Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Yes to ban, no to bombs

This is a response to “Veil ban overreaches” [editorial, Opinion, April 26].

What could you not hide under a burqa or a niqab? People, especially in the Western world, should keep their thoughts to themselves and be grateful for attempts to minimize the dangers associated with such garments.

This happens to be the reality of the times and has nothing to do with the rights of good, Muslim women and everything to do with the safety of the general public, which is any government’s responsibility.

If you writers could tell the difference between a pregnant woman and a man wearing an explosive belt around his middle while walking about under a niqab, with only slits for the eyes, or a burqa with netting over the face, then you are much more talented than the rest of us.

— Ruth Quiban, Seattle

Beggars can’t be choosers

Confronting “the veil” is the opposite of Islamophobia. The French are being courageous in confronting it. France has a right to expect immigrants to become Frenchmen. Immigrants could wear the burqa at home.

Immigrants need to join the country they moved to, not demand acceptance for everything they want to bring. I expect people who live here to become Americans; The French should have the right to the same.

— Jackie Harden, Seattle

We can find a better way

Arizona’s conservative leaders right now are, in effect, swinging their clubs like neolithic cavemen at anything that moves, even though they might knock the brains out of the members of their own community. [“Arizona’s unhelpful law invites racial profiling,” editorial, Opinion, April 27].

I am referring, of course, to the recent passage of SB-1070. This law compels any Arizona police officer to arrest anyone who looks “illegal.” The law also makes a provision to allow anyone —a flag-waving super patriot for sure —to sue a police department that does not try to apprehend the illegal border crossers. I think they will have to stop 50 in order to catch five real “culprits.”

But of course, Arizona’s leaders do not mind inconveniencing Arizona’s Mexican-American population. In their minds it will be all right to stop people, scrutinize them and then let them go. The right to be free of police abuse is no bother to these leaders.

That sure beats trying to find out what propels human beings —mostly Mexicans —to cross the U.S.-Mexican border without proper documentation. It sure makes it convenient to allege that most, if not all illegal crossers are drug traffickers. That most undocumented crossers are simply looking for work — the work that you and I do not want — is not important.

Couldn’t we do better than the neolithic club-swinging, racial profiling and stopping and interrogating brown-skinned people? Couldn’t we find a better way?

— Carlos Gil, UW professor emeritus, Seattle

Arizona governor wants to suppress Hispanic vote

There are other motives besides illegal border crossings in Arizona’s “desperate move.” In what had been a reliable Republican state, Democrat Janet Napolitano was twice elected governor in 2002 and 2006. The expanding Hispanic community in Arizona votes for Democrats.

When Napolitano was appointed U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer advanced to the governor’s office. Her fear of losing an upcoming election is probably greater than her concerns about illegal immigrants.

In 2004, as secretary of state, Brewer blocked more than 100,000 voters, mostly Hispanic, from registering. Registering to vote if you are not a citizen is a crime, but no one has been prosecuted.

Federal prosecutor David Iglesias was sent by then-President George Bush and “brain” Karl Rove to investigate the illegal voters, but was unable to find one valid voter-fraud case. As a result, he was fired by the Bush administration. Seattle attorney John McKay suffered a similar fate when he failed to find fraud in the governor’s race between GOP Dino Rossi and Gov. Chris Gregoire.

Perhaps Brewer’s “goal is control of our borders …,” but history and evidence indicate that Hispanic-voter suppression is her primary objective.

— Bill Taylor, Renton

Lack of oversight for service providers cause for concern

Editor, The Times:

Congressman Jay Inslee’s guest column to The Seattle Times, “Protect consumers by ensuring Internet freedom” [Opinion, April 24] exposes the challenges of no independent oversight of the Internet providers.

Along with these dangers is that Comcast is hoping to absorb NBC Universal, which would make it a gigantic media monster.

We have learned from the bank failures that lack of oversight brings the temptation of larger-than-life business enterprises to cheat. We cannot trust Wall Street to play honestly anymore. Greed is the bottom line. Meanwhile, taxpayers bail out the bank failures while those responsible are given multimillion-dollar salaries.

How stupid could we be?

If Comcast goes bust —and it will without the Federal Communications Commission to rein it in, we will be on the hook again. Do not underestimate the cable providers’ lobbyists. Hopefully, Congress will fashion a law that allows the FCC to hold Comcast and other communication providers responsible and accountable.

— Bill Wippel, Normandy Park

Get the government out of here

The guest column by Congressman Jay Inslee editorial is so typical of our left-leaning, liberal-progressive leadership.

Why do our leaders’ mindsets always arrive at only one solution? More and bigger government control is always better, and in this case, Inslee wants the Federal Communications Commission to now control the Internet. Inslee obviously believes the poor and ineffectual consumer needs government to again step in and exercise even greater control over our daily lives.

To Congressman Inslee and all others like him: I say quite emphatically, no thank you. I prefer a limited and smaller federal government than the one we have. I prefer to make and be responsible for my decisions in the online marketplace. Since the advent of the Net, “we” —the consumer, businesses and agencies of the local, state and federal government —have enjoyed much success and benefit from the Net and we have done it without the FCC’s involvement.

I certainly see no need for the FCC to become involved now. I do not need government controls in order to make my own decisions of choice with respect to the Net. In a competitive capitalist marketplace, there will always be effective choices for the consumer to make; unless of course, the government interferes by allowing oligopolies to occur.

In the Puget Sound, there is no lack of choice for service providers.

I do not see the threat that Inslee is so concerned about. Inslee’s recommendation for the FCC to control the Net is purely another example of government overreach in the name of “we must save the people.” What I need saving from right now is not the Internet providers; it is our overstepping government. I, and many others like me, plan to do something about that in November.

— Gary Whitsell, Woodinville

Respectful reminder for riders

The story of Velda Mapelli’s death by bike collision was saddening, especially because it did not have to happen. [“Woman, 83, was vital, an athlete,” NWFriday, April 23.]

I have seen the potential for this kind of accident many times as I have walked, biked and run on the Burke-Gilman Trail and around Green Lake.

I feel lucky I have not been hit when passed by bikers individually or in groups of two or more. If I am lucky, I would hear an “on your left” from a biker, alerting me of an intention to pass and giving me enough time to move. But I know at times that I am less than 6 inches away from collision with more than 180 pounds of biker and bike moving 25 miles an hour (or more) straight into me.

This is especially the case if I get distracted and move to my left without seeing or hearing who may be coming from behind. Distraction could easily happen with the noise from nearby traffic next to the trail, listening to my iPod, being in a runner’s reverie or being in a foggy exhaustion during a long-distance run.

There is also the silence of road bikes with small tires. They move relatively silently until they are upon me, suddenly zooming passed. Each time is a shocking and frustrating experience.

Not all bikers are in such a hurry. The most polite bikers are usually a husband and wife with kids in tow, who move relatively slowly past me, saying “on your left.” They give me time to adjust and I usually wave my hand and at times to say thanks.

I know bikers just want to enjoy themselves, get a good workout or get to where they need to as fast as they can. They do not mean any harm, but at times, I think some bikers are absolutely clueless to the potential for an accident or injuries, much less death.

Bikers need to be educated about the potential dangers and damages they could be liable for. Perhaps their bikes need to be licensed —so one can write down a number for a report —or there needs to be increased penalties or fines. Perhaps walkers and runners need to be reminded about their movements across a busy multiuse trail with bikers moving by swiftly.

In the end it gets down to walkers, runners and bikers being more thoughtful and courteous in sharing the road.

— Ron Greeley, Seattle

Surprised accidents hadn’t happened sooner

I would like to thank Janalee Roy [“Keep a watchful eye,” Northwest Voices, April 23] for writing in about the fatal accident which occurred on April 20 on the Cedar River Bike Trail. To be very honest, I am surprised that it hadn’t happened sooner.

My husband and I own a condo right across the street from the trail and I have walked it going on my sixth year almost every day with my dog or with a friend who walks the trail twice a day. The bicyclists who frequent that path have absolutely no regard for the walkers. If you are walking and they are in front of you, it is typically OK. But if they come up from behind, watch out.

They would get as close as they could to you and then at the last minute, they cut around you. Never a “on your left, biker coming” — not a word. Then they have the nerve to shake their heads at you for being on their side, which is untrue.

It is very dangerous and I wish the police would just come once and observe their behavior. We all need to respect each other on the path; I just do not think the bikers do. The question is not if an accident like this will happen again, it is when.

— Cindy Kraayeveld, Renton

With higher taxes come more reinvestment in business

The Seattle Times’ Sunday editorial [“Proposed state income tax would stymie job creation” [Opinion, April 25] suggested that an income tax on the wealthy would be a job killer. Not true.

The economy in this country has seen its greatest growth when taxes on the wealthy were highest. The proposed tax is on incomes over $200,000 for an individual. If that person is a small-business owner, that income is after they have paid all of their expenses. So it is not cutting into money used to run a business. By imposing higher taxes on net income, you encourage business owners to reinvest that money in the business, creating new jobs, rather than taking it out for extraneous personal use.

History, not ideology, has proved that this is what happens when marginal tax rates are higher. In addition, it would cut property and sales taxes on those who most need the cuts; those who will spend the extra money in the economy and further bolster economic growth.

— Roger Burton, Bothell

What about a simple, one-page state tax?

The Seattle Times editorial opposing a state income tax because it will stifle job creation is not based on reality.

Entrepreneurs start businesses because they happen to live here and have an idea for a new product or service. In my experience, the existence of some particular tax structure is very unlikely to enter into their calculations. The Northwest is a fantastic place to live and work. New ventures will blossom as the area continues to grow as a result of adequate government services (think education and transportation) funded by a broad and equitable tax structure.

William Gates Sr.’s initiative is a step in the right direction, but its populist appeal tends to mask the basic need for a state income tax applicable to all individuals who pay federal income tax. As the editorial points out, a sales tax is grossly unfair and highly regressive. A simple one-page state tax form that levies a small percentage of one’s federal tax would be fair to all income levels and easy to use, and in conjunction with relief from sales taxes, B&O taxes and lower property taxes, properly distribute the tax burden.

It could be easily deducted from federal tax in lieu of an arbitrary and awkward sales-tax estimate.

The country as a whole has a bias against taxes yet demands ever-increasing services from all levels of government. Reform is badly needed. Taxing the fellow behind the tree will not work any more.

— George Sutherland, Sammamish

Where’s the proof?

The Sunday editorial regarding I-1077 is based on an erroneous premise. There is no proof that personal income-tax rates stifle or stimulate job creation.

Republicans have long asserted —as an article of faith, not fact —that tax cuts stimulate job creation. Although they assert this as gospel, where is the proof?

For the last 70 years, show me how the tax rates on the top U.S. income earners correlate with job creation. If the editorial’s assertions about high vs. low taxes and job creation is true, we should be enjoying a thriving, robust, low-unemployment economy right now thanks to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We are not.

One problem with the proposed theory is that it is assumed a majority of wealthy people are business owners. Most probably are not.

Microsoft is home to hundreds of executives who help “run the business” and would be taxed under I-1077. Their personal tax rates would not determine how many employees Microsoft has. The same goes with the personal tax rates of thousands of others who “run” businesses in this state, as well as doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects and other professionals. Until I see facts, I am not buying the argument.

— Walter Wilson, Everett

Feds turning blind eye to state problems

Hurray for Arizona for taking action the Obama administration has put on the back burner. [“Critics assail Arizona’s new immigration law,” page one, April 24].

Each state should act similarly if our federal government is scared to enforce the laws of this country. Our country is turning a blind eye to fact that illegal immigrants are costing taxpayers untold billions of dollars in extending medical and educational benefits to what —12 million lawbreakers?

Then there is the criminal element —the uninsured drivers and much more. Since when is using false Social Security numbers accepted? Maybe it is time all of us pick and choose which laws we want to ignore. Just like some lazy parents, our government is setting a poor example. No wonder this country is in terrible shape.

— Richard Eirich, Kirkland

IDs, carding part of controlling U.S.-Mexico border

Arizona has passed a law allowing police to request identification from people indicating they are legal residents. This law resulted from inaction by the federal government. Overrun with illegal immigrants and with increasing crime by illegal immigrants; Arizona acted.

Now the reaction from some is that this will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. Let me get this straight: The Arizona border is with Mexico. Mexico is a Hispanic country.

That being true, how many blonde, blue-eyed illegal immigrants do you think would enter our country illegally from Mexico? If you are looking for illegal immigrants, won’t they almost surely look Hispanic?

What hypocrisy. This is not about racial profiling, it is about not controlling our borders.

— Henry Kroeger, Redmond

Tagging is vandalism, not art

Editor, The Times:

“Graffiti vandals cost public millions” [page one, April 26] typifies the ambivalence that so often accompanies stories about graffiti as well as the unconscious tension between calling it “art” and feeling obliged to call it for what most of us think it really is —wanton vandalism.

When you then throw in additional article tag lines such as “millions” in removal costs, some folks will no doubt be asking themselves whether removing all of the tagging is really worth the effort and expense.

I write as someone who frequently sends notices to the state Department of Transportation about tagged freeways. As someone who believes even more effort and money need to be assigned to remove graffiti, I am prepared to call all tagging for what it is —environmental blight, vandalism and an eyesore as well as a threat to community safety and cohesiveness.

I see nothing heroic in tagging sign gantries over busy freeways or defacing freight cars, bus stops, buildings and freeway walls and support columns. There is no “art” in this, whatever a tagger might dream it is.

I recommend establishing a central reporting authority to enable better coordination between all the relevant removal authorities and a centralized database of where and when graffiti is spotted.

Database “tags” could be added to entries and then reports downloaded by the various cleanup authorities so that the WSDOT, King County Metro, the city of Seattle, Sound Transit, etc., know which is required to deal with the vandalism.

For the public to have to guess which agency is most likely to deal with the vandalism and then to have to find the relevant online reporting tool is half of the battle in the ongoing struggle against what City Councilmember Tim Burgess has referred to as “environmental disorder.” Let’s streamline the reporting. I believe our communities will all benefit in the short and long term from the faster and more efficient response to the problems that bedevil so many of our communities.

— Tim Whittome, Issaquah

No accountability for ‘artists’

My husband and I own a building and business in Wallingford. We were standing in our shop a couple of years ago and realized that a young man was etching one our tinted windows with a rock. Each and every one of our windows at the ground level has been etched in this way. The cost to replace them is about $700 each.

One of my sons took off on foot and was able to catch the young man. He was held until the police arrived. I assumed since he had been caught red-handed, there would be consequences such as paying restitution and perhaps community service removing graffiti at other locations.

Nothing has happened. This man called a friend on his cellphone while he was being detained and said he had been caught. These graffiti vandals communicate with each other. They know nothing will be done to them so the vandalism continues. Until they are made to take care of the messes they make, nothing will change.

I know the courts are busy, but if vandalism is costing the public millions of dollars, that should be considered when the decision to prosecute or not is being weighed.

I would love to know why these vandals are given a free pass. By the way, referring to the vandals as “artists” simply glorifies the act.

— Wanda Garfield, Wallingford

Destroying nests stem from need to be clean

This is a response to “City rips out swallow nests for developer,” [NWSaturday, April 14].

I walk regularly at Magnuson Park and each year look forward to the return of the swallows. I consider it a sure sign that spring has arrived and I was thrilled when, a few weeks ago, I saw them gracefully swooping over the fields once again.

To learn that the city parks department destroyed 174 nests of these beautiful and harmless birds makes me ill and furious. For years, the city rounded up and gassed Canada geese and now this.

And for what? An apparently endless and futile quest to ensure that people never encounter animal droppings of any kind; in a world where we cannot escape bottles of hand sanitizer everywhere we turn; we now apparently expect parks to be sterile also?

I hope the swallows find a new, safe and peaceful nesting ground far from the reach of the city parks department.

— Lisa Wathne, Lake Forest Park

City parks need to be natural, stay natural

I am appalled at the senseless removal of swallows’ nests at Magnuson Park for the benefit of a developer.

We need our city parks to be as natural as possible and to criminalize some bird droppings is so utterly wrong. Would these beautiful birds ever return to Magnuson Park? Respecting wildlife should be primordial. It is our duty.

— Claudine Erlandson, Shoreline

Job shifting will change nothing

Editor, The Times:

“Layoffs to let county avoid fee increases” [NWWednesday, April 21] told the story of potential layoffs by King County Executive Dow Constantine in the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) so that applicants needing DDES services could pay fixed fees rather than the presently exorbitant hourly rates for the use of DDES approval functions.

About 15 employees in the department were to be eliminated to address the issue. Unfortunately, Frank Abe, director of communication, said Tuesday “that a few of those workers may avoid layoffs by moving to vacant positions,” an appalling comment since that would, in fact, result in no reduction in staff.

There should be no recourse to people laid off by transfer into unfilled positions because the suggested staff reduction would not occur. “Special” people in the effected group would remain on the payroll.

I applaud Constantine’s desire to cut county government expenses, but shifting people into unfilled positions does not accomplish that opportunity. In fact, all unfilled positions should be permanently eliminated to prevent this potential job-shifting arrangement.

— John Marthens, Normandy Park

Laws protecting discrimination against gays needed

The editorial on possible Supreme Court nominee Elena Kegan [“Sexual orientation nobody’s business,” Opinion, April 23] stated very eloquently that whether she is lesbian should not be an issue in consideration for her or any potential nominee.

However, the editorial stated: “She is protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Thus, questions about her sexuality required no response.” The fact is that there is no federal employment nondiscrimination law to date that includes gays and lesbians. Kegan —or any future nominee —is not protected and neither are the vast majority of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) population.

Hopefully, this will change very soon. But until it does, discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment is legal in the United States unless you are lucky enough to live in one of the handful of states, cities or counties that offer protection, including Washington.

Amazing, when you think about it, that passing such protections are even slightly controversial, but the religious right is making it a priority to block the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) once again with the usual distortions and lies that have nothing to do with simple fairness or the realities of what the bill is about.

Discrimination is wrong, period. I appreciate The Times’ support in saying there should be no smear campaign against gays, but unfortunately, it has been going on for a very long time and in many circles, is an accepted way of thinking and behavior.

— Timothy Frazer, Seattle

‘Smear gays’ leaves gays in bad light

“At least there should be no campaign to smear gays.”

The above statement communicates that gay behavior is an adverse propensity and inappropriate because it is smearable. Heterosexual behavior is not to be smeared because it is acceptable. It cannot be smeared unless it is wrong.

— Burt Harwood, Longview

Orientation discrimination only a privilege for executive branch

While I agree with the thrust of the editorial regarding the sexual orientation of Supreme Court nominees, The Times was grossly incorrect when in reporting Elena Kagan “is protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Only 17 states have laws that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There is an executive order prohibiting orientation discrimination at the federal level, but that only applies to agencies of the executive branch and not to the judicial or legislative branches of the federal government. In most jurisdiction in the United States, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and those who are discriminated against have little, if any, legal recourse.

This is why the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is so important. Until sexual orientation is placed alongside race, religion and gender, workplace discrimination will remain a brutal reality for most gay Americans.

— Gregory Gadow, Seattle

Small business losing sales

This is a response to “Tar heel state right to challenge Amazon,” [Opinion, April 22].

I especially like the fact that this editorial described all forms of out-of-state sales, not just the Internet. Most media outlets simply focus on the Internet tax, but it is far more than just the Web.

For decades, my small business has lost sales to 1-800-number, mail-order and catalog-sales organizations. When a Washington state business has a nearly 10 percent disadvantage from the get-go, it is too easy for any purchaser of a small, shippable item to skirt the sales tax.

Please, do what you can to convince our elected officials to stop the nonsense. The UPS could tell you in seconds how much it costs to ship to any ZIP code in the country. It would be simple to have all sellers calculate, collect and remit sales taxes to the ship-to state.

— Bob Lackman, Seattle

As public policy, Take Back Our Time will only keep clock ticking

I read the column “The New Pursuit of Happiness” [NWThursday, April 22] and was astounded by how much progressives do not like this country.

Many progressive want to put down the United State’s success and then implement public policy to slowdown our successes. If they and groups such as Take Back Our Time want to work less and pursue other passions, then by all means do it —just do not request it to become a public policy.

Our great nation was built with an adventurer’s dreams, pioneering spirit, innovative entrepreneurship and the greatest work ethics in the world. We do not need public policies to make us happy. Do not worry about how I live my life.

The United States uses its wealth to allow our citizens to spend more time doing volunteer work and contributing more to world charity efforts than any other country. If we were not a rich in finances and caring people, this world could not count on as much assistance as it gets.

I am not saying the Take Back Our Time is not a good idea, but it is a private choice and not for public policy.

— Todd Welch, Everett

Deported mother? Not our problem

This is a response to “Mom deported 3 years ago wins chance to come back” [page one, April 20].

Give me a break, the key word here is “wins.” Our immigration laws are not a game. You do not “win” a chance to come here. You apply legally through our system and you are granted the right to become a citizen of our country.

Ana Reyes made some bad choices. She came here illegally, had children, got deported and now “wins “ a chance to come back?

We have become so beyond politically correct that we have lost sight of that fact that this is not a game. Wasting our tax dollars, court time and energy on an illegal immigrant who got mixed up with another illegal immigrant is not our problem.

— Lynn Durfy, Seattle

Media coverage of immigration one-sided

Why must editorials that deal with immigration be so one-sided? “Don’t fence immigration reform” [Opinion April 21].

Many who identify themselves as progressives follow the conservative tactic of seeing things in black and white instead of looking at the various sides of an issue.

How many of the world’s 7 billion people could this country accommodate? How many of the world’s unemployed do we want to hire given our own high unemployment level? Do we have such an overabundance of resources that we do not need to worry about ever running out? Can one even advocate some reasoned ideas on immigration or must one worry about being branded racist and xenophobic by our elected official, Jim McDermott?

Unfortunately, when the media, which are supposed to be objective, place so much emphasis on one side of an issue, of course that is the side that seems right, even if that side is based mostly on emotion and is short on reasoned information.

— Jack Pedigo, Seattle

Streets dangerous, high risk for collision and injury in business district

I recently had an encounter with an Everett Police Officer. According to the law, no person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in a business district in downtown Everett, on Colby Avenue. This occurred at 8 a.m. on Sunday morning, when there were hardly any people downtown — only many parked cars.

The road conditions are very dangerous to bicyclists in the business core due to the character of the angle in car parking and the bike lanes behind these vehicles. As a motorist backs out of one of these stalls, the bicyclist and motorist are not able to see each other until the car has already backed into the bike lane and a collisions could easily occur. That has happened before.

Not all cities in the state have adopted or enforced this state law. Seattle, for instance, has much more pedestrian and bicycle traffic in its city core, yet bicyclists are not prohibited from using sidewalks, as long as pedestrians are given the right away and the bicyclist is riding in a careful and prudent manner.

This law discourages people from using their bicycles and going downtown in general. With our growing obesity rates, we all need to encourage people to park their cars and get out and exercise more. Allowing bicycles on city sidewalks brings more business downtown and as a former restaurant owner, I appreciate that we should do all that we can to help business owners succeed.

In addition, the less motor vehicle traffic we have, the less money we have to spend on car-related issues such as the effects of pollution, traffic management and providing more car parking stalls.

This state law is being arbitrarily applied and enforced by cities throughout the state. I believe that the intent is to protect pedestrians during business hours. It is overreaching to prohibit all bicycles from city sidewalks at all times. The very least I would like to see is to amend this law or enforced in a way so that the road conditions and character of the foot traffic on the sidewalk are considered. This is good and needed for our environment; bicycle safety is needed to bring more people and business to downtown Everett.

— Steve Corotas, Everett

Time for talking in good faith as negotiation game goes sour

Editor, The Times:

The strike at Waste Management is one more example of what happens when management treats the contract negotiations as a game rather than as a debate. [“Garbage strike puts pickup in jeopardy,” page one, April 22].

This is what happens when the game must be won rather than reaching a compromise so that everyone is respected and satisfied —when the work force that actually touches and delivers the product is treated like a liability to be minimized rather than an asset to be nourished.

It always comes down to a question of attitude and Waste Management has proved that its deeds do not match its words. Instead of spinning the facts for the media, company management needs to start working to understand how value is added to their product.

The various city and county jurisdictions where the trash will not be picked up need to immediately impose the fines, allowed under their respective contracts, so that Waste Management will sit back down at the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith.

— Hank Thomas, Issaquah

Forget the garbage truck, hop onto the unemployment bandwagon

Waste Management is on strike. I just cannot believe the audacity and greed of unions and their members in demanding more money and more benefits at a time when their fellow citizens are losing their jobs and their homes.

If they get more money and benefits, the employer will merely pass the cost on to the rest of us, who cannot afford to pay more.

With so many unemployed and seeking employment, it is time to break the unions by hiring qualified nonunion applicants now. The unions can take what the company is offering, or their members can look for other employment —just like the rest of us.

— Pauline Cornelius, Ollala

Cloaking poverty not how Seattle operates

The editorial on the enhanced “aggressive solicitation” ordinance was a crass attempt to discredit anyone with a conscience. [“Missteps are mounting for Mayor Mike McGinn,” Opinion, April 21].

It seems that anyone unwilling to walk in lock-step with commercial interests missteps in your view. However, as one of those small and “vulnerable” females, I deny that The Times speaks for me with its editorial.

The editorial neglected to mention that Mayor McGinn and those four City Council “no” votes had the support of the 34th, 36th, 37th and 46th District Democrats, The Seattle Human Rights Commission, Seattle NAACP, Real Change News, the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, Interfaith Taskforce on Homelessness, Seattle Displacement Coalition, El Centro de la Raza, Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County, Lutheran Public Policy Office, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Asian Counseling and Referral Services, Church Council of Greater Seattle, ACLU of Washington, Seattle Community Council Federation, Urban Rest Stop and the Seattle Community Council Federation.

Hundreds of citizens also wrote, called and made public testimony. These public officials who stood up were not lone loons as the editorial tries to paint them.

This ordinance was not about safety, as proponents claimed. It was purely about the haves being annoyed by the voices of the have-nots — an assertion of some unstated right of business owners to not have their customers witness poverty.

Even if one sees that stance as valid, there is already an aggressive-panhandling ordinance on the books. The enhancement of that code was a great waste of city resources, pure vanity of one council member who has delusions that he is fit to be mayor — reminiscent of Mark Sidran’s “civility laws” a decade ago. Then and now, it was fueled by the paranoia of people of means, not only of the sight horrid homeless people, but that anyone could and might be next to be forced to beg for help.

We need leaders who unify us, not stratify us when we are in crisis. The problems of economic inequality and homelessness cannot be legislated away. The “aggressive solicitation” ordinance was an insidious gesture. Those who supported it should be ashamed.

— Christal Wood, Seattle

Safer in New York than Seattle

Seriously, why would Mayor Mike McGinn veto the panhandling bill? My family of six just came back from a week in New York City. We stayed right in the heart of things and were so impressed by how safe we felt — no panhandling. Sure, there were guys selling the knockoffs, but I never felt unsafe.

I cannot go downtown Seattle without getting harassed several times a day for money. I actually felt safer in New York. If I were a business owner in Seattle, I would be furious with the mayor. We need to get our streets safe and harassment-free.

Panhandlers need resources to get out of this cycle. They cannot feel good about having to ask for money. Besides, all that money is doing is fueling the reasons for why they are on the streets in the first place. Let’s help them and help our city by passing this panhandling bill.

— Peggy Cunningham Orse, Seattle

Can’t just sweep people under the rug

I walk downtown every day and see the homeless and jobless panhandling. I have never been aggressively confronted in my 20 years downtown by people asking for money.

While it is my prerogative to give them money or food, it is my prerogative, and I am a female small in stature. The aggression I have seen downtown has been by drunken people and gangs of youths. That is what the police need to patrol, not people holding up signs asking for assistance.

Maybe it makes those of us who do have jobs and are not homeless uncomfortable, but let us not forget our fortune and those less fortunate. We cannot just sweep people under the rug because they are asking for help. Mayor Mike McGinn would be right to veto the panhandling law.

Where’s the humanity, people?

— Dolores Rogers, Seattle

Time to live within our means

We could not agree more with the recent op-ed, “Thanks for nothing, Olympia” [Opinion, April 21], that the state Legislature proved itself an adversary of small business.

The Associated Builders & Contractors represents hundreds of contractors, suppliers and construction professionals. Our industry has been hit harder than most during the current recession, losing 55,700 jobs since February 2008. Workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance costs continue to rise with no relief in sight.

How has the Legislature helped? By raising taxes.

Legislators must streamline government and reduce the tax burden on small businesses so we can get Washingtonians working again. Instead, they have relied on $800 million annually in new taxes, federal funds, one-time fund transfers and delayed tough decisions, from pension obligations to K-12 cost-of-living increases. This would only make things worse down the road.

Even if revenue growth returns to normal in the next biennium, the state budget will not be able to fund promises made during previous legislative sessions. Where will they go for new revenue then? I would rather not wait and see. We need more legislators with private-sector experience to teach the rest of them to live within their means.

— Kathleen Garrity, president of Associated Builders & Contractors, Bellevue

More equitable tax system needed

The op-ed’s comments about Labor & Industries fees are misleading.

L&I is an insurance program designed to protect Becker Trucking Inc. and its employees from the catastrophic expenses involved with a workplace injury. It is similar to Rolan Becker’s truck insurance that he purchases privately and protects his company, trucks and employees from the catastrophic expenses of traffic accidents.

The op-ed claims Becker only gets $1 back in claims for every $3 he pays into L&I. That should be compared to how many dollars he gets back in truck insurance claims to the dollars he pays for truck insurance. That would allow us to compare two systems and then make an informed decision on efficiencies.

Washington is the only state that taxes the gross revenue of business because, unlike other states, the people chose that over paying any type of income tax. Cutting education, reducing human services and letting our infrastructure deteriorate does not sound like a plan to either attract business or provide the skilled work force business will need.

Becker should be looking for a better and more equitable system of taxation to maintain the roads his trucks drive, protect the health and welfare of his employees and family, educate his children and employees and attract the business that will allow him to grow his business.

— Larry Mueller, Seattle

Think about merit-based tax breaks

The recent focus on taxing and punishing the “rich” is becoming absurd. [“Gates Sr. pushes for state income tax on wealthy,” page one, April 21.]

I was raised poor and believed that hard work, an education and looking for ways to serve rather than be served would get me ahead.

I would like to propose a tax plan based on the fact that we get more of whatever behavior we reward. It starts with a 50 percent income tax rate for everyone on every dollar, regardless of the source; investments, wages, tips, unemployment and insurance — they are all the same.

From 50 percent, we start reducing tax liability based on what individuals have done that is good for our society. High-school graduates shed a few percent. College graduates drop another couple of points for each successive degree. People buying a home have more points eliminated, and more when the house is paid off.

A great credit score should earn a rate reduction, as would owning a business that employs people and having a clean police record. Necessary and noble professions such as teachers and military would are also see a rate reduction.

There must be incentives for living in a way that is a benefit to society rather than a burden, a model where education, hard work, and staying out of trouble are rewarded.

There will always be people who need help improving their lot in life and they should be assisted to make the transition from a high tax life to a life that is less taxing on everyone —including themselves.

— Matt Jackson, Mukilteo

‘Make it easy to rope a bull, it’s no problem to rope a calf’

Well we’re at it again: A new attempt at a state income tax is being foisted on the public.

My father told me a story one time when I was a teenager about a conversation he had with his father when he was a teenager. Congress was passing the 16th Amendment, the Income Tax Law.

He told his father: “I don’t see anything wrong with it, it is only going to tax those rich people making over $5,000 a year.”

At that time, the average yearly income for most working people was less than $500 or $600 a year. His father looked at him, smiled, and said, “If you make it easy to rope a bull, it’s no problem to rope a calf.” The 16th Amendment was ratified Feb. 3, 1913.

How long after passage of this bill in Olympia will it take to lower the level at which the tax is applied to the rest of us?

— Ernest Altice, Ellensburg

Use money to raise bar on suicide prevention, not deterrence

Editor, The Times:

When I heard that Seattle would be spending $4.5 million on a suicide-prevention barrier fence, I was aghast [“Work on Aurora Bridge to occur mostly at night,” NWWednesday, April 21].

Not only is this is a waste of money, it is not likely to be effective in the way that the city is hoping. I do not think that anyone desperate enough to take his or her own life could be deterred by something as simple as a metal fence. It could even be seen as one more painful barrier.

If Seattle is so desperate to throw a few million dollars around, I have a few suggestions where it can spend it instead.

Suicidal people would benefit more if we invested in mental-health care and suicide-prevention programs. Putting up a fence will not stop anyone from committing suicide. These people need personal help, not a metal substitute.

It is very sad when someone chooses death over life; I do not think that the solution is in this barrier. There are other ways to lead people from the ledge of the Aurora Bridge. They may not be the easiest ones, but choosing what is right should be what matters the most.

— Andra Amador, Lake Forest Park

State jumping into unnecessary, costly project

Folks in Seattle seem to think the Aurora Bridge needs a fence around it, apparently to protect people who will just find some other way to commit suicide.

The state wants to spend a fortune on new cables for a floating bridge that could be destroyed in four more years.

Some other government brainstorm is blowing $90,000 to count grizzly bears.

And I keep hearing about other financial fiascos. Most of them seem to be the result of federal money that comes with many strings attached. Locals have to spend it on preordained, stupid projects, or they do not get the money. I know this is simple-minded thinking, but why couldn’t the federal government just leave out money here, where we have a chance of spending it on something we actually need?

— David Alvar, Edmonds

Hard of hearing, steering clear of bike trails

The Times reported an 83-year-old Renton woman died after being hit by a bicyclist on the Cedar River Trail [“Woman, 83, dies after bike hits her,” NWTuesday, April 20].

I am surprised this does not happen more often. Most bicyclists do not realize that older folks often lose their hearing in one or both ears. When bikers yell “on your left,” it may not be heard or understood. Partial deafness could distort directional sound.

This elderly woman could have thought she was moving out of the way instead of into the path of the bikers. I am 78 and also hard of hearing; I had to quit using the Burke-Gilman Trail and the Sammamish Valley Trail because I feel it is too dangerous, as most bikers ride at high speeds. They are upon me, just as I hear them coming. I had several close calls before I decided that bikes and walkers do not mix.

— Wendy Walsh, Woodinville

Like cyclists, pedestrians should get passing clearance

The bike bullies are getting away with killing pedestrians [“Cyclist not faulted for fatal accident,” NWWednesday, April 21].

They relentlessly promote a 3-foot passing clearance for motorists to pass them — despite the requirement of drivers, which includes bicyclists, to maintain a straight line of travel on our roads. They want this so bicyclists could swerve about to avoid potholes, or even fall and not get hit by a car.

But on the trails, a pedestrian may not “step” into the path of a bicyclist without the punishment of death. What is normal pedestrian behavior where dogs, children and elderly pedestrians walk and do not drive? It is completely normal for them to “step” around.

The fact that the bike bullies demand special treatment for themselves on the roads so they do not have to follow the rules, then demand that pedestrians be held to the standard on trails that the bike bullies refuse to follow on the roads is just outrageous.

Let them civilize themselves and learn to pass safely. If you run into and kill an 83-year-old lady on the trail, then you know you passed too closely and too quickly. Require them to pass at a pedestrian pace on our pedestrian facilities and with sufficient clearance — how about the 3 feet they are demanding for themselves on the streets?

— David Smith, Seattle

On your left: Did cyclists give proper warning to elderly woman?

I too cycle and am also an avid walker, and I asked myself these questions. Did the cyclists notify her either by loud voice or shrill bell to let her know they were passing? How fast were they going and why were both passing at the same time?

My experience of late is that most of the time, cyclists do not notify me of their approach when I am on my bike, as well as when I am walking. I no longer walk the Burke-Gilman Trail because of the speed of many of those cyclists.

More people are biking now and I see that many of them need instruction in sharing the road with walkers, cars and other cyclists. Am I wrong to think the pedestrian always has the right of way, or is it only with cars?

— Mary Beth MacCauley, Vashon

While on wheels, keep a watchful eye

Although the cyclist was not charged or ticketed, the accident could likely have been avoided by using courtesy and common sense.

If someone is on the bike path ahead of you, slow down significantly as you approach. Pass in single file if there is more than one cyclist, call out loudly how many bicycles will be passing on the left and give the pedestrian as wide a berth as possible.

If the person is elderly or a child, slow down to a crawl. The elderly could be hard of hearing, get startled and lose their balance; they could become confused as to which side you are passing on and step into your path, as did the woman in this accident.

If you are riding slowly, you will have time to stop. Children are impulsive and unpredictable, teens and young adults may not hear you if they listening to music, talking on a cellphone, or texting, and a person of any age could be deaf.

Lastly, expect the other party to do the unexpected, whether he or she is walking, bicycling or driving a car. My children are alive today because I did not trust a fast-moving car to stop at a stop sign; the driver sped through without so much as a tap on its brakes.

— Janalee Roy, Tacoma

Make some noise for bike bells

I am 83 years old and often walk the Cedar River Trail with my husband, who is 85 and does not hear well. I have been very concerned for some years that one of us would suffer the same consequences as the 83-year-old woman who died after a bike hit her.

Bikes make very little noise on some surfaces and some bikers fail to call out that they are coming up on you. One little stumble or misstep by a walker and injuries could occur.

I did recreational biking in Switzerland and was required to have a license and a bell for my bike. For years now, I have felt a bell or horn would be a great advantage to both biker and hiker. Only once has a biker had a bell he used. I hope the biking community considers the suggestion for a bell for the safety of us all.

— Betty Culbert, Maple Valley