Letters to the editor

Post-election letdown

The sky is falling but we've managed to suppress our reaction

Editor, The Times:

You know, after seeing all the pro and con I-912 ads, I made the obvious conclusion that if the gas tax were repealed, we would all die in a couple weeks when the viaduct collapsed, Highway 520 sank and the rest of the roads crumbled.

But now The Times tells us that the urgency (and the "emergency" the Legislature declared to immediately repair all these roads) apparently wasn't critical enough to get the life-saving projects started tomorrow ["Gas tax stays, but don't expect big road projects to get going soon," Times page one, Nov. 10].

If the emergency truly existed, these projects would be going forward beginning the night I-912 was rejected. Heck, you'd think the emergency of the viaduct would have been declared and acted on after the earthquake a few years ago, right?

So it looks like all we have to do is sit back in traffic and hope the road doesn't disappear under us while the Department of Transportation and others begin to think about what they want to plan, and in several years actually begin to work on these "emergency" repairs.

Oh, and while you're sitting in traffic, you might want to guess when the next tax increase will come [that will] actually complete the major projects [which are] only funded to begin, not to be finished.

— Jim Hardtke, Edmonds

Better retread than dead

Is the monorail dead? No.

Is the shorter route dead? Yes

People I've talked to wanted the longer route for the Green Line, not the shorter one. If the Monorail Board had kept the original route, the proposition would have passed.

The Monorail Board should have been given the same chance to come up with new financing as Sound Transit was given to save light rail.

Maybe Mayor Greg Nickels was scared by a monorail as a young boy... who knows? It's obvious the cards were stacked against the monorail.

In any case, the shorter monorail route was rejected, not the monorail itself. Yes, the proposition says no new monorail will be built... by the Monorail Board. It means we have to start again and make sure to get the ducks in a row and learn from the mistakes that were made. [For] one, every position on the board must be elected.

I'd encourage the board members to thumb their noses at Nickels, et al., and fix the financing for the monorail and then fight the good fight to get the monorail built.

— John Reiher, Seattle

Stymied we're not

I'm sorry to hear the leaders of the Seattle Monorail Project continue to blame outside forces for their demise ["Agency dies by 'execution,' " Local News, Nov. 10].

The monorail and I are probably the same age and, having grown up with it, I supported it until this last election. The main reason came down to one word: arrogance.

The board, the Monorail Project officials and others felt they could mislead the public with smoke and mirrors about its financing and potential pitfalls. If they had just been honest from the start, things probably would be different; but for now, we may have to sell off the pieces of this monolith.

But to quote from "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back," "There is another" and its name is "light rail."

— Arthur Kuniyuki, Seattle

Scrutiny on the bounty

It is ironic that the day after I-330 [malpractice tort reform] was defeated, I received notice from our attorney that we won a lawsuit. My group was being sued by someone representing himself over payment of his bill. The judge found his claim baseless and awarded us attorney fees.

The problem is that the fees awarded were only about one-quarter the amount it cost us to defend against this frivolous suit.

Though this is not a malpractice issue, it demonstrates a problem not well-defined by the I-330 proponents. The fact that doctors win the vast majority of the suits [brought] against them proves that many [suits] should not have been filed in the first place. This also shows very clearly that, even when you win a case, the cost of defense is very heavy indeed.

What is needed are some limits that discourage fishing expeditions for possible jackpots. Cutting the incentive for "fishing" and the requisite defense will go a long way to stabilizing the system.

— Rod Xuereb, M.D., Bellevue

The chimney sweeps

Well, the people have spoken. It will soon be illegal to smoke in any "public place" in the state of Washington. Under our form of government, the majority rules, so that's the way it's going to be. Freedom to choose will not be permitted, so long as the choice involves smoking.

Non-smokers will now be able to go everywhere in the state without having to run the risk of encountering tobacco smoke. Hallelujah!

Note that the language of Initiative 901 contains the following: "A public place does not include a private residence." For now.

Flush with their recent victory, how long do you suppose it will be before the anti-smoking crowd begins the effort to prohibit smoking in private homes?

When that happens, why don't we just tear up our Constitution and drop any pretense of support for freedom and property rights?

— Mike Griffin, Redmond

Fighting for your right

Muzzling for your left

On Veterans Day, I proudly remember the 12 family members who have served this country's military. From the beaches of Normandy to the sands of Iraq, they have represented this country with honor. I note that six of those relatives are, or were until the day they died, proudly liberal.

So it is that I, granddaughter, daughter, niece and sister of veterans — as well as proud aunt and mother of three who serve their country today — am outraged. I am outraged that the political commentary available to our military on Armed Services Radio is 100 percent right-wing. While there are progressive talk shows available, not one is broadcast.

And if a United States senator comes to the floor of the Senate and argues for fairness and balance in the military media, as one did this week, he immediately suffers personal attack and relentless vilification by one not-so-fair-and-balanced [radio host] Rush Limbaugh. Rush, who was first introduced to Armed Forces Radio as balance to the Clinton administration, is now, apparently, afraid of open discussion.

Democratic representatives, including our own Sen. Patty Murray, fight for the safety of our military and the welfare of our veterans. Our troops hear little or nothing of that. Our military, which sacrifices for our freedom of information, deserves that same access to all points of view.

— Sue Griswold, Mill Creek