Cabin owners are stewards of federal land

As described in The Times' article, families on Reclamation land who have had simple cabins 50 or more years now stand to lose them due to the new fee increase ["Families getting pushed out of cherished cabins," page one, Sept. 9]. Our experience with the Bureau of Reclamation is that of dealing with a heavy-handed bureaucracy whose hidden agenda is to remove all cabins from federal lands.

You will find cabin owners wonderful stewards of the land, and furthermore public access is not limited, as the general public has the right to use the waterfront on those leases. We have been working with the National Forest Homeowners and our congressional representatives to create a new method of valuation and fee establishment that would apply to all federal lands.

Hopefully this will become law in time to save those who cannot afford the new fee increases.

-- Bob McIntosh, Conconully Lakes Cabin Owners Association president, Renton

Cabins no sweetheart deal without renter's rights

I have talked to one of the people interviewed by Jonathan Martin for The Times article about families losing their Forest Service cabins, and the source assures me he emphasized several times that cabins on Forest Service land are there under special-use permits, not leases.

That is not a trivial distinction. Lease holders have rights Forest Service cabin owners can only dream of. We Forest Service cabin owners understood going in that the federal government would be our landlord, but the relationship is very one-sided. When they say, "jump," you have to ask, "How far?"

Regarding calling the cabins a sweetheart deal: If you project $1,400 for the life of the 20-year permit, that is $28,000 in fees to rent the land. Not exactly chump change, where you may or may not have power, phone, TV, paved roads, winter access, law enforcement or fire protection, to name just a few of the amenities city folk assume exist everywhere.

My cabin is in Northern California at Bucks Lake in the Plumas National Forest. Our fee increase is set to be 400 percent. There is something very wrong with an appraisal system that achieves a 400 percent increase in the middle of the most severe real-estate collapse since the Great Depression.

This is a real problem, affecting real families.

-- Mike Hoover, Reno, Nev.

A sense of sacrifice from UW president

I for one am terribly impressed by University of Washington President Mark Emmert's shared sense of sacrifice ["Emmert gets new perks, no pay raise," page one, Sept. 4] as the UW has made deep cuts in its budget, including eliminating its swim team as well as increasing tuition by 14 percent.

If leaders lead by example, may we all be so lucky!

-- Patrick Burns, Seattle

Can I be Emmert's driver?

I think you printed the story about the University of Washington's benefits for its president, Mark Emmert, just to raise the blood pressure of folks like me.

I will be so sorry if Emmert is unable to live on his $906,500 per year, plus change he receives in cash and stock for sitting on various boards. As far as I'm concerned, all of this is a disgrace. How much do people really need?

Of course, this salary is nothing at all compared to the corporate titans' compensation. My point is, however, how much is enough? Where does it stop?

Since I have been out of a job since October, perhaps I could sign on as Emmert's driver. I wonder how much it would pay ...

-- Kathleen Collins, Bellevue

Strike illegal, but will teachers face consequences?

For being educated people, striking Kent teachers don't seem to understand their strike is illegal, yet they still serve no consequence for their action. ["Kent teachers delay decision on whether to stay on strike," page one, Sept. 4.]

Kent teachers point their fingers at other school districts when they talk about money and class sizes, so why don't they leave the Kent District and go to those other districts?
The teachers' strike has caused the rescheduling of the start of classes, so why don't the students, parents and taxpayers insist the teachers' union pay the district's expenses for the period of time the strikes cost?

-- H. Lontz, Kent

A history lesson in strikes from the Boston Tea Party

Is there ever a right time to strike? A right time to break the law?

Some of my ancestors believed strongly it was right to remain loyal to the crown, so they moved to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada; others thought the law bad, so they disguised themselves as Native Americans and threw tea into Boston Harbor to protest.

These Americans thought they had an inalienable right to break a bad law.

I taught for 31 years, and I am sure there's more to the Kent teachers' strike than is on the surface. I say, "Throw the tea in the harbor."

-- Delbert O. Lawrence, Bellevue

Low teacher pay, oppressive administration at issue in strike

Editor, The Times:

As a 22-year occupational therapist (OT) and member of the Kent Education Association, I am personally appalled at how my very own school district administration is treating our dedicated staff in this bargaining process. Why are we still on strike?

First, we have a constitutional right to strike against an oppressive administration that has been disrespectful, dishonest and poorly responsive at the bargaining table.

Second, high class sizes and caseloads lead to ineffective teaching and too many mandated meetings interfere with our valuable intervention time with students.

Personally, I have seen my therapy caseloads increase by about 25 percent in the last five years.

Third, even with a $5,000 national certification stipend for specialists like OTs offered by the district, our base salary is so low that OTs in Seattle still make more money. Thus, we still have unfilled OT positions and students who will not receive legally mandated services.

Finally, I find it insulting that Kent has one of the largest rainy-day reserve funds and pays its administrators the most in the Puget Sound area, yet holds its teachers at the bottom of the pay ranks.

In Kent, we stand united as teaching staff and sincerely hope we can begin this school year by reaching a win-win agreement with the district, knowing that ultimately we are all after the same thing: a quality education for our children.

-- Rose Racicot, Kent

Teachers, administrators holding students hostage

Is it just possible that both management and labor are less committed to "students first" than they have always alleged?

The autumn threat of a teachers' strike is almost as regular as the annual spring flood in Western Washington. If students indeed come first, both management and labor would have resolved their differences long before students are due back at school.

Instead they have made students and families hostage of their dispute, which borders on the myopic.

-- H.T. Wong, Seattle

Stuffed classrooms threaten a healthy base for students

After going through seven years of schooling in the Kent School District, I saw why the teachers are striking.

It's ridiculous to be in a classroom with 35 students or more. My art class last year did not even have enough desks for all of the students in the class. I was in a math class with more than 30 students, and people still wonder why students are failing state tests.
It makes sense to have smaller class sizes. Teachers will have the time to get to every student. Education is the foundation of everything, and it's about time teachers and students started to fight for it.

-- Jackie Argueta, Kent

Righteousness found in the Rule of Law

If anyone in Seattle cares, part of what is wrong with our country and our educational system is in Danny Westneat's column ["Teachers strikes are different," NWWednesday, Sept. 2].

"Yesterday the head of Kent schools said the strike there is illegal. Probably so -- public employees generally don't have a right to walk off the job," Westneat wrote.

Whether it's legal or not, it is a technicality. What matters is whether the strike is righteous. This country was founded on the Rule of Law, that a law is not a technicality but something to which we must adhere.

That a columnist for a major city's newspaper can write, "Hey, this law isn't 'righteous' so it doesn't have to be obeyed;" to have a president indicate that "empathy" in a Supreme Court justice is as important as following the law, is to diminish the Rule of Law.

To encourage breaking a law when it is opposite to your belief is to encourage anarchy. In part, the reason our Founding Fathers started a revolution was that the laws of the king were arbitrary and capricious, not to mention discriminatory and favoring certain classes over others.

Now, Westneat and President Obama are essentially saying, "Yeah, if you don't like a law, break it."

Citizens of Seattle, think about this: If we have no Rule of Law, if we can arbitrarily break laws we don't like, especially if our teachers break laws they think are wrong, what does that teach their students, our kids, the future of America?

"Hey kids, the law is only a bothersome technicality so do whatever you want, what you think is righteous." I hope the union bosses get thrown in jail if for no other reason than to show our kids that this country is based on the Rule of Law.

-- Theodore M. Wight, Seattle

Students, not teachers, lifeblood of schools

I find the quote from Terri Brown, a sixth-grade teacher at Soos Creek Elementary, revealing in the article, "Kent district tries to force its teachers back to work" [page one, Sept. 2].

Brown says, "I can't believe instead of working with us, they [Kent School District administrators] take us to court. We're the teachers. We're the lifeblood of the schools."
But last time I checked, students are the lifeblood of a school. Perhaps Brown and her co-workers should all be fired and made to reapply for their jobs.

-- Tom Gates, Yakima

Put teachers back in the classroom

What frustrates the general public about teacher strikes is that the solution to teachers' concerns is always the same: more money toward salaries or to hire more employees. The mantra is always the same, too: Strikes are "for the kids" while, not surprisingly, the solutions always seem to benefit the adults.

Kent teachers say they are striking ["Kent teachers vote to strike as talks go on," page one, Aug. 27] for lower class sizes, and their solution is to hire more classroom teachers.
Here are the facts: The Kent School District Web site says the district serves 26,833 students and employs 3,292 people, of which 1,745 are teachers.

This is 15.4 students per teacher. If class sizes are too big, then a solution lies with the staffing ratio of non-classroom teachers.

It appears the actual average districtwide class size is about 25 students, which would fill about 1,073 classrooms, yet the Kent District employs 1,742 teachers. Simple math says there are 669 teachers who are not "in the classroom," and 1,550 other nonteaching positions.

Replacing non-classroom teachers with in-classroom teachers should not cost more money, and if done well, could actually save money.

I am confident the teachers will support this, since it is for the benefit of the kids.

-- Daniel Hillman, Tacoma

Reduce class sizes by bringing in fresh faces

How would raising the salary of the teachers in the Kent School District reduce class sizes?

I suggest we take away say 5 percent to 10 percent of teachers' salaries to hire new teachers to help downsize the numbers in the classrooms. They should be happy to eliminate the stress of so many children they are responsible for. How, I repeat how, can the classroom numbers be reined in by paying the existing teachers more?

Is the state ultimately responsible? We all (should) know the answer is yes. Even at the cost of loosing some overpriced art projects, we all have to fund in this state. Throwing more money at teachers will not diminish class sizes. Hire teachers, put people to work and replace the "deadwood" who have lost the desire to make a difference.

Please, hire new talent, and people who are interested in making a difference and glad to use their education. Now is the time to rid our educational system of the teachers who have lost their drive, as we cannot afford their expense or the negative impact they have on the children. We all know the ones we had in our time.

The teachers union should be at the front of this movement, if only for its members' jobs. The union is well aware of problematic teachers.

If the union chooses to defend them, it will become one of the untold unions in this country that was all about itself, not in touch with the reason it was even formed.

-- Richard Eirich, Kirkland

Teacher on strike? That will be $100 a day

I think it is about time to fine teachers so they suffer a monetary loss while striking -- something like $100 a day. Bargaining employees in other sectors suffer financially, and it takes real backbone to strike, but if they didn't lose anything there would be strikes all the time.

It takes a strong person to strike. Teachers can do it because they lose nothing and just create hardship on students and parents by late start and ending of the school year.
Financial loss is the only answer to stop them from going on strike so easily.

-- Ed Williams, Renton

Teachers look like fools striking during recession

Its amazing to me in a time when all workers are being asked to do a little more, stay a little late and perform a little better during a recession, the teachers in Kent School District and other districts go on strike.

Teachers have every summer off, every weekend and every holiday. In Kent, they have been asked to meet in the morning and afternoon; I have asked my management team to do so as well this year to ensure every penny is accounted for, and we are all on the same page and performing well.

It's amazing and a sad day for the unions again, when in the face of obvious hard times and struggles for everyone, they choose to stand up and make themselves and their members look foolish.

-- Thomas Olson, Sumner

Don't just decriminalize -- legalize marijuana

I agree with state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles and former state Rep. Toby Nixon ["State should decriminalize marijuana," Opinion, guest column, Aug. 21] that it's time for Washington state to decriminalize marijuana.

However, I disagree with their method. We do not need any further distractions for our police force in trying to write civil infractions against marijuana users. Why not legalize marijuana outright?

We should treat it the same way we treat alcohol and marijuana's distant relative, the cigarette. Make it legal and tax it. This way, users don't have to worry about prosecution or infractions, and the state of Washington can increase its revenue intake.

Hempfest drew tens of thousands of people to its annual show, so we can assume the demand is there.

The idea that marijuana use leads to users upgrading to more potent substances like cocaine and LSD are unfounded. It is time to stop the insanity. Senate Bill 5615 is a good start, but let us take it a step further.

Legalize marijuana and let the state reap its profits.

-- Thaddeus Powell, Renton

Bigger problems than marijuana use confront state

With state budgets dwindling, it is time to rethink our criminal-justice system regarding marijuana. Clearly, no matter what criminal campaign is waged, it is not wiping out the recreational use of marijuana.

With state prisons busting at the seams all over the country, I would call this the low-hanging fruit and would be an easy way for us to alleviate at least some of the overcrowding that exists.

We have bigger problems in the realm of law enforcement. I am hopeful to see regulation of this drug in the future as a potential source of taxes to help fund some of the programs that are getting cut because of budget shortfalls.

The point is, we have realistic options here, and we cannot ignore this topic any longer.

-- Corrie Fowble, Seattle

Why stop with legalizing marijuana?

In their guest column state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles and former state Rep. Toby Nixon present their argument for support for Senate Bill 5615 to decriminalize marijuana use, citing cost savings to the criminal-justice system and new revenues for Washington state.

The article allows us to infer that they tacitly concur with the rest of us about the harmful effects of this illicit drug, enough to search for alternatives to prevent its use.

While the column doesn't expressly accept or deny that clinical studies warn of the drug's long list of long-term harmful effects, with their proposed reclassifying of the adult possession of marijuana, Kohl-Welles and Nixon contend the bill will slow down use.
Good to look for new preventive remedies; not good to decriminalize.

Mexico, for example, has gone even further, decriminalizing five grams of marijuana, 50 mg of heroin, 0.5 ram of cocaine and 40 mg of meth -- also to reduce court costs in prosecuting users. Why aren't Kohl-Welles and Nixon expanding Senate Bill 5615 to also decriminalize heroin, cocaine and meth for responsible personal use? The goals are the same.

Here are some related public policies to ponder:

• Let's also dumb down the public education curriculum and tests so fewer students fail.

• Let's lower the standards and qualifications for individuals to run for public offices.

• Let's reduce the number of hours and stipulations required for pilots, so they can fly longer and older.

• Let's decriminalize prostitution, like Nevada, so taxes will add to state revenues and free the courts.

-- Dee Tezelli and Steve Danishek, Seattle

Marijuana has plenty of benefits

Reader Jerry Bredouw must be jesting when he writes that he's waiting for "someone to address the glaring fact that inhaling pot will probably cause lung cancer" ["Won't smoking pot give you cancer, too?" Northwest Voices, letter to the editor, Aug. 23]. If indeed the invitation stands that anyone may help Bredouw comprehend why this " fact" hasn't been addressed, I will gladly point out the following:

First, no lung-cancer deaths have ever been linked to marijuana. None.

Second, it has been reported that pot kills cancer cells. Third, people who say "seems odd" aren't really interested in the well being of their accused. It's hoping pot smokers get cancer like cigarette smokers do.

Fourth, sure, smoke is bad for you. That's why some marijuana users prefer to vaporize their product, therefore ingesting no smoke whatsoever. Others cook their stash into food and eat it. Bredouw sounds like a bitter nicotine addict. He's not a doctor, that's for sure.

And finally, there's not enough serious medical research on pot to verify the carcinogen hypothesis. Republicans tend to crash the funding. Seems odd indeed.

-- Keith Curtis, Ballard

In shut parks, a lost connection to earth

Editor, The Times:

A great sadness filled me as I read of the possibility that 39 King County parks may be shut down due to recent economic woes ["39 King County parks may be shut down," page one, Aug. 18].

Alas, what a devastating picture of national economic and global policies over these past eight years coming home to roost in our local neighborhoods, where there is little money for the needs of ordinary citizens but billions of dollars still handily available nationally for wars and corporations.

What will become of us if our green spaces are inaccessible? What will become of our children, many of whom have little access as it is to experiencing the joys of running across an open field or lying on the sweet green grass to look up through leafy trees at clouds against a blue sky?

How will our young ones learn to love the Earth so they grow up to become citizens who will care for it?

-- Jackie Leksen, Lynnwood

No sense in expensive light rail, closed parks

There are many, but rarely have I seen a better example of a dangerous malady that has been sweeping this state and country. A recent Seattle Times headline read, "39 King County parks may be shut down."

At the same time, Seattle opened a $2.5 billion light-rail line. This is the most expensive light rail ever constructed, costing $180 million per mile or $10,000 per Seattle household. Now, the operations of the train must be subsidized by taxpayers with $10 per ride if the number of riders estimated by Sound Transit are realized, which is doubtful. Further, Sound Transit is planning to spend many billions more to expand this ineffective rail system.

This indicates an unconscionable disregard for community priorities and the placing of politics and ideology ahead of the community's greater good. There are no winners but many victims.

Those who need transit and have no alternative will pay more and have less service, taxpayers will subsidize mostly people who have an alternative and the more than 90 percent of travelers who use the roads will continue to experience increasing congestion because money wasted on rail systems will not improve congestion or pollution.

When will we connect the dots between this stupidity and elected officials?

-- Jim Skaggs, Gig Harbor

Failure to investigate encourages crimes

Tuesday's paper ran a guest commentary titled "Law-enforcement cuts endanger public safety" [Opinion, June 2]. There's a sentence in this article that reads, "Sheriff Sue Rahr decided her deputies will no longer investigate thefts or property crimes that caused less than $10,000 in damage." In Wednesday's paper, there's an article titled "Prosecutors to get tough on repeat burglars." Since deputies are "no longer" investigating burglaries, is Dan Satterberg expecting thieves to turn themselves in? And, just curious, what constitutes "investigating" a burglary? Rahr says they will "no longer" investigate.

For years, in unincorporated King County, when one is robbed, policeman come, write a report and tell you to contact your insurance company. They're very clear that you will undoubtedly never see your stolen property again. Is that what "investigating" a burglary means?

I had a friend beg a policeman to get the fingerprint of the burglar who left a very clear handprint -- five excellent fingerprints -- on the window as the thief disappeared with thousands of dollars of goods from her home. The policeman refused; evidently that's not within the scope of what an "investigation" entails.

Sadly enough, I think what this means for thieves is "business as usual."

-- Jean Bolton, Kent

Economy no excuse for mistreating seniors

What's up with shutting down the day-health services? ["Cuts to budget take toll on adult day-health services," NWWednesday, June 3] These services determine whether many people will be able to continue to live and function independently.

It's unfortunate that the state says it is out of money when it comes to elder-care facilities, while the U.S. government is dropping expensive bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am one of many baby boomers who today struggles with severe disabilities. I am outraged that legislators are treating the disabled population so callously.

Personally, I am not going to let the government tell me I am a nobody. And I won't stop fighting for our rights to the services we deserve and need.

For you all in the government: We will not tolerate being mistreated and thrown into the dustbin!

-- Heidi Durham, Seattle

Loss of recreation, water-safety skills, rehabilitation

With "Water, water everywhere" [NWSunday, May 3], there apparently are fewer drops to spare for access to a lifelong physical activity that can provide recreation and rehabilitation, and literally save lives ["Down the drain," Sports, May 6].

This is not to mention the loss of opportunities for fine athletes who carry this activity to Olympic heights and along the way encourage the participation of many others. It is hard to justify the immense attention given to other sports, whose players will ironically end up needing water exercise along with their arthritic grandparents.

In the south end of King County, a group of citizens is determined to save Evergreen Pool, which is scheduled for closure on June 30. This is a year-round pool, built by Forward Thrust funds. For the Highline-White Center community, lack of access to swimming lessons, water-safety training, recreation and water-rehabilitation programs raises questions of priority and fairness.

Pools were built throughout King County with Forward Thrust money and became part of Parks and Recreation. Access and affordability began to overcome cultural recreation barriers and save lives. Not knowing how to swim or how to respect water-safety rules is dangerous; just ask any fireman who has pulled a child out of one of our many unsupervised lakes.

In February 2008, King County launched the Equity and Social Justice Initiative to eliminate long-standing and persistent inequities and social injustices. One of the very neighborhoods that this initiative would purportedly address surrounds the Evergreen Pool. Now is the time for the King County Council to apply this initiative in a very direct way by securing the benefits of the Evergreen Pool to the entire community.

Perhaps the "wave" from the Evergreen Pool will eventually impact sports priorities at the University of Washington, where scholarships and lifetime experiences gained from team swimming can once again be woven into university life. Perhaps also, the beautiful waters that surround us will become more safe, enjoyable and appreciated by all of us.

-- Rachael Levine, Seattle