Letters

Building heights

Change the role of

the city’s design board

A building can be out of place no matter how tall it is. The Architectural Design Board must approve a building if it complies with the design guidelines. And they have approved some developments they don’t like. Sometimes they must reject good designs because the designs don’t comply with the design guidelines. They don’t have a choice.

Even good guidelines don’t fit every situation. Each building site is different. Building on a steep slope is much different than building on a flat lot. Height isn’t as important if another building already blocks the view. Buildings on the west side of 5th Avenue south of Main can only be one or two stories above the street while on the east side they are built three stories. Building sites that slope downward, east to west and south to north, present another challenge.

What is ironic is that the ADB has the ability to analyze different sites, solicit input from the neighborhood at the beginning of the process, and help the developers design a building that best fits the site and is acceptable to the public. Staff can determine if the developers comply with the directions of the ADB. This is how it is done elsewhere.

The ADB’s role needs changing. In Edmonds they act like policemen interpreting the design guidelines to ensure that a rule is not broken. These architects, planners, and developers should do what they do best; design.

If developers were required to include the public at the beginning, the ADB could help the developers design a building that satisfies the public and fits the neighborhood. Developers, the ADB, and the public could work as team members instead of opponents. We could all win if we work together.

DON KREIMAN

Edmonds

Legislature

Why is spending more money such a crime?

I received a “Call to Action” letter in my e-mail March 7 from Diane Tebelius and the Washington State Republican Party. The header read, “Stop the Democrats and their big spending spree budget.”

In the body of the letter was the real kicker though: the state is increasing its spending by 17.4 percent. Does Diane Tebelius and the Republican party truly beleive that state programs will not benefit from an occassional little boost? I have been a constant subsciber to their party list and I, for one, have decided that spending a little extra when we have a little extra is not such a bad thing. After all, a little money can go a long way to help bump up the education budget, help out the health care programs that are in dire need, provide a little extra support for children’s programs, and fortify other worthwhile programs that have been neglected in the past few years.

Diane Tebelius is the new chair of the party, so maybe this is new ground for her and she really wants to make a good impression. But quite possibly, the best impression she could make is steering the party to waters that are less adversarial when issues are clearly not about only money, but people.

I agree with many of the previous emails I have received from the Republican party, but not this time. Diane Tebelius should reevaluate her position and quit making every issue a “money issue.” I will closely watch to see if they continue with a party platform that is not people-friendly. I will definitely hold the representatives I vote for accountable for giving back to us just a little bit when it is available. After all, 17.4 percent is not much, but at least it is something.

J SCOTT WADDELL

Lynnwood

High school sports

Commend, don’t condemn success

A couple days after reading Sandy Ringer’s Seattle Times article which stated that “Sarah Mosiman (of King’s) proved she is a big-time player despite playing at a small Christian school”, I picked up the March 17 issue of The Enterprise to read Tony Dondero’s interesting column lamenting a “not-so-level playing-field” in high school athletics.

Whether it’s being too small, isolated, and private to compete and win at an elite level, or being too affluent to have won justly, private schools have always been criticized by those on the outside, both when they win and when they lose. Sometimes this criticism seems unfair. I observe this as someone who has never been to a day of private school in my life.

Affluence can be either too much of a panacea or too much of a scapegoat in terms of how it’s viewed as it relates to sports. Having more money than your competition helps in some ways, but it can often have a counterproductive effect rather than guaranteeing the desired results, and (on the flip side) people with less cash often out-do those with more, and that’s inspiring.

As far as year-round clubs, in today’s game, that kind of commitment is often what it takes to compete at an elite level. Kids who undergo those rigors should be applauded, and to some in hardship cases who want to participate, there is usually a way they can be involved if they have the will and desire to get involved and persevere.

Most people have to learn to deal with losses or disadvantages at some point in sports or some other pursuit. However, those who win by expending blood, sweat and tears (and sometimes money) shouldn’t be made to feel badly or guilty when they win justly. Rather, they should be commended for their efforts and discipline that led to their success.

STEVE GOODMAN

Mountlake Terrace