Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: June 7, 2015”

Make problem, pay to solve


At the risk of yet another “negative GUARDIAN rant,” we feel compelled to comment on two developments which crossed our desk today.

The DAILY PAPER posted a story informing us the City Council approved a proposed 173-home development IN THE FOOT HILLS adjacent to the Harris Ranch subdivision east of downtown.

The current zoning is either “open space” or agricultural (grazing). Team Dave just announced a proposal to seek $10,000,000 through a serial levy to preserve open space and conservation areas.

Wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper to simply deny the development and need for more schools, roads, sewers etc.? The deer and antelope could play without a discouraging word–as they do now in that area…no need to buy foot hills land to keep developers out.

The Vista Neighborhood is subject of a “do good rescue” project on the part of our City fathers (and mothers). Seems the area has a disproportionate number of poor folks, free lunches in the schools, (“title one”) and other problems which a Federal grant will supposedly help upgrade or cure.

At the same time, a new 300-resident development with “affordable housing” (which means subsidized for low income) is about to be approved for the big vacant lot along Federal Way by the Overland Trail Post Office. If they offer housing for low income residents, it would seem logical that more low income people will move into the neighborhood, causing more free lunches at Hawthorn School, increased traffic, etc. No telling if they will include 23 sex offenders like those at Canal and Vista in the City-owned motel.

Wouldn’t it be better to put a low-income project in Harris Ranch or on the ridges off Bogus Basin Road in an effort to disperse various economic classes? Just curious.

First take

How about this as a principle for ballot issues: It should be difficult enough to place a ballot item that real support needs to lie in back of it, but money should not be a factor in that - that, for example, a single wealthy person couldn't in effect buy a ballot slot (to which we're very close right now). Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times gets at some of this in his column today, writing "There will be two “citizen” initiatives on the election ballot this fall. I can say that with some certainty because that’s how many petition-gathering campaigns have been blessed by the superrich." That includes one by Tim Eyman (who has millionaire help this time, unlike last time, when he didn't make the ballot). Weatneat goes on, "The rule of thumb is if you have about a million dollars, your idea is by definition strong enough to qualify for a vote. If you don’t have a million, then it isn’t good enough and usually it won’t make the ballot." Surely we can structure the ballot process better than this.

Another thought as we move toward the campaign season: Is something an extremist stance if a majority of the population favors it? And what does it say if a (clear) majority of the country wants something, but a specific state does not?