Terrace council

Council members’ letter didn’t tell the truth

In Evan Smith’s cafeteria style world council members follow their mutually accepted protocols only when they feel like it. What happened to a newspaper’s responsibility to understand and report the truth so that the populace can be adequately informed? Does the council’s First Amendment right to misrepresent the truth trump this newspaper’s responsibility to report it?

Does it matter that Smith and Zambrano were losing in the marketplace of ideas and resorted to intimidating people with blatantly untrue statements? The Evan Smith exception calls that “open, robust debate.” Apparently only the naïve would presume that open robust debate would be held to any standards. Evidently, whether it is truth, protocols or common courtesy, nothing should restrict anyone’s right of free speech.

Smith and Zambrano’s letter to petition signers and the Enterprise said “City Hall is not included as part of the city revitalization Plan.” The truth is that invitations to the community roundtables said City Hall was part of the Town Center discussion. The resulting “Plan” includes nearly an entire page on the City Hall’s importance to the Town Center.

In a Dec. 21, 2006, letter to the Calvary Church, an attorney hired by the city described a $5 million city offer for the church’s properties in the following terms, “the City would be able to begin the planning process for its new City Hall and street grid…” That is eight days before the Dec. 29 letter from Smith and Zambrano.

No attorney acting as a proxy would make such an offer or such a statement without prior legislative authority from the council of which Mr. Smith and Mr. Zambrano are a part.

There is no doubt the letter Mr. Smith and Mr. Zambrano sent was factually incorrect. The only real mystery is, why? Maybe the Forum could ask them.

Leonard French

Mountlake Terrace

Affordable housing

Mobile park residents have no place to go

Where, oh where, am I or my friends going to go?

When I moved into Evergreen Estates Mobile Home Park, Mr. J. Springer stated (verbally, unfortunately) he would never sell. I bought in good faith, paying cash as I figured it would be my last place before my demise.

There were no notices that the park was for sale or of any changes in the zoning status, by either the city of Lynnwood or Mr. Springer. We drove in the entrance and a huge for sale sign greeted us. If we had been properly notified maybe this would have never happened and we could have owned our own park. It has been sold and re-sold, now it will become another automobile agency. Our last day is April 30, 2007.

I am almost 70 years old, and have lost all my investments and the improvements. We had gardens and flowers and took pride in the upkeep of our homes. Since last year, a lot of people have moved out and left their homes to charities; we can’t afford to have them moved and where to? No one wants us. It will cost us between $2,500 and $3,000 to have them demolished here on the property.

I have been looking at just about every possibility. It is pretty sad at my age that I will have to take out a mortgage and need a down payment (if I hopefully find a place).

You people in government positions need to look at all avenues when you decide what, where, when and how.

Personally I would like to get some recourse from the original owner who made promises to not only me, but all of us, some of who have been here over 20 years.

When they talk about help with relocation costs you have to qualify, plus pay your moving costs first, them submit bills for reimbursement. No funds available! What about us that are just over the line from qualifying?

It has created physical, emotional and financial problems for all of us. I really don’t know where to go from here. Don’t suggest Senior, Everett, or Snohomish County housing, as they are saturated with waiting lists from two to five years.

I realize the economy for business is the primary concern for the community, but you must remember we are the ones that go you going and got you where you are at. We are your parents and grandparents.

Mary A. Payne

Lynnwood

School levies

Supermajority was there for a reason

It amazes me what a rubber stamp policy the Enterprise and Herald papers have regarding the school districts. They endorse every school levy and bond issue and now they support amending the state constitution to provide merely a simple majority to pass them. Neither paper ever questions or demands accountability or fiscal responsibility of the school districts. Should taxpayers hand over a blank check to the schools every year, no questions asked?

I get angry when I hear politicians like Tracey Eide and Rosemary McAuliffe in Olympia whining about how the supermajority requirement for school levy passage is unfair. What’s unfair is that non-property owners, those who are not responsible for paying the taxes, are allowed to vote to increase the taxes of those who are.

The reason that the constitution was amended 60 years ago is relevant today, to protect property owners from excessive taxation by the schools.

It’s proven year after year that schools can and do pass their levies at the 60 percent threshold. The Edmonds School District succeeded in 2004 and 2006, and Seattle voters passed two major school propositions just last week. Amending the constitution to require but a simple majority to pass levies is not only unnecessary, it is unfair to taxpayers and would place a financial burden on property owners. It should not be easy to raise property taxes. Currently the responsibility is rightfully placed on the school districts to prove their valid needs to the super majority of voters. It should remain that way. Contrary to what Evan Smith wrote in his forum column, a tax levy is not a tax levy when it comes to school levies and bonds. The schools already receive the largest slice of the property tax pie. The Legislature should not pass the resolution.

D. Kevin Baker

Lynnwood