Online-only letters

Filling out the ballot

Trickle-down effect

Editor, The Times:

My family has been in the pool and hot-tub industry in Washington for almost 50 years, and I can tell you firsthand that Referendum 67 is all wet. It opens the floodgates for opportunistic trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits to take on an easy target — the insurance industry — at the expense of Washington businesses and consumers.

With 10 retail stores, 100 employees and as many as 45 trucks out on the road at any given time, I can't afford to compromise when it comes to insurance coverage. A comprehensive insurance policy is not an option; it's a matter of responsible business practice.

R-67 will force increased insurance rates, which will raise the cost of doing business in our state. Unfortunately, the only way to absorb those costs is to pass the burden onto consumers — and nobody wants that.

One study estimates the average Washington family will see a $205 increase in insurance premiums each year. Unfortunately, this figure doesn't represent the entire picture, like the higher price of goods and services that everyone will have to pick up.

I don't want my customers or my business to be any part of this trickle-down effect. That's why I'm voting "no" on R-67.

— Brian Quint, Renton

Burning question

The insurance industry is a for-profit monster with 10 arms.

Client service is not the mission statement of the insurance industry. The insurance companies have more complaints than the payday/quick-loan companies. An industry that is spending $5 for every $1 to stop a law from being passed is an industry that has something to hide.

The hard-working people of Washington state deserve a fair hearing when addressing insurance they have paid for, and R-67 will allow that to happen. Approve R-67.

— Helen Swint, Seattle

Fire up

"Incumbents face tough rivals in Bellevue City Council race" [News, Oct. 24] concerns me.

I was disappointed with challenger Keri Andrews' unfair accusation that her opponent, Councilmember Phil Noble, has single-handedly caused deficiencies in the Bellevue Fire Department.

Noble supported every request made by the fire department. His record of support and funding has been the same as that of the other incumbents running for re-election. In fact, the entire council has supported the Bellevue Fire Department's requests.

The Bellevue firefighters union endorsed and contributed to other incumbents but not to Noble. It did endorse and contribute $12,500 to Andrews.

The union's contribution to Ms. Andrews is more than 10 times the amount it has ever contributed to any other local election. What expectations has Ms. Andrews generated in the Bellevue firefighters union by accepting such a huge contribution?

Through my 55 years as a Bellevue resident, and eight years in the 1980s as a councilmember and mayor, I have respected and supported our fire department and individual firemen. This action of the Bellevue firefighters union does not reflect the fine character and propriety of the firemen I have known.

Finally, retired Bellevue Fire Department Chief Pete Lucarelli has endorsed Noble and said: "Phil knows the importance of a strong fire-response system and has always supported the needs of the Bellevue Fire Department."

— Nan Campbell, Bellevue

Nobody is perfect

I jumped aboard the "Venus 4 Seattle" campaign early on, having worked with her during her tenure in the Seattle Neighborhood Planning Office.

I supported her through her victory in the September primary and during her general-election campaign. So I cringed when I read "Council candidate Velázquez pleads not guilty to DUI" [News, Oct. 21]. I questioned my support of her candidacy. I thought about how this squares with what I know about. And I've thought about which decision would be consistent with my values and with what I want from my City Council.

Velázquez is high-energy. She is a risk taker. She's quick to side with those who don't have a voice at the table. She's impatient with the way things are.

She's also intelligent, principled, bold and organized, but the first list of character traits outlines both her greatest gifts and her biggest challenges.

She took a risk by getting behind the wheel in Ballard the other night, one she shouldn't have taken. In her advocacy for people without a voice, she can be less understanding of those who traditionally hold power or authority. And her impatience seems to apply also to her willingness to run out the door without her driver's license or insurance renewal card.

At the same time, we need and often reward our leaders for taking risks. And patience, in the face of a dire need for change, can lead to paralysis and a Seattle "niceness" that can be more detrimental than virtuous.

The DUI incident brought this into very clear focus. Those character traits that cause us and our loved ones the most grief very often also fuel the deepest gifts that we bring to the table.

Our job, if we take on the challenge of personal growth, is to look hard at ourselves and our mistakes. Work to minimize the ways that our unique and strongest character traits hinder us from being effective so that we can make the most profound use of these very same traits in service to ourselves and our community.

None of us is beyond this self-scrutiny.

I believe Velázquez is up to the job of self-scrutiny; I believe she has learned important lessons from this. I also believe she is up to the job on the City Council. And I believe Seattle would benefit greatly from having her voice and unique gifts at the table. I will be voting for her on Nov. 6.

— Paul Fischburg, Seattle

What's a voter to do?

If ever an election called out for a binding "none of the above" option, the King County Council Richard Pope versus Jane Hague race is it.

— Michael Dolenga, Woodinville

Points at issue

The League of Women Voters (LWV) of Seattle, Tacoma-Pierce County, Snohomish and King County South urge a "yes" vote for Proposition 1.

Our decision to support Proposition 1 comes after significant study and deliberation on this issue and review of League positions. We have weighed those positions and concluded that this plan, developed through an interdisciplinary approach to comprehensive planning, is a viable compromise between conflicting approaches to serious regional problems.

Over many years, the LWV has studied transportation and its relationship to land use, energy, air and water quality. Based on those studies, the League supports a balanced transportation policy that includes increases in funding to provide adequate revenue and flexibility for a multimodal system of transportation.

We also support initiatives to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases and thus reduce the threat of global climate change.

We believe that the roads-and-transit package meets these LWVWA positions:

• The projects would help to develop a balanced and seamless transportation system.

• The projects would aid in the efficient, economical movement of both people and freight.

• The projects in the Sound Transit portion of the package would help to promote development in urban centers, manage and reduce single-occupant-vehicle use on highways and shift solo trips to alternative modes.

• The projects would help respond to the expected growth in population, jobs and resultant requirements for regional housing density.

We support this proposition with some reservations. We must consider the impacts of an increased sales tax on those least able to pay and consider reduced-fare programs and other alternative-funding options when possible. We must continue identifying options to encourage alternative transportation and mass-transit use.

Finally, if the voters pass the proposed regional package, there must be continuing, effective citizen participation so that the projects go forward in ways that don't harm community livability and character, cause adverse environmental or freight mobility impacts, or increase energy consumption.

— Denise Smith, president, LWV Seattle

— Becky Cox, president, LWV King County South

Baby-boomer madness

America's Achilles' heel

Regarding "The first baby boomer applies for Social Security" [News, Oct. 16]: This issue needs to be addressed now instead of later. It cannot wait until the next presidential election to solve this problem.

Nearly 80 million people were born in the baby-boom generation and the benefits are beginning now. Taxes need to increase or benefits need to decrease now, or else we are doomed for future generations.

Many Americans are in favor of Social Security, so I highly doubt that raising the taxes for this cause will anger the public, who will reap the benefits in the future and be glad that the problem was fixed early.

Being a beneficiary of Social Security, I understand the importance of the program. Having both my parents die before I graduated high school, I depended greatly on Social Security benefits; without them, I would not have been able to go to college and support myself financially through those times.

Now I am financially stable and going to college, all thanks to the Social Security program.

We need to find a solution to this problem, so that people in similar situations will be able to support themselves in times of crisis.

— Chad Daw, Kirkland

Abortion debate

Pro choice, not against life

It's appalling that Jonah Goldberg manages to write "I know it's uncool, but here's why I'm pro-life" [syndicated column, Oct. 22] without once mentioning the health of women and the value of their lives.

The Times recently reported on a study published in the The Lancet medical journal this month, highlighting the finding that the number of women choosing to terminate their pregnancies is similar in countries where abortion is legal and where it is outlawed. What does change, however, is the number of unsafe procedures that occur.

According to Lancet, 70,000 women around the globe die each year from unsafe abortions performed mainly due to lack of access to, or legal restrictions on, services.

The abortion debate is complex and the two sides often irreconcilable but, remarkably, there is a common ground: Reducing the number of abortions saves lives. Study after study has shown that the only way to achieve this common goal is through comprehensive sexuality education — not abstinence-only — in schools and wide availability of effective contraception: another reality Mr. Goldberg neglects to mention.

In his often glib conclusions, Mr. Goldberg adopts the deceptive rhetoric that the pro-life position "protects life." If we followed Mr. Goldberg's recommendations to a legal conclusion, women in America would, once again having no legal option, seek unsafe means through which to terminate their pregnancies and at the same time terminate their own lives.

Surely, Mr. Goldberg would agree, that would be very "uncool."

— Caitlin Gerdts, Bainbridge Island