 FRONT PAGE Archive Index Feedback |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
| |||||
Letters to the Editor
Thomas Whittemore cartoon. |
To the Editor:
In keeping with the long-standing American tradition of wasteful westward expansion, the City will raze one of few functional and attractive looking buildings on Beacon Hill, the Wells Fargo Bank, in order to build a new library. What a great trade! Wells Fargo, one of only two banks on the hill, will leave the community and the Library Board will leave behind a crumbling, unsightly mess at the dismal intersection of Beacon and 15th where the community could really use some help.
The big empty lot next door to the current library just wasn't good enough for our Library Board. They didn't like the functioning of the 15th and Beacon intersection any better than the other businesses trying to survive at that location. Being the City, the library can just pack up and abandon the problem instead of trying to promote a fix. But wait, isn't it the same government, our City of Seattle, that could also fix the intersection to make it work for everyone?
Isn't it great how City dollars work to help redevelop neighborhoods like Beacon Hill? We will spend $5 million or so to make no visible improvement in the streetscape, eliminate a contributing member of the community, and contribute to an even uglier mess at the current library site. Oh well, that's not the Library Board's problem! Besides, the little green space next to the bank is so cute and would look just right next to the library.
Beware local business investors! Don't make your business too functional or attractive! The City of Seattle or Sound Transit might land on you via rights of public domain. The secret to a stable, successful small business operation in this town is to locate at an intersection that the City won't fix, maintain an ugly exterior, don't do repairs, and keep your head low.
And don't play that hip-hop boogie!
Frederica Merrell
Coverage Helps Union
To The Editor:
We voted in a new contract and your coverage helped make that happen. Our new contract terms covering 25,000 Seattle area grocery workers includes $1.35 in wage increases, and increases in our pensions. The only thing we lost a little ground on was in our health plan. The amount members have to pay for prescription drugs was increased from $1.25 to $3.00.
Thanks to The Seattle Press for covering our union's struggle.
Mary Anne Schroeder
Meat Wrapper, Greenwood Safeway
Member, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 81
Yes on Closed Primary
To the Editor:
In a closed primary you would not declare a party. You would, in the primary only, request a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green ballot; In the general you would be free to choose among all the parties for your official vote using an open ballot or a Florida ballot.
1- The primary is used for each party to select their candidates. The primary does not elect into office; it only selects the person that will represent the party.
2- The proposal concerns only the selection of a party's candidates. The proposal affects the primary. It would not have any effect upon the general election, [when voters] can pick and choose between all the parties.
3- Each party has the right, under the constitution, to choose their own candidates. As the primary works now, Democrats, if they already have a strong candidate, can cross into the Republican section of the ballot and choose their weaker candidate, possibly swaying the results of the General Election.
4- A Republican has no moral or civil right to help select the candidates of the Democrats. Let the Republicans choose their own candidates. Let the Democrats choose their own candidates. Then let the Libertarian, Green party and other parties select their own moot candidates.
With the closed primary the candidate would need to gain support, passing muster with his own party. Once the candidate has been chosen by his/her own party, then they proceed to the General Election where all citizens can vote however they wish. This would return power to the people to select their own candidates, without influence from opposing parties. The return of power to the grassroots would prove to more narrowly define the candidates of each party and may tend to lend more credence to the "third" parties. Close the Primary or abolish the Primary, but give us back our choice.
Roger W Hancock
Wilson is Incorrect
To the Editor:
In a recent letter (Letters, May 2 issue), Andrew Wilson said, "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."
Actually, the majority of voters did in fact vote for Gore. I'm surprised to see someone supposedly familiar with last year's election not understand the difference between majority of voters and majority of electorates.
Mike Rizzi
Oakland, CA
Reader Comments
Discuss this article in the forums!
No comments yet!