Letters to the Editor

HOSPITAL EXPANSION

---

Building second campus would cost less money

Seattle's Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center proposes a 1.5 million sq. ft. on-site expansion overlaying their current 900,000 sq. ft. campus. CHRMC says "it would be too impractical and expensive" to expand to a second campus (Wednesday P-I), but has not released the cost of its own expansion plan. In fact, building a second campus would cost substantially less than on-site expansion. New construction on an unoccupied site is far less expensive than upgrading old buildings, especially for high-tech uses.

The cost-effective alternative: Maintain the current campus for non-critical patients and build a second campus at South Lake Union. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on world-class faculty and state-of-the-art equipment.

This alternative would avoid the severe impact of 15-20 years of on-site construction on the patients, families and medical staff of a working hospital. It would offer the advantage of contiguity to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and CHRMC's own new South Lake Union research center. CHRMC's vital mission would be better served by this cost-effective alternative.

Michael Perlman
Seattle

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

---

Media present confusing and irresponsible coverage

The recent primary and caucus coverage by the media is irresponsible and confusing. These are primaries, state by state, in which candidates rack up delegates who then move on to nominate their party's candidate. The two states that have elected candidates so far are small, and almost immaterial. To date, the delegate count is as follows:

Democrats: Barack Obama has 25, Hillary Clinton has 24, John Edwards has 18.

Total needed for nomination: 2,025

Republicans: Mitt Romney has 24. Mike Huckabee has 18, John McCain has 10.

Total needed for nomination: 1,191

It is irresponsible and a sign of attempted voter manipulation for the networks and news agencies to present the winners as leading the race. When viewed by numbers of delegates, the situation is much different than the press would have us believe. Is this a systemic voter manipulation by the press? Or is it just stupidity on the part of editors and reporters?

Thomas Erdmann
Seattle

THE PRESIDENT

---

Columnist should know how Bush got into office

I was very dismayed to read in Ann McFeatters' Wednesday column that "we elected George Bush president in 2000 because he seemed to be a nice guy."

The people did not elect Bush; we elected Al Gore. McFeatters brushes aside the outrageous election fraud in Florida, which has been documented by numerous experts. The Supreme Court elected George Bush by one vote.

Again she refers to 2004 as "we elected him the second time because John Kerry was not a compelling alternative." The 2004 election was stolen in Ohio by Republican operatives; that has been documented by numerous reputable investigators.

What is wrong with pundits who continue to deny the fact that Bush was not elected honestly by voters? This denial is widespread and is a major threat to the coming elections' integrity. It just plain scares me.

And I have just learned that Diebold machines were used in the New Hampshire primary; these are the same kind that can be so easily flipped to give different results in a matter of seconds. Perhaps that explains the amazingly different results from the predicted Barack Obama victory in New Hampshire and the slim Hillary Clinton victory, which surprised everyone. Perhaps Republican operatives think Clinton would be easier to defeat.

Please America, connect the dots.

Margaret Bardarson
Freeland

ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT

---

The point is not to add more toxics to atmosphere

I am appalled that Christopher Brown (no relation) so badly misses the point of removing the UV (ugly viaduct). He is obviously lost in the mindset that to get from point to point one must drive a car (Thursday letters).

There are other means that are less polluting to the air we breathe, the views we see and the society we become when oil governs our policies. Those means have been proved successful in many cities around the world. In fact, I can think of no other city that has so crassly walled off its waterfront to facilitate the internal combustion engine.

Who will be the losers when the viaduct comes down? The Christopher Browns who are so wedded to their cars that they cannot even consider alternatives. Perhaps some improved surface streets can accommodate for a while those locked in the 20th century. They're a dying breed (likely from their exhaust products).

Who will be the winners? The Republicans, the Greens, the Democrats, the neocons (though they may not know it), anyone who lives, works or visits downtown.

Bob Brown
Seattle

RECESSION

---

Despite what experts say, Bush sees only blue sky

Well, the biggest investment banking company, Goldman Sachs, has finally come out and said it: We're looking at a recession. Isn't that interesting? Just a day or two ago, President Bush tried to assure us that "the economy is strong." What is it that brings him to such a conclusion -- aside from the fact that he pretty much says whatever sounds good at the time? Whether he's lying or just doesn't have a grasp of economics, the bottom line is the same.

I don't know why I'm surprised. He still has the nerve to tell us that the war has been a success. That one is equally hard to swallow; and unlike losing our jobs and our homes, that series of lies is costing lives. Well, at least Halliburton and the oil companies are doing well. It'll trickle down, right? Yeah, sure.

David McKenzie
Federal Way

POT ARRESTS

---

Article would make Mark Twain smile

Your Tuesday article, "Pot arrests higher for blacks in city," must be making the spirit of Mark Twain smile as it confirms his observation that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The very scientific looking graphs actually mask the true magnitude of the disparity between the black and white pot arrests. Your numbers indicate that of the 134 men arrested for pot in 2006, 37 percent, or 50, were white, while 57 percent or 76, were black. This difference of 20 percent, or 26 people, is very misleading because it doesn't take into consideration that there are roughly 10 times as many whites as blacks in Seattle. If the relative sizes of the white and black populations are considered, one sees that 3.2 blacks per 1,000 black residents were arrested while only 0.25 whites per 1,000 white residents were arrested. That is a much larger disparity than your article implies. Even if blacks do use pot at a higher rate than whites, it is not likely that it would explain a twelvefold disparity in arrests. Clearly something else is involved, and selective enforcement is a prime candidate.

John Ullman
Seattle

BUILDERS

---

Right balance is for housing AND trees

Seattle planner Alan Justad was quoted in the Monday article, "Environmentalists push $1 million program to save urban trees," that we need to "strike a balance" between tree cutting and development. I agree. We need to have trees and homes in Seattle. Unfortunately, I have yet to see the city's Department of Planning and Development seek this balance.

DPD's role is to approve development plans. Its customer is the developer who has the plans. The trees are forgotten. If we are to bring balance to this complex issue, we need to retain existing trees where we can.

The proposed Evergreen Cities Act will help do that by uniting the many state stakeholders who can retain trees. Audubon Washington and the 26 representative state chapters are supporting this legislation and will work directly with neighbors and decision makers to implement the Evergreen Cities Act.

Matthew Mega
Conservation director
Seattle Audubon

GREEN

---

Maybe mayor refers to the color of money

When you wrote about the Audubon Society's annual bird count a while ago, I did a quick count of the birds in my small Madison Valley domain. I realized that this was the first year I had not either seen or heard a flicker around here, or any other birds for that matter. It was a bit puzzling.

I read about Seattle losing 70 percent of its tree canopy. Then I realized that in the past five years alone, at least half of the trees I could see from my home are now gone, mostly casualties of development. The loss of the flickers is no longer mysterious.

I have to go now before yet another tree is taken out across the street. Until the mayor and the city do something about the rampant tree loss, they have no right to call this city green.

Jackie DeVincent
Seattle