You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
November 24, 2013 at 8:04 AM
Protest stunt at Bellevue only heightened tension
Guest columnists Pramila Jayapal and LeeAnn Hall grossly misrepresented the “GOP’s response to the Bellevue protest” [“Why immigration is a major issue for women,” Opinion, Nov. 16].
In fact, my response was swift and oft-quoted by news sources throughout the state: “We are happy to have dialogue with anyone on the important issue of immigration reform … anyone who wants to talk with me can call to schedule an appointment.”
Instead, the writers claimed the “GOP response” was a tweet from the former state party chair, Kirby Wilbur, who no longer lives in Washington state. Simply put, Wilbur’s tweet was a disgrace. While insulting his political enemies, he also insulted Republicans over an issue where there is common ground on both sides of the aisle.
August 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM
The process is going fine
The Times article about the Bellevue waterfront is off-base, taking typical state Department of Ecology concerns and blowing them out of proportion. [“Waves of concern over Bellevue waterfront rules, page one, July 29.]
This article should have clarified that the Department of Ecology did not review a final draft of the Planning Commission’s proposal, which would include supporting documents. The Commissions’ unanimous approval came from new appointees and longtime commissioners.
Bellevue’s shoreline residents have been involved in the regulation-update process since it began, which only makes sense. Shoreline residents know the most about the lakes and will be most affected by the new rules.
Our aim has been a balanced program — one that seeks to attain the goals of the state regulations, while respecting the fact that nearly all of these shores have been developed.
A goal of shoreline residents is to ensure that the city cleans up stormwater runoff. Stormwater is the major concern and much of the problem is caused by up-slope properties, not by individual homes on the lakeshores.
Martin Nizlek, board member of the Washington Sensible Shorelines Association, Bellevue
August 1, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Shoreline Management Act must be updated
The article on Bellevue’s waterfront conflict reveals the uphill struggle in modernizing environmental regulation. [“Waves of concern over Bellevue waterfront rules,” page one, July 29.]
Bellevue’s waterfront demographic couldn’t be more complicated: Money and political influence meet a well-educated constituency of waterfront homeowners who certainly comprehend their unique stewardship responsibility.
Updating the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is a debt well past due.
Will waterfront owners choose to serve a healthier Puget Sound ecology on our behalf? Or will they deny science, just to preserve the croquet court — all under the ruse of property rights?
Art James, Port Townsend
Trending with readers