Seattle Press on Line - Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Apr 18, 2001 -- "Great Candidate" Should Have Bowed Out After Primaries

To the Editor:

Most of the discussion about Ralph Nader and the Greens seems to focus on whether or not Nader was responsible for Bush's victory, and therefore whether or not he (Nader) should have run for president. I take a slightly different approach.

I voted for Ralph. Like Richard Gephart told Nader during a post-election meeting of the two, I think he ran a magnificent campaign. I voted for him because of the great positions he takes on so many of the issues I care about. The big question in my mind is: should the Greens run a candidate for president in 2004? That question brings the 2000 election a little more into focus for me.

An honest look at last November's election tells you that had Nader not been running, the Democrats would probably have won. I know, a lot of registered Democrats voted for Bush as well, but where does that go? Are we going to start saying that if Bush hadn't run, then those Bush Democrats would have voted for Gore, and the Dems would have won? Well, duh...

For the foreseeable future, it would seem that we're going to either have a Democrat or a Republican as president. If all that the Greens can accomplish is to keep throwing presidential elections to the free market-crazy, privatizing, greed-is-good Republicans, they're not going to be making a lot of friends. At least the Democrats believe in a (very) limited form of government supported social responsibility. If we're going to be challenging them, let's do it in the primaries, and then go ahead only when we have a genuine chance of winning. But hey, I'm still glad I voted for Ralph. He was a great candidate!

Brian King
Homelessness: Seattle's Next Growth Sector?

To the Editor:

Thank you for the excellent in-depth article on the homeless and their "floating" tent city, recently in Ballard. The various people's comments, whether with full attribution or not, provided a clear view of how the homeless are regarded in our city. With a Bush presidency seemingly dedicated to the well-being of the well-off, at the same time as more and more employees in Seattle's high-tech and Boeing industries face layoff, it seems very clear that we are on a collision course with reality. And equally clear that far too few are aware of it.

In the same issue of Seattle Press, you observe the city's purchase, for $5.1 million, of a Ballard half-block to put a park in. When has the city put $5 million--or even $1 million--into shelter for its homeless?

Irv Thomas
Bundy Replies to Burkhart

To The Editor:

Dick Burkhart, (Letters, March 21 issue) accepts as gospel whatever a rail agency tells him. My introduction to Burkhart was his November 9 letter to The Stranger protesting remarks attributed to me in an article published October 26, 2000. I suggested that the Link Light Rail project was seriously over budget. Since the agency at that point was seeking to hide a $1.5 billion overrun, major pieces of which were reported in press accounts, that was not a tough fact to discern.

But Burkhart protested that the cost overrun "was exactly 10.8 percent of the light-rail budget in constant dollars, all of Emory Bundy's smoke and mirrors notwithstanding (just check the latest Sound Transit budget)."

Five weeks later Sound Transit admitted an additional billion-dollar overrun, which was followed by a half billion more, admitted in January. Did Burkhart concede he'd been wrong? No, he took me to task for "speculating." He wrote, "I count costs when they become known. I knew there would be more costs, but I didn't want to speculate like you do."

When Sound Transit speaks, Burkhart listens. That's the caliber of critical thinking here, and there's no learning curve.

Emory Bundy

Bad Traffic Forces Pint & Dale to Move

To the Editor:

We are moving away from Seattle primarily because of the traffic. I am a Northwest native, born in Seattle and raised on Vashon Island. I have also lived in Renton, Auburn, south Seattle and Olympia. William is from Milwaukee, WI and moved out here about 23 years ago.

William and I are musicians and spend several months every year touring either in our camper or by car in England and Europe. Because of being gone and then returning on a regular basis we have had somewhat different experience with Seattle's massive growth over the years. There are a lot of aspects to this but the worst and most frustrating is the change in the patterns of drivers.

Seattle used to be a fairly reasonable place to get around in. Sure, there was rush hour and I-5 through the downtown area has always been kind of crowded, but in the last five years traffic has gotten really outrageous. Crossing a street as a pedestrian is dangerous now, not just inconvenient. I no longer take 40th Street through Wallingford because it's too crowded. If I obey the law (and common sense and courtesy) and stop for pedestrians, oncoming cars refuse to stop and cars coming from behind me have passed me on both sides, narrowly missing the pedestrian I was trying to allow to walk across the street! I have put on my hazard lights, turn signals, even waved my arm out the window trying to alert other drivers that something is going on besides a car just stopping arbitrarily, but to no avail.

I stopped for a woman to cross in Fremont in a clearly marked pedestrian crossing and a passenger truck in the inside lane never stopped and knocked her down. He was going at least 35 miles an hour. The driver never even noticed, he just kept going. Only because the driver behind him noticed what was going on and followed him, all the way to Ballard, was he stopped and made responsible.

I have seen this sort of thing almost happen over and over all across the city at all times of day and night.

I daily see people run red lights, drive the wrong way on one way streets (while talking on the cell phone), cross double yellow lines to turn into the Ballard library or to get into the Fremont PCC, or just to avoid going around the block. People do U-turns across four lanes or three-point turns across two lane roads for the same reasons. They go around side street roundabouts the wrong way and then get mad when someone is going around it correctly. What exactly are the rules on those darn things? Roundabouts are the best part of driving in England, efficient, safe and effective, but here no one uses them correctly and near accidents happen over and over again.

Anyway, I'm sure the traffic is better here than in Brooklyn but I'd rather drive in rush hour LA traffic or Chicago, or even London or Paris, than deal with Seattle's rude, inconsiderate, thoughtless and over-caffeinated drivers at any time of day. The only city in the United States that compares with Seattle for carelessness and stupidity of drivers is Virginia Beach, where a common bumper sticker is "I stop for red lights."

Felicia Dale and William Pint
Cantwell Stole the Election

To the Editor:

I had thought it odd that she would win over Slade Gorton. Now I understand why. Maria Cantwell spent $4 million more than she had to spend. She spent it on distorting Slade's positions.

Cantwell had only a small number of supporters comparatively when considering Slade's 25,000 contributors. She had used much of her own money to take up the slack. I figure if she has her own money, fine, use it. However, it is dishonorable to use money one does not have.

Some of her own campaign staff and consultants were not paid. Some are now coerced into working phone banks to raise money in hopes of getting just some of the money owed them. Money unpaid is money stolen. She stole the election with dirty money. Bill, Al, and Maria; three good reasons for campaign finance reform.

Maria Cantwell has shown how she will act as a senator. Just as most liberals do, [she will] spend without concern whether the money is there or not. She cannot be trusted to represent the good of the country. She will do a great job at supporting any fringe group that promises a campaign pledge. Spend, spend, spend is just a look into the future. The dishonorable Cantwell will not vote well.

Roger W. Hancock
Not Asking for Much

To the Editor:

Standing around Green Lake playground, my friends chatter away about the demands of raising young children. There are always the standard topics: late night awakenings, diaper changes and tantrums.

On most days, my friends don't talk about telephone calls to insurance companies, trips to speech therapists, birth to three services or piles of paperwork. That is because they don't understand the strains and stresses of finding appropriate services. And how could they know how frustrating it is to find a speech therapist who is covered by our insurance and available? How could they know I make countless phone calls to find funding for these weekly visits? Sure, a $300 yearly deductible doesn't sound like much, but over six to eight years, the money adds up quickly.

And my family is one of the lucky ones. Our second daughter, Leah, born with Down Syndrome, was born full term and healthy. She is a beautiful, active and alert toddler who continues to frustrate her older sister, Maggie, and delight the rest of us. We make several trips to see various specialists, but all in all Leah's medical needs have been few. Then my friends ask, "Why does it matter so much if Leah goes to physical therapy or speech therapy?" It matters, especially with speech, because it affects all of Leah's interactions with her peers and adults. If she isn't able to communicate, how will she play games with other children? How will she participate in school programs? How will Leah hold a job?

Study after study shows that early intervention for children with disabilities makes a difference. My family isn't alone in asking our legislators to support us. We can't do it alone.

Betsy McAlister

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!