Waterfront access; Mike Nelson a 'clear choice' | Letters to the Editor
Last updated 6/20/2019 at Noon
Waterfront access in Edmonds still needs to be discussed
I attended the City Council meeting on June 18. It was disappointing in a number of ways. There were a number of reasons why the people who attended wanted the authority to proceed with the next steps voted down.
The claim that the public should have had to opportunity to vote is one. We are fortunate to live in a democracy. We elect representatives to vote for us. If we don’t like how they vote, don’t reelect them.
In this case, the public was also invited to participate in the process of selecting how we accessed the west side when a train blocked the streets. And they did. Their suggestions were evaluated. Lastly, three members of the public were placed on the committee.
I was one. I am neither a personal friend of anyone in city government nor am I seeking public office.
Nelson and others commented that Highway 99 was more important. Apparently, they were unaware that the Highway 99 project is proceeding. Need we wait till it is done before proceeding with an emergency access to the west side of the railroad tracks?
Councilmembers Buckshris and Nelson and others had bona fide concerns over environmental issues. They can’t be addressed until we know what we want to do. We had reached that point and now was the time to have experts look at environmental issues. That is what the money that was turned down would have done.
It was claimed the connector was too expensive. I’m not sure that most people recognize that we actually saved money by locating it at Edmonds Street. We are only building two-thirds of a bridge. Sunset Avenue substitutes for one ramp.
We should make it smaller. Width was governed by the size of the firetruck. It also meets ADA requirements. Most of the connector will be hidden on the water side of Sunset.
We must find a different way to provide access. But no one suggested a new means which had not been considered.
Kirk Greiner Edmonds
Mike Nelson clear choice for nonpartisan Edmonds mayor
In the last issue of the Beacon, Ron Wambolt wrote that a reception I hosted for Edmonds mayoral candidate Mike Nelson was a partisan affair and that Democrats have historically supported fellow Democrats, regardless of qualification (“Neil Tibbott clear choice for nonpartisan Edmonds mayor,” Letters to the Editor, June 13).
That is just not true.
Current Edmonds mayor Dave Earling and former Mayor Gary Haakenson are both friends of mine, and I supported them both. (I don’t know their party affiliation, but I’m pretty sure it’s not Democrat.)
I’m thankful that we consider the office of our mayor to be a nonpartisan position. I supported Dave and Gary because I believed in their integrity and their ability to lead, and I liked their values. And that’s why I support Mike Nelson.
Mike believes (as I do) that the mayor speaks and works for the people, and for our community and that by communicating and working together smartly, we can continue to build upon what makes Edmonds such a great place to call home.
We need to look out for our economy, as well as the human dimension of the fabric of our community: education, arts, the environment, and so on.
While I’ll hope that either Neil Tibbott or Mike Nelson would run our city with a nonpartisan spirit of “let’s get it done” and I look forward to supporting whoever we elect for me, Mike Nelson is the best choice for our Edmonds.
Rick Steves Edmonds
Many reasons to vote for Mike Nelson
How nice that Ron Wambolt shared his “nonpartisan” views on the race for Edmonds mayor.
Firstly, no politician is ever nonpartisan. Go ask 100 or 1,000 voters about this and let me know what they say.
Secondly, Ron is himself a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, finding fault with voters who vote for Democrats. No big surprise there, either.
As for me, I will gladly vote for the candidate who has shown great support for the environment (Mike Nelson), who has supported gun safety standards (Mike Nelson), who has the support of many Edmonds business people (Mike Nelson), and who voted against a tax increase (Mike Nelson).
There is no candidate in the field more qualified to be the next Edmonds mayor than Mike Nelson, or who will be a better leader.
Mike Shaw Edmonds
‘Racially charged’ headline was inflammatory
Regarding your June 6 story, “Business owner closes store due to racially charged graffiti,” your definitively stated headline of "racially charged graffiti" is misleading, inflammatory, and an example of bad journalism.
The stated police suspicion of racial motivation, from what I've read, appears by far the less likely motive. Though the store owner was apparently within his legal rights to move his truck rental business to his new location, some local residents expressed their concern about it.
Conclusion: The store owner is part of a minority group, thus the resident's concerns must be racist rather than a concern about that particular business being in that particular location.
Ergo, if the owner were white, the residents would be fine with that business being there.
It seems to me from what I've read the owner's ethnicity is incidental to his neighbor's concerns.
I'm not condoning it, but the window graffiti "go bac(k)" by far most likely refers to his returning the business to its prior Aurora Avenue location due to residential neighborhood concerns.
But perhaps the police, and maybe your paper, don’t have a genuinely high opinion of your Edmonds neighbors, or at least are subject to reflexively jump in agreement when a minority person plays the race card.
Arthur Levine Lynnwood
Editor’s note: The just-released Associated Press 2019 Stylebook agrees with your opinion on world usage, to a degree. It notes that journalists should generally avoid use vague phrases such as “racially charged,” “racially motivated,” and “racially tinged” “to describe situations in which race is or is alleged or perceived to be a central issue, but that do not meet the definition of ‘racist’ or ‘racism.’ “
As alternatives, notes AP, “racially divisive” and “racially sensitive” may be preferred.
Wayside horn sounds too many times
For those of us who live in the direct path of the new wayside horn system, the resulting train related noise is far greater than before.
Part of this is most likely educational due to many of the trains still blow their whistles, but, over time, I suspect this situation will be mitigated. However, in my opinion, there are at least two critical design flaws with the implementation of the current system.
First, the wayside horn is sounded far too many times, often above 12 times and even up to 15 times. Four to six soundings should be sufficient.
Second, even when the train is stopped at the station, the horn continues to sound, which is unreasonable. When the train is stopped either at the station or due to an emergency, the horn should stop.
There are simple solutions to this issue, but clearly overlooked in the initial design.