Journal letters to the editor

Supports M&O levy on San Juan Island

As a result of my nine-year tenure on the San Juan Island Public Schools Foundation board, I have had the pleasure of seeing our school district evolve from having an adversarial relationship with the community to a very positive and proactive one.

We are very fortunate to have such a strong administration, including our three great principals and outstanding superintendent, Steve Enoch. We are truly blessed with one of the best small school districts in the state!

Some examples of accomplishments that wouldn’t have occurred without the support of the M&O levy are: Advanced Placement classes, an incredible shop/tech vocational center, technology expansion, expanded off-island learning opportunities, world language lab for close to 20 foreign languages, expanded band program, and continuation of PE, art and music specialists and counselors for all grade levels.

Remember, this is a continuation of an existing levy — not a new tax!

The school district has demonstrated a firm commitment to excellence. Loss of levy revenue would have serious implications for future planning and the quality of our schools. A four-year levy saves taxpayers’ dollars because of fewer elections, and the percentage increase over the next four years and anticipated levy rate are lower than what was approved four years ago.

The levy provides full funding for our schools and this is what we need to maintain our top-notch school district. Please vote “yes” on your mail-in ballot, which you should receive by Feb. 20.

Bill Morrissey, San Juan Island

It’s not too early to think spring ... and M&O levies. Whether it’s a flourishing garden or flourishing schools, planning and investment are needed. For less than we might spend on soils, plants and seeds (about 85 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation), we can help to ensure that our schools will bloom. We need this levy to continue our commitment to improvement and excellence in this district.

Please join us in voting “yes” March 12.

Mary Karen and Cal Ryan, San Juan Island

The San Juan Island School District will be renewing its Maintenance and Operation levy by mail-in ballot due March 12. This levy will allow our school district to provide full funding for our schools and includes funds for routine expenditures not funded with state monies.

This is not a new tax. The old levy is expiring, and this four-year levy measure will simply continue the local tax portion of local school district funding.

Our schools are a vital part of our community and they deserve our continued support. These funds will provide for the maintenance of our exceptional facilities, upgrade educational materials as instructional curricula change, and cover the costs of new textbooks and other routine expenses of operating quality educational institutions.

I urge your support of this ballot measure in order that the San Juan Island School District can continue to provide the excellent educational opportunities it offers to our young children, youth and teens.

Joyce L. Sobel, Friday Harbor

Supports M&O levy on Orcas Island

Soon we will have the opportunity to mail in our vote for the Orcas Island School District Maintenance and Operation (M&O) levy. This levy will replace the current levy when it expires in December 2002.

The M&O levy provides approximately 20 percent of the district’s annual budget and pays for staff to keep class sizes small, curriculum materials and special educational programs — all of which contribute to our students having successful experiences in school.

As a person in the elementary school that sees the positive impact this levy funding creates, I urge you to vote “yes” for the Maintenance and Operation levy.

Michele Judge, counselor, Orcas Elementary School

Preserve funding for reimbursements

Imagine San Juan Island without a convalescent center. You say, “Oh, that will never happen.”

Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, it could become a reality. Gov. Locke is proposing a cut in long-term nursing care to the tune of $60 million. That means state nursing home reimbursement will be cut by $10 to $15 per day per state-funded resident.

What does that mean? According to news reports, it means that one out of four nursing homes in Washington will be forced to close.

In most nursing homes, 63 percent of the population consists of DSHS residents. “Oh,” you might say, “I’ve prepared for the end years of my life and I’ll be able to afford to pay privately for my care.” Well, if there is no nursing home to go to, it won’t matter.

What will become of the current residents? Some say, “Well, they’ll just go to Anacortes or Mount Vernon nursing homes.” You need to realize that those facilities may no longer be opened.

Although I feel I am paid well at Islands’ Convalescent Center, I am a single parent barely making ends meet. I can’t afford to invest much into a retirement fund. I am fortunate that Life Care Centers of America (the corporation that owns ICC) provides a 401k plan and that I am able to contribute a small portion of my salary. But what if by the time I need to be placed in a nursing home, my retirement only covers a year or two? What happens to me after that or where do I go if there is “no room at the inn”?

None of us knows how long we will be alive and although we think we have planned well, we live much longer than we thought we would. There are approximately 60 people who are currently employed by Islands’ Convalescent Center. What happens to them? As an employee of ICC, this affects me greatly.

Like most people, I cannot work for free. However, my pay is not only rewarded monetarily but by love and affection. Can you imagine going to work, having someone look at you with a big smile and adoring eyes, and tell you they love you and mean it? You know you’ve touched a life but, more importantly, a life has touched you.

On Feb. 7, Washington Health Care Association is sponsoring a statewide rally to bring attention to this crucial issue. Can you participate in this rally or will you write or e-mail your senator, congressman or the governor opposing these cuts? Don’t know where the rally will be held or the address of your government officials? Call us at the convalescent center; we will be glad to give you the information.

Patricia J. Bagnal, Friday Harbor

Consider expense and property rights first

The following is submitted in response to “Lawsuits challenge laws limiting development” by Richard Walker (Jan. 16 Journal, page 1A).

Here in the San Juans, where environmental laws and regulations are held in a reverence approaching blind-faith religious fervor, it was nice to read Richard Walker’s front-page story.

Mr. Walker emphasized the issue of whether pre-existing law should be the basis for denying a landowner the ability to sue for damages. While this is important, the more important issues involve states’ specific actions regarding the application of the law and the landowner’s subsequent actions.

Just because a law protects “wetlands” does not necessarily burden a landowner with a duty to give special attention to any low-lying (water-gathering) portion of his property. This was quickly recognized throughout most of the Midwest where the landscape was relatively flat and water was precious. In these areas, landowners routinely created ponds to trap water for agricultural or personal purposes. These states quickly moved to specifically define exactly what wet spots were deemed to be protected by the statute.

In essence, they established that nothing was a wetland except specifically identified sites. Wetland disputes from these jurisdictions are accordingly almost non-existent.

A claim on a landowner’s property is not perfected when a statute is passed; rather, it arises when the landowner is denied reasonable use. I do not know the specifics of the referenced Rhode Island case; however, I do know that we have not precisely defined our wetlands and have preferred, instead, to leave the matter to the judgment of county bureaucrats. I know of areas in our county where man-made drainage channels have been deemed (by bureaucrats) to be a wetland intended to remain undisturbed.

There is much about environment statutes that properly need to be challenged in the courts. The Washington Supreme Court recently accepted an interesting case involving a construction project in Fairhaven that was shut down because some aspect of the Shoreline Protection Act was deemed to apply some months after a permit was issued and much construction expense incurred.

This case highlights the fact that provisions of our regulations are not clearly defined nor readily understood and that bureaucratic interpretation and reinterpretation should be subordinated to practical considerations of expense and property rights.

Albert B. Hall, Friday Harbor

We shop local, so should the County Commission

Eileen Fleming’s letter in the Jan. 9 issue of The Journal (“County contracts should stay local,” page 7A), made the case for those of us who object to the County Commission’s choice of an off-island firm the position of alternate public defender.

To quote from her well-stated position: “Sending dollars off-island sometimes is the only way to go, but to bypass qualified applicants in favor of an off-island, physically remove candidate makes no sense.”

Indeed, it does not. There was and is available a more than adequately qualified attorney who not only has an office here full-time but also lives on San Juan Island full time.

We are often urged by our leaders in local government to shop at home — to keep our money in the islands. They don’t. Why should we?

Betty Stewart, Friday Harbor

Send your letters to the editor to The Journal

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.