You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
September 10, 2013 at 7:31 AM
House doesn’t belong
So the builder feels the home he is shoehorning into a neighborhood fits the character because there are a variety of styles? [“Feeling the squeeze,” page one, Sept. 9.]
I spent my high-school years in the house on the north side of the behemoth being built. Reading this article it dawned on me that the construction I’d glanced at down the block when passing by recently is the same house The Times article talks about.
Having grown up in that neighborhood, I disagree with the builder’s assessment of the situation; the house is too big, it doesn’t fit the style or character of the neighborhood as it is designed.
Most of the homes were built in the 1930s, with a few coming in about 20 years later. Yes, homes are “raised,” but only because some are on a slope and most have daylight basements.
Just because a developer “can” build something, it doesn’t mean he or she “should,” nor does it give carte blanche to determine what “fits” the character of the neighborhood based on his or her own preferences.
It is obvious to this former resident that the developer defends his rights without what seems a clear understanding that a certain responsibility goes with those rights.
Cathy Aldrich, Shoreline
July 3, 2013 at 8:00 PM
Reform would hurt the job market
One of the consequences of immigration reform is typified by the woman in the article who intends to use her new legal status to quit cleaning houses and look for better-paying jobs to support her family. [“Seattle latest stop in national fast for immigration overhaul,” NW Monday, July 1.]
The end result will presumably be a reduction in the potential labor force for the lowest rungs on the economic ladder, and an expansion of those seeking to work further up the ladder.
While the shrinking labor force may increase pay for those at the bottom, it seems likely the increased number of those seeking work “higher up” will result in reduced wages and increased unemployment.
Bill Hirt, Bellevue
Reform is practical
Lest we forget, the exodus of many poor Mexican subsistence farmers to the U.S. significantly began with the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other fast-track trade pacts negotiated by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. NAFTA was also the final step in the opening of the Mexican economy to U.S. companies, a process that began with President Reagan’s policies to promote our own economic growth.
Our southern border states are greatly impacted by the immigration of poor Mexicans. Now, conservative politicians, notably, former Govs. Jeb Bush, of Florida, and Haley Barbour, of Mississippi, support comprehensive immigration reform in the interest of economic development. Clearly, this is a nonpartisan issue.
These would-be American consumers are cut off from spending on food, clothing, cars and entertainment. In these arenas, neither the “trickle down” nor “trickle up” theories work. And the Obama administration’s aggressive deportation policies have reduced the number of immigrants to be absorbed. Practicality should rule, rather than prejudice.
Miriam Miller, Seattle
Trending with readers