Letters To The Editor
SPOKANE MATTERS
Talbott should face heartening facts
Mayor John Talbott has stated that his ultimate concern about the River Park Square project is the risk of the Department of Housing and Urban Development loan guarantees to our community development funds. The City Council has correctly determined, however, that the risk of detrimental financial impact to the city is much greater from a decaying downtown core than from this project failing and thereby triggering forfeiture of community development funds.
If River Park Square is not built, the financial impact to the city, particularly its residential property owners, will be much greater than the value of our community development funds. The cost to provide services to this city with a vital, thriving downtown or with one that is decaying are the same. Hence, the reduced tax base triggered by the loss of a thriving downtown will have to be replaced by significantly higher tax rates for residential and commercial properties outside the city’s core. If the project is completed, however, property values in the city’s core will go up and the reverse will be true.
It’s been said that proof of the viability of this project will be retailers’ willingness to sign leases. By all indications, they are signing up.
Spokane’s system of government requires the collective judgment of six council members and a mayor, each with a single vote, to determine public policy. The council’s judgment on River Park Square has developed over several stages of approval and has taken three years. Each stage was supported by a large majority of the members. It’s time for Talbott to acknowledge this. Edward A. “Al” Payne Payne Properties & Development Co., Spokane
Downtown retail? A losing bet
I find it hard to believe that our City Council thinks the downtown core can be built into a vibrant retail business area, and at the ultimate expense of the taxpayers.
Why should I pay to park when I can park for free at any number of malls? If I lived on the North Side, why should I travel downtown when I could shop at any number of North Side malls, without the trip downtown? If I lived in the Valley, why would I travel downtown to shop? There are many malls in the Valley.
The only residential section whose residents would have reason to shop downtown is the South Hill. That’s where I live, but for several reasons I wouldn’t go downtown. I would be expected to pay for parking. There are street people, transients and panhandlers. Why would I want to subject my wife and family to this?
There is hope for our downtown but not as a retail center. Look at Portland. The city’s downtown has changed from retail to a business and entertainment economy.
Our City Council paid for a one-sided study, as opposed to getting a real plan and study. With the building of malls, you erode the core of a city.
We can save our downtown core but not as a retail center. That, I’m afraid, is going to be a $90 million fact the taxpayers are going to learn, thanks to our City Council. D.L. Hahm Spokane
River Park progress encouraging
In the last half century, Spokane’s downtown has gone through a number of changes. But few changes will have the grand and lasting impact of the new River Park Square.
Many of us remember the days when the downtown core represented the spirit of Spokane. We could walk along the streets, bustling with energy and purpose, meeting friends and colleagues. It was common ground. It was the place to be.
With the efforts of many concerned, dedicated citizens, downtown redevelopment is well under way. Spokane’s core area will again be the nucleus of our fine community. The demolition is complete, the ground is being prepared and come spring, the foundation for the square will be poured. The expanded Nordstrom, multiplex cinema, additional parking, covered atrium and many new businesses will add tremendously to the character and vigor of our city.
A heartfelt thank you to the city leaders and citizens who have made all of this possible. Julie E. Prafke, president Humanix Personnel Services, Spokane
Planning? No, it’s bumbling
It looks like our elected officials have proved it again, You get what you pay for. Well, maybe not.
So we have some $9 million in a project they wanted to cram down the taxpayers’ throats. But up jump the Ecology folks, saying no bridge allowed. I assume the $9 million does not count the countless hours spent by city employees.
What did we get besides the shaft? A vacant restaurant and an inaccessible park, both of which either were, or were going to be, taxpaying entities. Great thinking!
Now, after making everyone wonder, they are going to get an appraisal on the downtown project? Are they going to use the same two who appraised the now park property, thereby making the owners go to court? If they do, the collateral offered won’t be worth much! Charles E. McCollim Spokane
HIGHER EDUCATION
WSU - a land grab university
Washington State University recently lost its lease to the Farm Credit Building and does not have a Spokane home.
First, Sen. James West proposed a WSU-Eastern Washington University merger. Gov. Gary Locke appointed the Higher Education Coordinating Board to make recommendations to improve college programs in Spokane. The HEC Board tentatively indicated that EWU is doing a good job.
Since it didn’t look like a merger was going to work, West and Prince proposed a compromise plan. WSU will take over higher education in Spokane. Now, WSU will be able to take over EWU’s half of the Riverpoint building.
This issue is not about education, folks. It is about real estate. WSU needs a building so it convinced a couple of very naive legislators to get it one. How does this help education?
Our brilliant legislators say that it will help the Cheney campus. They don’t say how. It certainly won’t help solve the enrollment problem.
EWU has spent more than 20 years serving the Spokane community by providing convenient programs where they were needed the most. As a reward for this fine effort, West-Prince propose to send all this hard work back to Cheney.
West and Prince say their proposal will take care of a need for a big research school in Spokane. I agree that Spokane needs advanced programs in engineering, information systems and the biomedical fields. Why hasn’t WSU supplied them? How will changing buildings help? Why eliminate all of the fine educational programs supplied by EWU so that WSU can have a building? Why force people to commute to Cheney during the evening to obtain master’s degrees in business, education, public administration, social work, etc.? John E. Hanke Cheney
Review or lose so-called compromise
The new “compromise” proposal by Sens. Jim West and Eugene Prince asks that Washington State University be responsible for all upper division and graduate offerings in Spokane, and that Eastern Washington University offer programs only on its Cheney campus.
If enacted, this would greatly limit the higher education choices for the people of Spokane. It would lower the quality of offerings and would raise costs for taxpayers.
In recent years, EWU has moved many of its most professionally advanced faculty, programs and equipment into the Joint Center for Higher Education. The proposal says that all equipment at the Joint Center would become the property of WSU. The faculty sent back to Cheney would have to teach in less advanced programs because they would not have needed equipment.
Would the WSU faculty be willing to abandon their programs in Pullman, move to Spokane and offer equivalent programs here? Or would fewer courses be offered with a higher percentage of part-time instructors?
Would the legislators be willing to fund replacement equipment and facilities in Cheney? Most importantly, would there be a natural flow of homegrown students into WSU programs from EWU?
The so-called compromise proposal would create a monopoly that would be bad for consumers and a misuse of EWU’s talented faculty.
We need instead to promote cooperation and reduce restrictions. EWU and WSU can and should work side by side. Such processes should get top priority in the upcoming statewide review of higher education, and the “compromise” proposal needs to be a part of that review - or simply abandoned. Grant W. Smith Cheney
WSU takeover a big, misplaced step
I have a great deal of concern over the recent move by the Legislature to eliminate the presence of Eastern Washington University in Spokane.
This bill would take away EWU’s ability to provide its working students an chance to further their education. Many EWU students go to evening classes at the Riverpoint and Spokane centers after work. Going to Cheney for class would not be an option for many.
HB 6717 says the solution for that is to have WSU teach classes. WSU plans to teach class in Spokane via a “wet system,” in other words, by TV. EWU faculty cannot be replaced by a grad student teaching through the TV from Pullman.
This bill will hurt our community. I urge all parties concerned to step back and do the necessary research before such a hasty decision is made. Our community has an excellent program in place that has a great deal of community support. Its loss will affect us all. Josh Stirpe Spokane
WASHINGTON STATE
Legislation enhances dental services
I urge support of the Washington State Dental and Washington State Dental Assistant associations’ recent legislative efforts. This legislation allows for a high standard of care not only in preventive procedures (cleaning teeth) but also restorative services (the placing of fillings). The need for restorative in the low-income population far outweighs current demand for preventive procedures.
This measure includes an education requirement and the subsequent proof of completion of advanced practice training of the applicant. Services may only be provided after a comprehensive diagnosis by, and under the supervision of, a licensed dentist. Quality dental care can be provided in various settings, but the cornerstone for quality is diagnosis by a dentist.
Cost is also an issue. Dental hygienists in this state are very well educated and provide important services. They are also paid well. Their education takes three to four years. Yes, we are talking about a dental assistant with fewer years of training, but we are also considering a narrower scope of dental procedures. It is time for dental hygienists to understand that part of their current scope of practice may be delegated to another professional without harm to the patient, as the dental profession realized when it passed legislation allowing dental hygienists to practice expanded duties under supervision.
I ask your support for SB6586. It’s time that that the needs of the patient are met and this turf war stops. Mary Krempasky Smith, D.D.S. Spokane
Sommers’ bill unfair to seniors
Re: HB2440, concerning senior citizen drivers, as outlined in the Jan. 20 article, “1998 Legislature.”
Rep. Duane Sommers’ HB2440 includes a proposal that would initiate testing of drivers age 69 through 87 more often than is now done. But it doesn’t include drivers of other ages. I see this as highly prejudicial.
Regardless of the general concept, all senior citizens are not hard of hearing, poor of eyesight or suffering from chronic health conditions. I see a lot of carelessness among young drivers, and some of them seem to suffer from conditions not related to their health.
People of any age who have problems should see their physicians regularly and learn to handle their conditions properly. I’d like to see every driver, regardless of age, included in the additional testing. Let’s be fair and nondiscriminatory about the testing and imposing of additional fees on older people, who have some of the lowest incomes in our society.
I hope many people will make their opinions known to Sommers. Lillian O. Forster Spokane
PEOPLE AND ANIMALS
Wolf cross-breeding a bad practice
Again, a wolf-hybrid makes the news. This time, no one was injured, but another life was at risk of being destroyed because of the ignorance and greed of a select few.
When will people realize that a wolf is not meant to be a pet? Even if it has been cross-bred with a dog that has the best qualities, its offspring will still possess wild instincts that will be difficult to contain. A wolf needs to run with the pack and enjoy the freedom God meant it to have, not live life at the end of a chain or confined in a fenced yard.
I love wolves. One of my goals in life is to hear a wolf howl in the wild. But I feel it is wrong to breed this wild animal with a pet and expect to get another pet.
Unfortunately, more ugly situations will occur as long as this practice continues. Some may even result in injuries or death to a child. Virginia R. Grove Hayden
Study wolf-hybrid before adopting
I read the article about the pet wolf-dog with sadness. When will people learn that wolves and wolf-hybrids are not dogs? Because they look similar to dogs, people believe if they know dogs, they know wolves.
I own two wolf-hybrids. Their personality is as different from a dog’s as a cat’s or a horse’s!
When people buy any other unusual animal, they read up on it so they know what to expect. But of wolves, too many people think it’s just a bushy dog and suffer the consequences, as does the wolf.
County animal shelter Director Nancy Sattin’s comments, that wolves are antisocial, are completely wrong. Every wildlife biologist who’s studied wolves knows they are one of the most social mammals. They live in, by and for the pack. Wolf-hybrids are the same way, only your family is their pack.
Two excellent books on wolves are, “Of Wolves and Men,” by Barry Lopez; and, “The Wolf: An Endangered Species,” by Dr. David Meech. I recommend these books for anyone thinking of buying a wolf-hybrid.
Wolf-hybrids are not unpredictable to anyone who has studied and been around them, only to the uneducated.
When we bought our first wolf-hybrid, we read these and other books. We tried to understand his instincts, needs and personality. He is extremely social and as a cub needed much affection and companionship. He’s 3 now, has fathered a litter of pups and is the most loyal, intelligent, and loving animal I’ve owned.
Wolf-hybrids can make excellent pets but they do not make good dogs. Michael E. Mayeau Spokane
Wolves not major threat to stock
Anger displayed by the Farm Bureau Federation of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho over the wolf recovery program is confusing. The bureau, which really represents the interests of ranchers who use public lands, should consider the facts.
Far more livestock are lost to disease, weather, birthing problems and neighborhood dogs than to wolves. Statistics suggest that 100,000 livestock are lost to these natural events each year in Montana. More than 1,000 are maimed or killed by dogs.
Ranchers, who must absorb losses due to natural causes, should have little to complain about. They do have the option of being reimbursed by private organizations for livestock lost to wolves or bear.
A few ranchers have requested Wyoming District Court Judge Downes to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove all wolves recently transplanted from Canada to North Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.
Whether one agrees with the wolf reintroduction program is a moot point. These wolves are now mingling and breeding with native wolves that migrated from Canada. It makes no sense to remove or kill all recently transplanted wolves from Idaho and Yellowstone, delay wolf population recovery in these areas, and postpone the animal’s eventual de-listing.
We must provide full Endangered Species Act protection for all wolves and their habitat. The underlying purpose of the publicly supported wolf recovery program is to expeditiously establish enough breeding pairs to guarantee their survival, remove them from the Endangered Species List and let states to control their numbers through hunting. John L. Noyes, M.D. Kalispell, Mont.