Letters to the Editor

Clear-cut critique

Timber industry, state can't take the easy way out of this mess

Editor, The Times:

Thank you so much for the excellent and well-researched article by Hal Bernton and Justin Mayo on the results of clear-cutting practices ["Logging and Landslides: What went wrong? Slides putting our highways in danger," Times, page one, July 14]. It is time that the timber industry and government agencies realized that the "methods of old" cannot be continued.

Not only do we have to consider climate change, but also the fact that our population is growing at a steady pace and areas that were treated as unpopulated and "insignificant" in the past are now being developed. Every time clear-cutting takes place, the risks for catastrophes increase as a result of a lack of foresight and planning, and bypassing the regulations that were put in place precisely to avoid such catastrophes.

Blaming "Mother Nature" is always an easy way out for companies and agencies in not taking responsibility for their actions. In the Lewis County fiasco, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources gets to wear the dunce cap.

Again, thank you for an outstanding report and graphics.

— Connie Gallant, Quilcene

Defending Sutherland

The people of Lewis County have praised Doug Sutherland and the Department of Natural Resources for their quick and effective response to the devastating 500-year storm that dumped 20 inches of rain in a day and a half. Sutherland and his team helped the victims of the storm access needed resources, mitigate damage and restore public safety.

Surveys of the land show that two-thirds of the landslides were in standing timber, a fact The Times does not mention. Blaming logging and implying that regulators were not doing their jobs may be good politics but it is, at its core, unscientific and irresponsible.

Sutherland and the department are doing an excellent job of protecting the state's public resources.

— Wade C. Boyd, Longview

Twin confusion

Policy has its place

The minute school districts get away from "first come, first served" as a firm policy, rules are written ["Doubly confusing: School policy splits twin kindergartners," page one, July 15]. As it's not possible to write a rule to cover everything, there will always be a "very special case" in which one applicant wants to get in line ahead of another.

That, of course, runs into other considerations such as location, economic status, race and number of children in a particular school. The School District has done as well as they can with the twins. They have been offered a school where they can stay together, but it's farther away than the mother would like.

These kids are not the only children in Seattle who don't get to attend their first-choice school, and they won't be the last.

— Richard Shilling, Shoreline

Some satire ire

New Yorker cover more than offensive

Shame on The New Yorker! The magazine cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists is tasteless, destructive and outrageously offensive ["Cartoon might be satire, but outcry no joke," page one, July 15].

It offends me and makes a mockery of the 3,000 families who lost a loved one on 9/11 because of Osama bin Laden. The cover ultimately throws feces on our political process and on the First Amendment right to free speech.

The cover is blatantly racist — no cover so outrageously unfounded and offensive about a white presidential candidate and his wife would ever be published on the cover of a major magazine. The magazine cover isn't satire. It supplies fodder to the enemies of Obama and fuels the senseless rumors that are used to feed and mask racial hatred.

Shame on the hatefulness — or just plain stupidity — of the editorial staff of The New Yorker.

— Mary Davis, Everett

"Anger" more than goofy

The very first thing I see when I look at The New Yorker is satire, shoving absurd prejudices in the faces of those who believe their obvious nonsense.

That there is any controversy at all brings up a Lily Tomlin quote, "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."

— Doug Palmer, Seattle

Market measure

Should the public pay?

After being shown the error of my ways by the brilliant Seattle City Council, I realize that our public tax money shouldn't go to support private businesses such as the Sonics. No more handouts to those who directly provide jobs for hundreds in our area, and no welfare to those who run a business that brings in millions of dollars to Seattle.

It's with this newfound revelation that I encourage everyone to vote "no" on the upcoming $73 million Pike Place Market tax increase ["Market upgrades up to voters," Local News, July 15].

Why should taxpayers pay to subsidize the privately run businesses in the Market that provide hundreds of jobs and bring in millions to the city every year? If the merchants in the Market want improvements to their facility, make them pay for it.

Hey, Chris Van Dyke, where's the outrage? How come you're not leading the charge against this proposed welfare? Why not recommend that we level the Market and put in a parking garage?

I'm surprised that the mayor and City Council haven't already agreed to sell off the Market to the highest bidder in Oklahoma City.

— Josh Garretson, Bellevue

City wasteful, but Market worth it

Regarding the city's proposed $73 million property-tax increase to upgrade Pike Place Market, I'm hopeful the voting public will give consideration to the ever-increasing amount of city budget squandered on legal fees paid to private law firms to defend city police in charges of brutality against taxpayers ["City to pay $115,000 in excessive force case," Local News, July 14].

This is all tax revenue money that should have been retained for such infrastructure support as the Market.

Why does the city pay private law firms when it employs two full floors of legal expertise in City Hall?

— Beth Sellars, Seattle

Bottling bag-ban silliness

Don't forget: They're recyclable

I've been reading articles and letters to the editor in The Times about the bottle and bag brouhaha for some time ["Bag-ban debate," Northwest Voices, July 13].

My friends, neighbors and I have been trying to do as much as we can to become as educated about recycling as we can.

We are sitting here in open-jawed disbelief. Mayor Greg Nickels and his "neogreenie" supporters have overlooked one thing: The recycling triangle at the bottom of bags and bottles that says "#2 recyclable."

— Pamela Buxton, Seattle