Letters To The Editor

SPOKANE MATTERS

Eugster acting as selfish spoiler

It is with great frustration and sadness that we read in the Journal of Business that Steve Eugster has threatened to stop the project planned by the Cowles family to invest $80 million in downtown Spokane.

It is all the more vexing because Eugster says he doesn’t have anything against the project, but that, as a Democrat, he doesn’t personally feel the project deserves federal support. As attorneys, we find it particularly distressing that he would use his power as an attorney to advance his personal political views in the courts, casting a virtual one-man veto over a project that is desperately needed by the community.

Eugster implies that he’s a champion of the poor. But it’s very clear that the failure to maintain a vital downtown core will lead to a degradation of our community and the life available to all of the citizens of Spokane, rich and poor alike.

We hope Eugster will reconsider his threat to stop the downtown project. There doesn’t appear to be any ground swell of public opinion in favor of the proposed lawsuit. While the majority shouldn’t trample upon the rights of the minority, it’s also true that Eugster shouldn’t appoint himself protector of us or anyone else.

We are committed to doing whatever we can as attorneys and members of the community to support the proposed business improvement district and the redevelopment of RiverPark Square. We hope the Cowles family and the Spokane community will unite to resist Eugster’s ill-conceived and destructive threats and potential legal action. Paul D. Fitzpatrick and Thomas M. Culbertson Spokane

Ills are real, must be prevented

Based upon Pam Stanley’s comments (Letters, June 1), I’ve obviously done a less-than-acceptable job of communicating my concerns over the recent outbreak of stress- and chronic fatigue-related mono at the Spokane Police Department.

I share many of the concerns raised in her letter and in fact empathize and sympathize with the suffering her husband is undergoing and the impact it must be having on her family.

Based upon available medical evidence, the illnesses being experienced are obviously quite real. My intention was not to infer that the illnesses are in any way simply made up.

However, there is clearly something inherent in the work environment in which day shift police officers must work. And in view of the fact that it has no apparent impact on Spokane County Sheriff’s Department personnel working in the same physical facility, it speaks to something quite different that is resulting in a very real and quite unfortunate stress and chronic fatigue that is then manifesting itself in mono and related illnesses.

No one should be required to work in an environment that results in such illness.

Finally, my only reference to the LEOFF 1 officers was to firmly dispel the myth previously espoused by some that these illnesses are somehow the result of some difference between our most- and our least-experienced officers.

I am concerned for Stanley’s husband and for all of the officers serving our community. I want the environment in which they must work to be as conducive as possible to healthy, enjoyable and productive service. Chris Anderson Spokane City Councilman

Find better rules for net access

The Internet will definitely be an advantage to the town library and its board shows wisdom in being cautious over porn access. It’s unfortunate, however, that inconveniences like a one-hour time limit or mandatory staff aid while printing materials are being considered as possible solutions.

There must be other options which would not unduly limit access to the Internet and still protect privacy. It would be very difficult for users to accomplish a substantial amount of research in only one hour. And if a person is in a hurry it would be frustrating to wait for the next available librarian.

Rather than having the library board discover the solution on its own, why not bring in a board of avid Internet users to suggest possible solutions?

While attempting to enforce responsibility on the Internet, it would be unfair to place unnecessary restrictions limiting access on Internet users. Mark Johnston Spokane

WASHINGTON STATE

Taxpayers set themselves up

The last conservative governor this state enjoyed was Dixie Lee Ray. Since her time, we have elected a succession of free-spending liberals of both parties.

The result is a terrific increase in state spending. Our state’s operating budget has increased from $7.9 billion for the 1983-85 biennium to $16.2 billion for the 1993-95 biennium.

Don’t think this has anything to do with maintaining highways or capital construction. Those are not included in the operating budget. The operating budget is what it costs to run the government and schools.

I wish the press would quit carping about Gov. Mike Lowry’s sexual habits. The real obscenity in Olympia is the doubling of the operating budget in 10 years without any commensurate benefit to the taxpayers.

The governor has the ultimate power over the budget - a line item veto that even the president does not enjoy. Thus, every nickel spent is spent with his approval.

As long as we are gullible enough to elect free-spending liberals, we deserve the result. P. Norman Nelson Colbert

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Back to the future with Chenoweth

Rep. Helen Chenoweth’s idea to close down the IRS and impose a flat tax is not new. Alexander Hamilton actually financed the Revolutionary War in exactly that manner.

Hamilton knew that the flattest possible tax was no tax at all. All “taxation” was to be accomplished by carefully planned inflation. Whenever the Continental Congress needed money, it would just print more, trusting that the Congress would not go overboard and ruin this most perfect system.

It didn’t take very long at all for a new expression to be born in the colonies: “Not worth a continental dollar.” Edward F. Sawatski Veradale

At fork in tongue, turn right

Rep. George Nethercutt is confused. He seems to think that the Constitution is a document that can be used to support a certain view on one hand, and then turn around and be ignored when it goes against what you believe.

Sorry, George, it doesn’t work that way.

Someone who is so quick to wrap themselves up in the Constitution when it comes to supporting gun ownership, then discard it when it goes against their beliefs about term limits is a puzzling phenomenon.

On top of this, saying that a Supreme Court ruling doesn’t vindicate Tom Foley’s position on term limits is a serious case of denial.

If this is any indication of what we can expect from our new congressman in the future, we should be in for an interesting ride. Ragan Faylor Spokane

Subsidies serve sound purposes

The proposed lump sum payment to America’s farmers in lieu of all future federal government subsidies would be a very costly disappointment.

Subsidy programs are not public conscience money for past mistreatment nor an effort to offset some unfair disadvantage. They are intended to tip the scales against farm practices which seem attractive in the short run but would impair the productivity of our farms and raise the costs of food and fiber.

Producers of our major crops have tens of thousands of competitors, and no one of them by increasing or reducing his output will perceptively affect price. Consequently, when prices fall, their incentive isn’t to reduce their production but to increase it. We learned the disastrous consequences in the late 1920s and early 1930s. We got out of this situation by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine how much of each crop could be sold at a profit and apportioning this projected output among its producers, with federal payments to secure compliance.

We have become increasingly aware that certain farm practices highly profitable in the short run were destroying the fertility of the soil. Federal subsidies were put in place to discourage such practices.

There are alternatives to federal subsidies:

Close surveillance and prompt penalties for deviance from government norms, or

Return to the old ways, with widespread distress in agriculture and impairment of its ability to feed us.

Isn’t the present subsidy program, while it may stand improvement, more in the interest of the general public? Frank J. Kottke Spokane

Programs invite parasitic behavior

Currently, you in the local and national press corps are lambasting the Republican Congress for doing away with public assistance programs. I implore you to delve deeper, without bias, into what is actually being spent and the resulting guidelines for these benefits.

Today, on the bottom of my water bill, I found an advertisement for free handouts from WIC. I quote:

“Income guidelines are generous and include working families, unemployed families, or families on public assistance or medical coupons.” The ensuing full-time wage breakdowns ranged from $6.50/hour for an individual to $13.17/hour for a family of four.

Couple this with other programs and the individual would have to find a job with a minimum pay of around $10.50/hour in order to break even.

There are many respectable people who work hard to make these wages and have the dignity to decline these handouts, and they still manage to put food on their tables to feed their families.

A program such as this only invites young unemployed women to have children. Doing so, they do not need to ever get a job. And Slick Willy wonders where family values have disappeared to.

These programs are a slap in the face to working Americans and your paper has the audacity to criticize those who wish to do away with them. In this country, anybody wishing to improve their situation can do so. If anyone says differently, they are either lazy themselves or inherently bigoted. Craig Van Devender Spokane

IN THE PAPER

Welfare stories get unequal play

Two recent articles discussed welfare costs. The front page article, by far the bigger of the two, dealt mainly with recipients at the low end of the economic scale and featured photos of some of them. A much shorter welfare story was buried in the business section, although it admitted corporate subsidies bite into a much larger chunk of the public’s money.

I can’t help but wonder if this is an unfair representation, to shine the greater media spotlight on the smaller people representing the smaller fiscal problems. They certainly have less power to influence welfare policies and remedies than do corporate representatives.

I therefore hope the editor will offer us a more equitable emphasis in discussing social issues of a magnitude which impacts everyone’s thinking as well as their pocketbook in the future. Toi Muligan Spokane

Earth to editors: Are you listening?

How many letters to the editor does it take to get Mallard Fillmore moved to the opinion pages? Do you only print letters to the editor and then ignore them?

You have asked for input in the past on ways to improve what I consider to be “our” community newspaper. Why are you not responsive?

Who decides to put an opinionated duck on the comics page and to discontinue the Pulitzer Prize-winning Shoe?

Check your demographics. I’ll bet 30- 50-year-olds are a large part of your readership. Please don’t ignore us in your chase for 20-somethings and young Republicans. Jack O’Dea Colville, Wash.