 FRONT PAGE Archive Index Feedback |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
| |||||
Letters to the Editor
|
To the Editor:
The Seattle School District should NOT move to a new headquarters at a former postal facility in the industrial area south of downtown.
A report given at the April 4 School Board meeting revealed that the total cost has gone up, to $52.4 million (the cost of a new high school).The renovation cost has gone up by $9.2 million, or 29 percent, from $31.1 million to $40.3 million.
The project would take money from education for decades, without a vote by the public. Long-term debt will be $33.4 million. A year ago, when the debt estimate was "only" $26.7 million, the Seattle Times editorial board noted that, financially, "this deal will be a wash, at best"(February 24, 2000); the Times should take another look at the project.
The District still says that "savings" will fund the project; but no detailed information has ever been presented at School Board meetings to support the estimates of savings.
The School Board President complained that the proposed headquarters building looks like "a dump" on the outside. There are no plans at all for the building's mezzanine level; because of the zoning, the District cannot add any more office space--what a waste. One School Board member (joking?) suggested a "fitness center." This is not "world-class" planning; perhaps it is "world-class" hubris?
The School District's move away from the neighborhoods will cause the loss (sale) of nicer District buildings, and it calls to mind Boeing's move out of Seattle. Boeing office headquarters will be available for $43 million ($9 million less than the postal facility): no renovation needed, it's already an office building, and it's bigger.
A preliminary vote will take place at the May 2 School Board meeting. The Board should vote "NO." The final vote is planned for May 16. The School Board phone number is 252-0040; their (current) address is 815 4th Ave. N, Seattle, 98109.
Chris Jackins, Coordinator
Seattle Committee to Save Schools
|
To the Editor:
Leaders with vision, energy and the ability to accomplish things for the public good are treasures. We lost a treasure this year--former State Rep. Grace Cole, who devoted her skill and commitment to improving her community as a Shoreline school board member and state representative.
Grace was a tireless champion for public education and the welfare of school children. If there was something wrong, she worked to make it right. We were poignantly reminded of her legacy and leadership in the closing days of the 2001 regular Legislative Session.
A bill giving parents the right to know about pesticides at schools and child care centers passed, with the strong support of state and local PTAs. This new law requires that schools notify parents about what kind, where and when pesticides will be used, and to keep related records. The benefits to children's safety are obvious.
Recent studies prove that pesticides are more toxic to children than adults, and children risk respiratory and/or other health difficulties if they breathe or absorb them through their skin. While these new pesticide requirements are the result of hard work by Rep. Mike Cooper of Edmonds and Sen. Tracy Eide of Federal Way, they are a legacy of Grace Cole.
Grace was the first to introduce school pesticide legislation in 1997. Grace Cole didn't need studies to tell her pesticides could harm children. She was a mom, knew when something wasn't good for kids and had the determination to do something about it.
When Grace retired from the Legislature in 1999, Senator Eide and Rep. Cooper took her bill and worked for two years to get it passed. It serves as a fitting memorial to a great person who cared greatly for kids. We miss her.
Ruth Kagi and Carolyn Edmonds
State Representatives 32nd District
Will City Take Private Land for Trails?
To the Editor:
The article "City: Absolutely No Trails on Private Land" [April 18 issue] referred to COPA (Creekside Owners Protective Association) which organized to deal with emerging and chronic issues in the Thornton Creek system.
That article was in follow-up to "Creekside Owners Fear Trails Plans" [March 21 issue], and the City's well-crafted response cynically implies that COPA members' concerns were groundless.
Let the readers judge.
The following language popped up in the February 26 draft of Seattle Public Utilities' Watershed Action Plan, Chapter 5 at page 16: "*E1 NEW. Review and implement improvements to existing trails and design for any new trails..."
Couple this with the City's adopted Parks Plan 2000, page 78 under the heading "Urban Trails" task "BT5: Develop trails along or near ... Thornton Creeks."
The City is going to collect $198 million in new taxes for parks and hasn't promised not to take private homes through condemnation for public trails on Thornton Creek or its tributaries.
So, the City has no plans for trails on private lands, but does the government have notions of taking private creekside properties, which can then be linked for a public trail system? Some people wonder.
Regardless of who owns the creek, COPA knows trails would only result in additional stress and degradation on this special in-city natural treasure.
The Seattle Public Utilities employee quoted in the "No Trails" piece meant well, but she was not accurately informed nor in position to comment on behalf of the Parks Department as to City plans for trails along creeks.
In hamhanded fashion, the City has repeatedly set out to cram trails into this fragile little creek ecosystem. COPA members, dedicated to "protecting the health of the creek (COPA Bylaws)," will relax only when the City honestly engages watershed residents in true partnership to preserve Thornton Creek for future generations.
Stay tuned. This conversation is not over.
A.D. "Skip" Knox, President, COPA
Creekside Trails
To the Editor:
The recent article entitled "City: 'Absolutely No Trails on Private Land'" [April 18 issue] leaves your readers with a false impression because it obscures the actual process by which public trails can be built through private yards in established neighborhoods. It is quite true that the City does not build public trails on privately owned property. The City first acquires the privately owned properties that it wants, using a variety of means (purchase, right of eminent domain, condemnation, etc.). The City is then free to use those lands for its own purposes, including such things as public trails.
The Seattle Park Department Plan 2000, published in June 2000, specifically states the City's intention to "develop trails along or near Longfellow and Thornton Creeks." Public tax monies have already been authorized for use by the Seattle Parks Department to carry out its projects. If "95 percent of creekside land is privately owned," as Denise Andrews is quoted as saying in your article, it seems obvious that any plan to develop public trails along Thornton Creek will require the acquisition of strips of land through what are now private yards.
Creekside property owners want the same basic property rights of privacy and security that other homeowners throughout the city take for granted. Creekside residents already spend both time and money cleaning up the trash that washes downstream from areas of public access to the creek as well as repairing the damage that is caused by people who trespass on their property. Increasing public access to the creek would only increase the amount of damage done to the fragile ecosystem of the watershed. Most creekside residents are much more actively involved in trying to save the creek ecosystem than members of the general public are, because the health, safety, and beauty of their own homes are at stake. Anyone who has ever managed any kind of rental property knows how differently a piece of property is treated by someone who owns it than by someone who is merely using it for the moment. The same thing is true of the way people treat the creek. Those who have a vested interest in it are most strongly committed to protecting it.
Statements made by City officials claiming that no trails are planned on private lands are disingenuous at best. The City's own published documents describe the goal of developing public trails along Thornton Creek, and the only way to do that would be for the City to acquire parcels of private land.
Paula Bennett
Licata Says "Thanks"
To the Editor:
I was really honored that you ran an editorial recognizing my Urban Politics ["Licata's Urban Politics," March 21 issue]. It meant a lot to me. A lot of times I wonder if they are ever being read. So, when I saw your piece it made me feel good to know that you believe that they make a contribution to our civic life, by informing our citizens on the politics and policies of City government, in much the same way that The Seattle Press does.
Nick Licata
Gore Lost Election, not Nader
To the Editor:
As a Nader supporter, I feel compelled to respond to Brian King's suggestion that the Green Party forgo nominating a candidate in 2004 [Letters, April 18 issue]. I agree, as long as the Green Party continues to produce candidates that are superior to the Democratic Party nominees, the Democrats' voter base will shrink. One might challenge the assumption that somehow the votes of the left-wing "belong" to the Democrats simply due to the fact that they are somewhat less conservative than the Republicans, but I digress.
Rather than pursuing the darkly cynical and anti-democratic course of asking the Green Party to stop nominating such excellent candidates, I would like to suggest a more productive solution. If the Democrats are concerned about the Green Party's nominees, they could nominate a superior candidate of their own. Instead of scheming of ways to usurp the Green Party's meager 3 percent of the vote, I submit that the Democratic Party would be better served by spending its energies selecting stronger candidates, and then convincing the voters to support them.
The truth is that Al Gore lost the 2000 election because the majority of voters did not believe that he would make a demonstrably better president than George Bush. I think that everyone has forgotten that fact in their rush to blame the Green Party for Bush's victory, but this is a lesson that the Democrats can ill afford to ignore.
Andrew Wilson
Reader Comments
Discuss this article in the forums!
No comments yet!