Letters To The Editor

`Yes’ on CV levy

As a parent of four school-age children in the Central Valley School District, I am writing to urge your “Yes” vote for the three-year levy being presented to voters in our school district on March 14.

This levy will provide important funding for educational programs that benefit students who attend Central Valley schools.

If approved, the proceeds of the replacement levy will be used to continue to support important initiatives such as smaller class sizes, remedial and gifted educational programs, the purchase of instructional materials, safety and security measures and extracurricular activities.

As a taxpayer, I support this levy as a sound economic investment. The levy we are being asked to approve on March 14 will replace levies approved in 1998 which authorize the levy of taxes at the amount of $4.10 per thousand dollars of assessed property value. The replacement levy on March 14 only authorizes a tax rate of $3.95 per thousand dollars of assessed property value. We can continue the strong educational program we enjoy in our school district while also reducing our tax rate.

Nothing is more important to the quality of life in a community or the future of our region that a strong educational program for our children. Please do not forget to vote on march 14 and vote yes for students in the Central Valley School District. Michael C. Ormsby Spokane

Patience, Mr Mertens

The cover story of the Feb. 12 Valley Voice made me think of two words: They’re back!

After three wonderful years of silence, the Valley incorporation group is back. After five defeats, they’re preparing for fight number six.

Your article sounded promising. The Valley Chamber of Commerce is getting involved. The feasibility study is good. Coordinating the effort is great.

Analyzing the whole impact and coming up with an overall cost is excellent. Most important, being able to answer all the questions that are going to be asked is crucial. This study should take six months to a year. All this sounds great to me.

Then Ed Mertens opens his mouth. He says he might not be able to wait that long and the time is “ripe” for incorporation.

Patience, Mr. Mertens.

If you once again try to ram it down our throats, loss number six will come. I for one want a complete study done.

If it takes a year, so be it. If the study finds that incorporation is beneficial, great. Then you will have answers to the many questions you couldn’t answer the last five times.

If not, at least we then know we didn’t make a major mistake that could affect many people in the Valley.

Jeffrey M. Horlen Spokane

EV levy supported

On March 14, East Valley School District is asking its residents to come to the polls to vote in support of a Maintenance and Operation Levy. As a parent of two children in the East Valley school system, I am pleased to say this is tax money well spent.

As this is a replacement levy, property owners will see little change in the schools portion of their property tax statements. This speaks volumes about the concern the school board and the administration of this district has for its patrons.

The monies collected from the levy assessment makes up only 18 percent of the entire district budget. This is the portion of the budget that provides for the basic needs of the students.

I feel our school board does an outstanding job of using its funds efficiently and wisely. Because of this, the district is able to provide the programs needed to match the diversity of the student population without sacrificing the quality of the education our children are receiving. Passing this levy will ensure that no child’s education is shortchanged.

Every child, even those not yet in school, benefits from the work done in our district’s schools. The facilities themselves are accessed by many segments of the community. Please show your support for our children and our schools by voting in support of the East Valley Maintenance and Operation Levy. Sharol Mayer

Couplet opposed

Regarding Trinity Hartman’s coverage of a Feb. 3 Valley Couplet meeting (Valley Voice Feb. 5): I don’t agree that everyone there had a ho-hum, let’s-get-on-with-it point of view. She could have said that one person opposed it.

I think I made it clear, after she invited me to talk for a while that I oppose both the scheduled phase with destructive impact on the north side of the Dishman Hills and the high cost of extending it further, while public transit is cut back 40 percent. Not to mention the throw-away neighborhoods.

This “all’s clear for the engineers” message came through loudly in her first page article “Retail Haven.” Sure, the spaces left by Sprague Interchange and Fancher remodeling can be expected to fill. But so much praise in the wake of lost home and businesses? I don’t think so.

I always thought this refill process was the price to pay for too much traffic. It’s been years since a Valley Voice writer said refill with more traffic was some kind of higher goal - as if she speaks for everyone.

How could engineer Ross Kelly possibly say Sprague at I-90 could handle twice as much traffic now, after saying for years the Valley Couplet is necessary because both I-90 and Sprague are already overcrowded? Where are we going and what’s so good about it? This transformation is ugly! Sooner or later I’m outta here and I won’t be the only one. Wanda B. Warren