Letters to the Editor: February 6-12, 2020

Posted

The Editor:

It’s sad that we need to legislate common sense and allow children to run lemonade stands without interference. But it would be worse to see local governments harassing children over a few dollars about a tradition that goes back more than 100 years.

We don’t need to force kids to get a license or pay a fee to set up a lemonade stand in front of their house. We should be stopping at those stands to buy a cup and encourage the values of entrepreneurship and hard work they are exhibiting.

That’s why I support the bill introduced by Representative Luanne Van Werven. It would bar cities and counties from adopting any rules that prohibit or regulate “the occasional sale of lemonade or other nonalcoholic beverages from a stand on private property by any person under the age of 18 years.”

When you contact or see your state legislators, ask if they support House Bill 2232. Sometimes it’s the simplest things that tell us the most about a person.

Fred Holton

Blaine

 

The Editor:

I am thankful for Representative Sharon Shewmake stepping up to tackle the issue of lack of childcare providers in the rural and suburban parts of Washington for families of children currently not old enough to attend school yet and for future families.

According to reports, Whatcom County has over 8,000 children under the age of five years old living in households where all parents work full-time. But there are licensed child care slots for just 45 percent of them, possibly leaving 4,462 Whatcom children of that age group without access to licensed child care when their parents go to work.

Representative Shewmake is sponsoring the Rural Childcare Access Act (House Bill 2619) in the state legislature. Not only will this bill direct state agencies to report on how to promote innovations in childcare licensing in rural areas, but it will also bridge the gap in matching market-rate costs for childcare with the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program for lower-income families in our community. This is commonsense legislation and I hope lawmakers around the state can take action for our rural families.

Maralise Fegan

Ferndale

 

The Editor:

On January 22, Tanya Jackson was shot and killed by gang members near her home in Seattle. One of the suspects had been arrested 44 times, including for illegal possession of firearms. Twenty of his arrests resulted in convictions. If someone is convicted of a felony in Seattle, how many times must he victimize the public before he’s put in jail? It’s a legitimate question, but not to Seattle’s mayor.

The problem, according to Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan, is that gun laws aren’t strict enough. If there were stricter gun laws, then law-breaking criminals would stop having guns. This type of thinking makes sense to mayor Durkan. For Tanya, that type of thinking did nothing to protect her.

For Seattle’s mayor, police chief and city council, Tanya didn’t die because a criminal broke the law. She didn’t die because the criminal who broke the law should never have been on the streets. She didn’t die because of the irresponsible and incompetent leadership of those Tanya trusted to protect her and she didn’t die because of a failure of law enforcement.

Thinking that blames guns and not criminals for murder arises from a leftist ideology that places a higher value on “justice” and “equity” as defined and mandated by the state than on human life or individual freedom. This thinking always groups people in opposition to each other, making them useful as a political commodity – victims and victimizers, oppressors and oppressed, privileged and under-privileged, rich and poor. For the left, victims, the oppressed, under-privileged or poor should not be considered responsible for their own actions. So for the leftists who run Seattle it is both sensible and just to say that guns are the problem, not criminals.

Tanya Jackson died because of this type of thinking. She died because someone who was arrested 44 times should have been in jail, but wasn’t. It’s time to ask why and what will be done about it. Governor Inslee, mayor Durkan, Seattle city council and police chief, your social justice policies are having fatal consequences.

Dan Rudolph

Blaine

 

The Editor:

The Washington presidential primary is fast approaching.

A March 10 presidential primary has replaced the August caucus, and it’s time to get serious. Ballots will be mailed out in a couple of weeks.

Democrats will have many options. I suggest a few things to keep in mind.

Each of the Democratic candidates brings different strengths to the table. Any of them is infinitely preferable to the current occupant of the White House. None of them will try to cut Medicare or Social Security. All of them will work to strengthen health care and address climate change. All of them will release their tax returns and respect the constitutional balance of power. And all of them realize the president is not above the law.

We need to prepare ourselves to make our most thoughtful primary choices. There are three debates this month and two CNN town halls this week.

Perhaps most important, we all need to be prepared to unite behind and elect the eventual Democratic nominee.

Myra Ramos

Lummi Island

 

The Editor:

Larry Eide suggested that we not approve the Blaine school district (BSD) “replacement” levy. I agree.

In 2017, our property taxes went up a whopping 22 percent. We were told this was necessary to “fully” fund education (2017-18 House Bill 2242).

The recent BSD mailer explains what the levy pays for – essentially a wishlist of non-core expenses. The levy also “pays for teachers, counselors, nurses and other staff,” but that’s what we paid for with 2242.

Is this double dipping? And why are we raising property taxes to pay for “potential additional programs?” What is that?

Soon after 2242 was passed, because of a robust economy, we heard state economists forecasting over $1 billion in additional “unforeseen revenue” over the next four years. Senator Ericksen’s office later told us that $2.3 billion of additional revenue was received into state coffers than was expected when the school financing plan was adopted. Did the state legislators offer owners significant relief from the unnecessary property tax increase? No.

WashingtonVotes.org records Representatives Buys and Van Werven as being in favor of the property tax increases in 2242. Forty percent of Senate Democrats and 91 percent of Republicans, including Senator Ericksen, voted in favor. On April 9, 2018, I emailed Representative Van Werven asking why she voted in favor of 2242 and told her that I needed to know when we could expect a property tax rollback before I could vote in favor of a 2018 school proposition. I received no reply until January 7, 2020, 21 months later, when she had the temerity to tell me, “I did not vote to increase our property taxes.”

I enjoy living here and will pay a fair share for services provided. However, property taxes are out of control. If these “additional operating” costs are “necessary,” BSD needs to get the state to pay them out of the taxes we already pay to Olympia instead of perpetuating unfair taxation with this replacement levy.

Time for all of us to send Public Records Act inquiries to our legislators so they know we will hold them accountable for their votes. Thank you.

Jack Grant

Blaine

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here


OUR PUBLICATIONS