic wasteland.

Three cheers for Roskelley’s exhibition of outrage. This I also share, due to the myopic display by Commissioners Kate McCaslin and Phil Harris.

I ask that each county commissioner share with their constituents their vision of the Spokane Valley. What will it look like in the future and how will their vision be realized.

The dialogue must continue and shutting down debate or not hearing dissent will not be tolerated by a citizenry with so much to gain and lose. We may wish that more of us would have thrown a few more tantrums. Lawrence R. Goodrow Veradale

OVER THE LINE

Fuel depot foes make noise, not sense

It should be pretty clear that Friends of the Aquifer media hype is not a reliable source of guidance for the public or Kootenai County commissioners regarding the permit for Burlington Northern and Santa Fe’s refueling depot. Their statements are not based on facts and representations of knowledgeable engineers.

They complain about “hurdles and obstacles” to prevail over a Fortune 500 company. They will not acknowledge that these hurdles and obstacles are simply the facts that a fueling facility is not a threat to the community we live in.

Everyone in the community wants to protect our aquifer, but the majority of us don’t want a vocal minority to prevail as the decision makers. We have laws, community plans and elected officials to guide the direction and opportunity our citizens and businesses have to live and grow in our community.

The scale and complexity of the proposed fueling facility has been greatly exaggerated by the opponents of the facility. The proposed fueling shed and tank farm is not a large facility compared to many major industrial sites.

Opponents are advertising the same exaggeration of the risk posed by the operation of fueling the locomotives. They want to claim the facility will wear out and become a hazard. Modern industrial facilities don’t wear out; they continually get upgraded and improved.

Every concern the opponents have has been answered with a well-documented explanation to show they should not be concerned. George L. Wilhelm Coeur d’Alene

Urge BNSF to find another site

I note that at the Spokane City Council briefing session of Jan. 18, Councilman Steve Eugster requested a public hearing be held concerning the siting of the proposed Burlington Northern and Santa Fe refueling facility. Mayor John Talbott requested council concurrence and that a resolution on the matter be brought forth for council consideration.

Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers subsequently presented such a resolution, to be considered at the council meeting of Jan. 31.

I heartily agree with the intent of the resolution since it involves our drinking water. Not that I believe BNSF would not take every precaution to guarantee the safety of our water in perpetuity, but rather that no one can guarantee freedom from deliberate sabotage of the most precious thing we have - our drinking water. Without it, life cannot exist.

I urge the City Council to please ask the railroad to find a site for the refueling facility well away from any possibility of contaminating our water supply or any other. Please, oh please, vote to ask the Kootenai County commissioners to reject this proposal by the railroad. Margaret Jean Leonard Spokane

HIGHWAY 95

Traffic won’t bear jail siting

Re: your article about the traffic fatalities on Highway 95 in North Idaho. The Plummer-Worley area has some of the most dangerous sites, in terms of the number of fatalities.

The Jan. 27 Spokesman-Review contains an article about Kootenai County’s sheriff candidate Ted Pulver, who proposes building a regional jail near Worley. How much more traffic would a regional jail bring to an already critically dangerous highway? Considering additional traffic from law enforcement officers, support staff and families wanting to visit inmates, it seems that such a large facility on such a dangerous highway would guarantee many more traffic deaths and serious accidents.

Let’s work to fix the highway before adding any additional traffic. Janet L. Lake Kellogg

Make safer drivers first priority

I’m disgusted with myself and others for not voicing an opinion on Highway 95. It took that well-written Jan. 23 article to motivate me to share my thoughts on how to get a hold on this growing problem.

Start with common sense and education, instead of blaming our elected officials for all our woes (not that they are without fault). I’ve lived here for seven years and the regulation speed limit has gone from 55 to 65. When weather or road conditions do not substantiate this speed, we don’t slow down to prevent accidents. We become more impatient and aggressive, causing more problems.

Generally, when you are impatient with individuals you are behind, that person is driving defensively. We tend to blame teenagers for careless driving but I bet the majority of accidents and fatalities are in the older age group. I feel our heavy trucks are greatly at fault for reckless driving and tend to try to intimidate the average driver.

So why don’t we have more troopers from Sandpoint to Coeur d’Alene? My answer from the government would be it takes money to hire more officers. If they stop the offenders, they would pay the officers’ salaries with the fines.

Maybe, after word gets out about how we feel about Highway 95, the situation will improve.

Everyone is concentrating on the road improvements and forgetting we should start with speeding and otherwise reckless drivers. Let’s take a stand on this for everyone to hear us. Or do we need to lose more loved ones? Vonda S. Grosshans Cocolalla

CUBAN REFUGEE

Send boy home to father

As the battle over whether Elian Gonzalez should stay in the United States or be sent back to Cuba rages, I suggest anyone with an interest in this story watch the movie, “Million Dollar Babies.” It illustrates the folly of big government thinking it knows what is best for everyone. It is about the Dionne quintuplets in Canada, who were taken from their parents and raised like a circus side show act. Two died at an early age and the rest turned out basically dysfunctional.

The bottom line is, do not make any special concessions to keep Elian here or grant him a special citizenship. What kind of message does that send to others trying to sneak into this country? There is no good reason why Elian should not be with his father, now more than ever. Ron Blank Spokane

Cuba exploits boy’s situation

It’s distressing to see polls revealing that over 50 percent of Americans believe Elian Gonzalez should be returned to Cuba.

While I can sympathize with the father in his desire to be reunited, I believe he and the boy’s grandmothers are being used by the communist Cuban propaganda machine orchestrated by Fidel Castro. Under a communist system, people are not allowed to speak or act freely. The father and the grandmothers must say and do as Castro wishes. If they cooperate, they may be rewarded, otherwise they’ll be punished.

Do we think for a moment that Elian would have any rights in a communist dictatorship? Do we think for a moment that the remaining family in Cuba wouldn’t come here themselves if they were permitted to leave? Do we think that Elian would have a decent chance for a good life in Cuba?

Communism means never being able to say what you really think or do what you really want to do. I think Americans forget this. Many Americans think Castro’s not so bad. (After all, he has implemented socialized medicine and public schooling!) They think this is merely an issue of returning a boy to his father. If only that were so.

The boy’s mother risked her life to bring her son here. Was it risked in vain?

The Statue of Liberty, in part, says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” As a Libertarian, I believe we should hold fast to this creed. Janice M. Moerschel Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Incident shows why citizens need guns

If anyone needs to know why the American people have to oppose gun control, they need only read this story from the Jan. 27 Spokesman-Review: “Gunman invades apartment.”

The criminal, armed with a gun, kicked in the apartment door and demanded money. He fired his gun without regard for the fact that two children were present. Bullets shattered a toilet and pieces hit the children. His bullets could easily have hit and killed the children.

How many times, in how many different places, has this kind of crime happened? Why do we rarely, if ever, see or hear about these things?

The fact that the criminal was armed and apparently willing to risk killing the residents of the apartment proves gun control will never work. It won’t work because gun control laws only affect those willing to follow them. And the fact that gun control laws are rarely enforced, even against repeat offenders, is another reason that they won’t work. Ernest J. Chamberlain Spokane

Writer is expert on Native Americans

This concerns Dr. Robert Ruby’s Jan. 11 letter, “Columnist omits grisly details,” and a letter written in response to it. I have known Ruby for almost 30 years, 25 of those as his Moses Lake neighbor.

Besides being one of the first neurosurgeons in the basin, Ruby, along with professor John Brown of Wenatchee, has written many definitive and critically acclaimed histories of the Pacific Northwest Native Americans.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone with more knowledge of Native American cultures, ranging from Alaska to Montana. For a long time he was the personal physician of the Wanapums because he was one of the few white men they trusted.

You would also be hard-pressed to find someone more pro-Indian than Ruby. I have been to his house and seen many of the gifts from various Indian cultures. I have 12 of Ruby’s books on my shelf and I am waiting for the next one.

Knowing Ruby, my intuition tells me he had a good chuckle reading Dan Iyall’s Jan. 20 letter. I’m sorry but Ruby is just telling the truth. Check out the public library. Michael Garland Ritzville

Dropping `Simpsons’ strip wrong

Can it be true that The Spokesman-Review has dropped the comic strip “The Simpsons” from its Sunday edition? What’s wrong with you people? Have you let the complaints of a small group of hand-wringing moralizers intimidate you?

Judging by some of the letters to the editor you have seen fit to publish, a few people demanded that “The Simpsons” be dropped because they didn’t approve of the content. Some, even, were worried that children would read the strip and somehow be adversely affected. To those folks I can only state the obvious.

1. If you don’t like the strip, don’t read it.

2. It’s not your business what my or anyone else’s children read.

Whoever at The Spokesman-Review made the decision to drop the strip is starting down a very slippery slope. There is nothing in the world that someone, somewhere, doesn’t look upon with disapproval.

For my part, I disapprove of the religious proselytizing of the comic strip “B.C.” I disapprove of the right-wing blathering of Laura Schlessinger. I even disapprove of the pseudoscientific nonsense of Nancy Huseby Bloom’s “Watch your dreams” column.

But rather than arrogantly demand that because I disapprove of those writings no one should be allowed to read them, I merely ignore them and turn to other things. The Spokesman-Review should allow me to read “The Simpsons” if I so choose. Wesley Shaw Spokane