Our readers' views: Oct. 5

Benefits of new bridge

In response to Andrew Norris’ Sept. 25 letter, “Bridge plan a nightmare,” I would like to share a few reasons why the new bridge will be better:

1. Three lanes dedicated to through traffic in each direction, plus 2-3 lanes specifically for cars to enter and exit traffic in a safer manner.

2. Emergency lanes. Currently, there are none. Accidents and stalled vehicles will have a place to go.

3. No “humps.” Drivers will be able to avoid dangerous situations instead of being surprised by them.

4. A safer crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists.

5. No more bridge lifts.

“Over-thought” by officials, I view as “doing their job.” And bridge planners do so with input from many sources, including their constituents and the voting public. I expect them to take time, gather information and make careful decisions because the impacts and benefits are so far-reaching.

Marcia Ward
Vancouver

Bipartisan effort noticed

After reading the Sept. 30 story, “Bailout rejected,” I must ask, why is the failure of the bailout bill “dysfunctional” and evidence of “partisan acrimony?” A solid majority of Democrats supported a bill put forth by the Republican president. The leadership of both parties supported the bill. Maybe the bill’s failure reflects legitimate doubt about its merit.

Opponents of the bill are criticized for bowing to public opinion just before an election. But isn’t that the general idea in a democracy — that elected leaders reflect the will of the people?

Mark Gallagher
Vancouver

Credibility in question

The Sept. 27 story, “Bridge dedicated to Morris and mom,” reported of the ceremonial “secret” renaming of the Klineline Bridge and the disrespectful treatment and lack of feelings for the Klineline family members for the humiliating shock of seeing the plaque without their name. Also a “surprise” for Morris at the expense of hurting Klineline family members is not appropriate (Morris has appropriately declined the renaming.)

Commissioners Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart have damaged their credibility — not a good thing in their political positions.

Geri Hollo
Vancouver

Make the developers pay

Congratulations to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development for rescinding the $500,000 per year pile of pork that Vancouver thought it was entitled to for the redevelopment of the Boise Cascade site. Maybe the city of Vancouver will now start acting in a sane and responsible manner.
The proposed waterfront redevelopment is a great addition to the area, but the city should require the developer to pay for all necessary infrastructure upgrades, including street, utility, and railroad embankment reconstruction. The city should institute impact fees requiring the developers to pay the costs up front.

Also, the city should immediately stop granting tax breaks, and below-cost sales of public property to developers.

The developers have the right to make an obscene profit from their projects; they also have the right to lose their shirts. However, the taxpayers do not owe the developers that profit.

Alan Dahl
Vancouver

Mandate is a travesty

I’m writing regarding the Sept. 27 editorial, “Mental-health parity,” in praise of U.S. Rep. Brian Baird’s legislation on mental health care parody … oh, I’m sorry, did I write “parody?” After reading The Columbian’s rationalization for forcing health insurers to offer coverage for conditions their customers may not need or want — all at a higher cost for these customers — I should have written “travesty”.

I apologize for my error. I don’t expect The Columbian to do likewise. This might well establish a dangerous precedent. But now I can’t wait for the paper’s next editorial decrying the ever-increasing cost of health care. In light of its current stance, such an editorial will surely be a parody — although an unintentional one.

John Burke
Vancouver

Questionable judgment

Maturation often brings improved judgment to most people, but John McCain is an exception. Here are some examples:

McCain actively supported the unwise and illegal invasion of Iraq and its endless occupation, despite widespread opposition. McCain supported Bush’s programs the majority of the time, even though this administration is arguably the worst since Herbert Hoover’s (1929-1933). McCain has been a longtime, active and successful supporter of industry deregulation.

The dire consequences of deregulation have hit Wall Street hard, and will also hit Main Street.

In each of the areas cited, McCain has demonstrated notable lack of judgment.

Phil Harr
Vancouver

McCain is healthy enough

Although in my perfect world it would be a John McCain-Barack Obama ticket, and I’ve flipped several times due to concern over his age and health, I was happily surprised by John McCain’s first debate performance.

I had expected to see from McCain several moments of fluster and mental confusion in the debate, and I even worried that he might falter under the pressure.

But he was on message, quick, sharp and thorough in responses, passionately sincere, and obviously without any little microphone tucked behind his ear.

So I’m back in McCain’s court again. My greatest fear of his dying within a year of taking office and leaving us to be led by his unfortunate choice of running mate, (heaven help us if that becomes the case), has been eased.

I believe again that McCain is still physically and mentally strong enough to guide us through the next four years of the extreme uncertainties our nation is facing.

Shanna Zimmerman
Vancouver