Our Readers’ Views

Expand access to public restrooms

Regarding the Sept. 9 Columbian story “Downtown Revitalization — Collaboration key to success, consultant says”: Yes, downtown Vancouver is inviting with outdoor seating for restaurants and benches here and there. But one thing that is missing is public restrooms. Most businesses don’t have public restrooms or have them available only to customers. Downtown Vancouver would be a more walkable place if there were restrooms available throughout the area. People with children and those of us with various health problems need them the most, but anyone might need access to a restroom at an inconvenient time.

Turtle Place has room for a few permanent portable toilets. Sanitation is as much a part of ecology as recycling. C-Tran would be more usable for some of us if there were restrooms available near major transfer points such as Broadway and Evergreen. Until humans are born with faucets they can turn on and off, they are going to need access to toilets everywhere they go.

Philip S. Parker

Vancouver

Focus on health benefit when taxing

We need to repeal the sales tax on bottled water, which is a convenient source of tax revenue but an essential human need and a good replacement for soda drinks. If an issue is the number of plastic bottles that are not recycled, then provide an educational program for the need to eliminate tossing all plastic bottles in places other than a recycle bin.

With the alarming number of state residents becoming obese, especially children, it would be more appropriate to tax all snacks and all candy that are not 100 percent fruit or nuts. They hardly fit into the food item category if they contribute merely calories with no nutritional value. In addition, look at their fat and salt content and other enhancing additives or preservatives.

Ask legislators to make more health-oriented actions for residents rather than game-playing with special interests or make the excuse that an interstate agreement exists on what to tax. Change the agreement to focus on the health benefit to state residents. Solicit help from the state-employed dietitians to determine which items lack sufficient nutritional value to be in the category of a food item not subject to tax. They have the professional knowledge and focus on the health of Washington state residents.

Sharon A. Jamieson

Vancouver

Oikophobes fear the familiar

In his Sept. 9 letter, “Contrasting opinions interpreted,” Eric Badolato asked, “Is there a word that combines bigot and elitist?” In fact, there is.

The word, courtesy of contemporary British philosopher Roger Scruton, is “oikophobe,” or oik for short. Scruton writes: Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us,’ and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’”

Whether Columbian columnist and editorial page editor John Laird qualifies as pure oik or not, I don’t know, but he, like most of the establishment chattering class, has tendencies in that direction.

Bob Harper

Vancouver

Biased rhetoric detected

I am trying to determine if the Sept. 9 Columbian story “National Democratic panel to spend $650,000 on TV ads for Heck” is an opinion piece or news story.

The last sentence, “Herrera, in contrast, has promoted tax cuts to stimulate the economy while opposing Democratic proposals to stimulate the economy by increasing the federal deficit,” reads like an endorsement for Herrera and a distortion of the Democratic Party platform. The tax cut Herrera supports will also increase the deficit. The proposed transportation bill includes provisions to allow it to pay for itself without adding to the federal deficit. Herrera has said she wants the federal government to pay for the Interstate 5 bridge. I assume that will be with federal money.

Where I, as a Democrat, cringe at such biased misrepresentation, I am sure the Republican National Committee thanks you for your support of their rhetoric.

Michelle Pope

Camas

Liquor initiatives should be defeated

In response to Pat Brandt’s Sept. 7 letter, “Get state out of liquor business,” I would have to ask if this person actually read the initiatives. To say jobs will be created, not destroyed, is inaccurate. Nearly 1,000 state employees making a meek but livable wage will lose their jobs. The jobs created will be minimum wage, thus forcing taxpayers to pay for those persons’ medical, dental, food assistance, day care, etc., as neither group will be able to survive unassisted, not to mention the loss of funds for our police, firemen and many other agencies vital to the public. Meanwhile, we will have increased alcohol accessibility from 300 stores to 3,000 stores and the crimes associated with alcohol without a thought of enforcement, knowledge or customer service.

There are certainly a lot of losses, but with what gains to the public? I see only gains to the big corporations and a future state income tax for Washington if either Initiative 1100 or 1105 passes. Read them and then vote “no.”

Bill Arionus

Battle Ground

Remember the neighborly thing to do

For the first time since I was a kid in the Lincoln neighborhood, I truly feel at home in the Shumway neighborhood. I just returned from a 63rd birthday trip to Las Vegas and found out that the three young neighbor girls did a wonderful job of watching my home, collecting newspapers and mail, watering my plants and feeding my goldfish. Then, the morning after my return, one of them came to my door with packages that she had collected in my mail and wanted to give them to me in person.

That evening, I received a call from the girl’s father (from a restaurant) asking if I could possibly check to see if the family dog had escaped from the back yard. I gladly checked, and the dog was safely fenced in.

Then I thought, “This is what a neighborhood is all about. Helping one another and watching out for one another.” Quite simple, really.

Robert Henry Walz

Vancouver

Common sense is lacking in leaders

The Interstate 205 Bridge was built in 1983 for $175 million, which would be $378 million in today’s dollars. Why is it that our local leaders want to spend $4 billion on a new Interstate 5 bridge that by their own admission will not alleviate traffic congestion once it is built? Why would we need to pay tolls?

We need to elect candidates with some common sense who will bring reasonable proposals to the voters rather than make backroom deals and stick taxpayers and commuters with the bill.

Tom Langston

Vancouver