Online only letters to the editor

Wake-up call

Editor, The Times:

Regarding "A glimpse into reality," The Times, Guest column, Dec. 28): Bill Block, the project director of the committee to end homelessness in King County, helped us realize the suffering of those without shelter. What the citizens of King County need though is a realistic view of the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness.

Block mentions the struggle of 4,500 homeless. Yet, the Ten-Year Plan's Web site estimates the homeless population to be more than 8,000. Which is it? King County currently spends tens of millions of dollars on caring (i.e. health care, food, shelter) for the homeless. Block proposes that $80.million a year be spent on building shelter alone.

The Ten-Year Plan will create permanent housing with no time limit or incentive to leave. Are we really helping the homeless, or supporting them? Helping those who are handicapped or elderly is understandable. Yet the homeless who are perfectly capable should at least be properly motivated.

Five years ago, I spent Christmas sleeping in my friend's storage closet because I was homeless. Unlike Block, who took a pay cut to a lean $86,000 a year, I know what it's like to have nowhere to go. It wasn't government assistance that led me to where I am today, it was my own motivation.

In another column on the Ten-Year Plan, a homeless man named Leo Rhodes said "I'm tired seeing the revolving door of the non-homeless people trying to end homelessness." Maybe it is Block and his committee to end homelessness who need "a glimpse of reality."

— Brian Cooke, Seattle

Profits of war

To understand why President Bush has handled Iraq the way he has, you just have to follow the money. Ask yourself, who profits from a prolonged military conflict? One of the first things Bush did when he took office was to negate a military-contract restriction on Halliburton. The restriction had been placed because of previous findings of fraud.

Bush overrode the military process for selecting the contractor to transport, house and feed our troops; and issued a no-bid contract to Halliburton. But the contract only became lucrative if large numbers of troops had to be deployed over seas. How convenient.

— Fred Armstrong, Seattle

Don't bury the real issue

Regarding "Burying power lines: Is it worth the cost?" Local News, Jan. 9: The disturbing part about your story is that it focuses primarily on the cost to the utility companies to bury cables. Secondary mention is given to public outcry for buried cables due to aesthetic concerns, and not more serious concerns. Nothing is said regarding the cost to the general public.

I lived for a winter in Hamburg, Germany, where the weather is cold and the winds blow frequently and harshly from the North Atlantic, across North Germany, to the Baltic Sea and back again. The winter I was there we even experienced hurricane force winds. That I know of, there were no significant power outages that winter, as most cables (electricity, phone and TV) are buried.

It is true that it is expensive to bury the cables, and also more expensive to dig them up when something goes wrong. In Germany, the cost of establishing and maintaining the cable lines is shared equally by the phone, electricity and cable companies. I understand, from some of my clients who work for similar companies here in the U.S., that where the various cables are buried, the cost is also shared equally. This is not discussed by the power companies or in your story.

It is clear it has been the power companies' rationale that it is cheaper to send out emergency crews to correct downed lines a few times a winter than to engage in the shared expense of doing it right. This winter has been the one which exposes the huge flaws, and even cruelty, in such a bottom-line oriented logic.

Nowhere do I see a discussion of the cost to the public. My mother-in-law lives in a community on Lake McMurray (south Mount Vernon). It is called "Norway Park" and consists primarily of residents who emigrated from Norway. The majority of these residents are elderly, many in poor health, and many with limited ability to get out and about should the weather turn bad.

Since November, there have been four significant power outages in Norway Park lasting, respectively, nine hours, 36 hours, 57 hours and 12 hours. All have occurred during cold and inclement weather. [During] the 57 hour [outage], 14 inches of snow were on the ground, roads mostly impassible, temperatures as low as 10 degrees outside, and internal temperatures sinking to as low as 37 degrees before the power finally came on. If it weren't for our four-wheel drive, my mother-in-law might have perished.

This area is like a third-world country. The power seems to go out almost immediately when there is a storm of even mild significance. And, while the power company has denied it, this is not a high-population-density area, which means that it is one of the last to regain service. [The situation is] made worse by the knowledge that [my mother-in-law's] emergency system, which dials for assistance should she have problems, does not work when the power fails.

What about others who are similarly affected? What about spoiled food in freezers? Illness from prolonged exposure to cold? Or the businesses that were closed for days and even weeks (especially after that nasty early December wind storm)? Our practice is in Edmonds, where we lost a clinical day, and much income, to a power failure. Downtown Edmonds was shut down that day, at great cost to the businesses there. I do not see these losses being discussed anywhere. It is time to think about what's right and not just about cost.

— Joseph S. Vizzard

Where the grass is greener

When reading Mr. Kautzman's letter "Quality of life should extend to roads, schools and homes we can afford" [Northwest Voices, Jan. 10] I said two things amen and good luck!

At the age of 31, I left my hometown of Shorelinebecause I saw the writing on the wall — to achieve the "American Dream," I would have to move. And so I did, to Dallas!

My friends and family thought I was nuts for moving to Texas; they thought it was nothing but tumbleweeds, and why would anyone want to live there?

To the contrary, Dallas is green, still has plenty of virgin land visible within the city limits, a growing economy (especially in the financial-services sector) and, here's the best yet: affordable homes!

You can get a nice, nearly 2,000-square-foot home in a spectacular school district for less than $200,000! In fact, "starter homes" that would go for $270,000 -$320,000 in Seattle can be picked up for a reasonable price, around $95,000-$185,000.

So come on down, my fellow Seattleites! No, we're not a bunch of hicks runnin' around with our boots and hats. And yes, "folks" do still enjoy home cookin', family and friends. Most importantly, we enjoy it in our own homes! I miss my friends and family, but I would tell the Kautzmans that their family can always hop a plane and enjoy the sun down here!

— Maureen Johns, Dallas

Rainy day funds

Regarding "Constitution not needed to create a piggy bank" Editorial, Dec. 26: If you believe that fiscal responsibility is not exactly the strongpoint of state officials, and that real protections for taxpayers require teeth, then you should support a constitutional amendment to create a protected rainy-day savings account.

For lawmakers, an unprotected emergency account is akin to an individual starting a diet while maintaining an ample supply of donuts in the kitchen for "emergencies" of course. Common sense tells you fewer donuts will be eaten if the individual has to drive five miles to the nearest Krispy Kreme. In other words, donuts, like an emergency fund, should be hard to reach if you expect anything to be left.

The Times asserts that a constitutionally protected savings account may limit future spending that, "for whatever unpredictable reason, also may need to be higher." May I be so bold as to point out —this is precisely the idea. Spending should not be increased for just any "unpredictable reason."

Declaring that lawmakers will somehow be inhibited from accessing the emergency account when the funds are really needed is misleading. A constitutionally-protected rainy day fund will allow the state to save money when the economy is healthy, and keep it there until it is truly needed.

— Amber Gunn, Olympia

Education is a two-way street

Regarding "For sake of the future, we must focus on education now," Guest column, Jan. 2: In my opinion, Phyllis J. Campbell's prescription for Washington's ailing schools is flawed. She calls for greater spending and more "innovation." As a retired high-school teacher Ihave seen an endless parade of "in-program innovations" come and go with no appreciable increase in the academic performance of our students.

High-school students in the U.S. now stand slightly above average among 46 student populations which participate in TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). In stead of searching for some elusive panacea to "amp up" our students' performance, why not apply some critical thinking and analyze what the successful countries do, and then do that? While I agree that Washington needs to increase its fiscal commitment to each student, throwing a lot more money at under-achieving students has not worked thus far.

The fundamental problem with Campbell's argument is that she mentions students only in passing and places no emphasis on their critical role in the education process. Education is an active endeavor, which requires active and engaged learners. It requires students to work hard and to be persistent in their desire to be successful. If many of our students don't come to school prepared with these values, experience shows that they will not be successful no matter what else we do.

— Ira Shelton, Seattle

Big bucks for Starbucks

Regarding "Starbucks plans to drop trans fats at its U.S. shops," Business & Technology, Jan. 2: I was pleased to read that Starbucks is taking steps to improve the health of its customers by dropping trans fats from its menu.

But with dismay I note that this will be limited to the U.S. and will not affect overseas customers, including where I now live — Bangkok. Reminds me of the cancer-causing cigarette companies efforts to increase their profits at the expense of developing world consumers. Isn't it about time that U.S. companies apply the same standards to all of us?

On its Thailand webpage, the company proudly lists its six guiding principles, one of which is "Contribute positively to our communities and our environment." Presumably "our" in this context includes Thailand. Maybe they should add a seventh, "do not discriminate among customers regarding the quality of our products." This might, however, contradict another of their principles, "Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success."

— Brian R. Phillips, Klong San, Bangkok

Your article on the organizing efforts of the IWW and Starbucks ["Union struggles to reach, recruit Starbucks workers," Business & Technology, Jan. 2] was interesting as I have recently heard of the Industrial Workers of the World's (IWW) successes in organizing warehouse workers in New York, truckers in California, and non-profits in between!

Unfortunately the article failed to mention Professor Hurd's economic interest in Unite-Here (they are a client of his). Even with huge budgets, the trade unions don't have a single member any of the big retailers.

Since its heyday in the 1950s, the AFL-CIO membership has declined to less than 10 percent of the workforce. How low does this statistic have to get before they, and workers, realize that the philosophy, tactics, and structure of the business unions promise their steady demise?

How wonderful that the IWW is making a comeback in an economy wracked by NAFTA and other free-trade agreements!

— Benjamin Ferguson, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Do your job

I am one of those citizens who believes that we should do the best job we can in selecting and electing representatives to run our government. After we have done that, we should allow them to carry out their jobs. If they fail us, we have the option of finding a replacement that is aligned with our concerns.

Having said that, I am disappointed and confused. I was disappointed when our governor said she was advocating turning the Alaskan Way Viaduct issue over to the voters. To me, this is shirking the duties of the elected that we have put in office.

I may be mistaken but I seem to recall that the voters voted three times to move ahead with an expanded, improved monorail. Each time this was given an "up" vote, some excuse was found to send it back for another vote, and in the end the monorail was killed.

What makes our governor, or, for that matter, The Seattle Times, think that sending the issue of the viaduct to the voters will be any different than the fate of the monorail? If not an attempt to kill a tunnel, it is at best a delaying tactic.

We should allow those who have been elected to office, along with their professional staffs, research the options, do the necessary cost benefit analysis and make a decision. We had our input when we elected the city council and the state legislators, now they must do what we elected them to do.

I think a more affordable answer might be a roadway below street level, open on top to allow cross streets access to the waterfront, eliminating ventilation and lighting problems and avoiding the added costs of a tunnel and problems similar to the big dig in Boston. The current viaduct is a blight on the waterfront of Seattle. It is unsafe and it is ugly. It should go the way of the Embarcadero in San Francisco.

— Dick Toft, Oak Harbor

Not-so-petty theft

Right after Thanksgiving, my son's 1998 Acura Integra was stolen from right under his bedroom window. Right after Christmas, his 1987 Toyota Corolla was stolen from the same spot.

Our community has one entrance, and we live on a cul-de-sac at the back of it. Both of his cars were parked in off-street parking next to our house, and were locked. The thieves defeated a good alarm system on the Acura.

The Acura was recovered on a LoJack signal after it was stripped. We were unaware that this vehicle was stolen, stripped, and declared "totaled" in Oregon in 2004, so he had it insured and was paying premiums for the full value of the car. The insurance company (Progressive) said that since the vehicle was previously "totaled" its value was decreased by $2,449. They only paid him $3,621 for a low-mileage car in excellent condition with about $4,000 worth of upgrades.

He kept the "totaled" car so he could recover some of the value by selling parts and putting some into an older Honda Accord that needs a lot of TLC. Even considering the salvage value, he lost more than $4,000. The Toyota, which was given to him by his great-grandmother, is still missing. That vehicle was worth about $2,500 and was not insured for theft.

My son has been working more than 30 hours a week and attending Everett Community College full time. These two thefts have left a large balance on his Acura loan, and burned up $3,000 of his college funds.

The lack of consequences for these thieves has a huge economic impact on all of us. I recently heard that there is a bill in Olympia dealing with this problem. I hope this bill has some real teeth in it.

— Ryan Remick, Everett

Pet peeves

Regarding "Plainclothes patrol may target pets without tags," Local News, Jan 2: Part of the problem may be that "licenses" are required. If you look up the definition of the word "license" it is usually defined something such as "a legal document giving official permission to do something."

Excuse me, but I don't believe people need "permission" from the government to have a pet. While I would also acknowledge that there are people who should not have pets, the current "licensing" program in any city does absolutely nothing to protect a loving pet from one of these monsters. So, until something of this sort is done I will have absolutely nothing to do with a pet-licensing program.

Besides, they are living and intelligent creatures. A licensing program simply continues to put forward the idea that humans are or know better than pets. Anyone who really loves their pets knows that is not the case.

— Brad Ashforth, Snohomish