Sewer ratepayers subsidize golf course
Do you pay your sewer bill to subsidize golf? You do if you live in Tumwater.
On Sept. 14, the Tumwater City Council voted again to raise the limit they can borrow from the city sewer fund to subsidize the Tumwater Valley Golf Course.
Normally it would be illegal to do this, but by calling it a “loan,” rather than an interfund transfer, Mayor Ralph Osgood has loop-holed his way into subsidizing the Tumwater Valley Golf Course, and now the golf course owes the sewer fund (us, really) over $2 million.
Never miss a local story.
We’re expected to believe that the loans will be paid back, but since the golf course has never made money as long as the city has owned it, it’s unreasonable to expect this to occur.
Since 1996, rather than paying the loans back, they borrow more of our sewer money, to fund golf.
On Aug. 29, I asked Karen Valenzuela what she thought about this, since she voted to raise the debt limit more than once as a Tumwater council member. She told me that a loan isn’t a subsidy, and the loans are being repaid. I put it on YouTube, because it perplexed me.
If Valenzuela loaned me money, knowing there was no way I could pay her back, and I used it to operate my household, doesn’t that mean she subsidized my lifestyle? Is this not what we’re doing at the Tumwater Valley Golf Course?
All the while the north end fire station sits empty.
JUSTIN KOVER, Tumwater
Capital fans misbehaved at football game
I was at the game between Olympia High School and Capital High School on Sept. 11.
I am sorry to say that I was disappointed by the pregame behavior of the Capital fans.
Upon entering the parking lot they were in the road, and wouldn’t move so we could park. Then they were walking all around our car while we were trying to back into a stall.
Once we got parked the first thing we saw was another car decorated in crimson and gold, and written on the windshield was “We run this town.”
In the past we have watched many football games. My wife and I have season tickets and seldom miss a game. But never have we gone to one where the opposing teams’ fans were so rude.
We thought the game went well and our announcer did a very good game — much better than their’s when they are at home against Olympia.
We are old and enjoy using the ramp to get to the stadium. But Capital had it blocked off so we had to go down the stairs. My wife has a replacement knee. Although she can do the stairs, she finds it easier to use the ramp. We never said a word. Why make a scene?
But they had the gall to complain about something our announcer said in the heat of the game. Maybe we just need to get over ourselves. It’s not about the game. It’s about some pompous egos.
GORDON WALLACE, Olympia
Public solidly behind lake option
On Sept. 4 The Olympian provided two unqualified statistics that gave the impression that a majority of the public supported turning Capitol Lake into an estuary.
Having studied the Public Involvement Summary, I would like to redress some inaccuracies.
During the formal comment period in question, activist groups conducted e-mail and letter-writing campaigns in an attempt to give the impression there was greater popular support for the estuary than actually exists. Of the 172 e-mails favoring an estuary, 155 of those were from one e-mail containing 155 names. Of the 12 letters supporting the estuary, all 12 were from one letter containing 12 signatures.
If you cull those canned comments, the percentages shift significantly: 61 percent of individual e-mail respondents and 100 percent of those who wrote letters supported the managed lake option.
The Olympian neglected to mention the steady stream of letters they’ve received on this topic. Of the 21 letters to the editor printed from Aug. 3, 18 letter writers (86 percent) support maintaining Capitol Lake. Of the remaining three, two supported an estuary and one was for the dual basin option.
The Department of General Administration continues to see a steady influx of comments on this issue as well. In a ratio of 3-to-1 those comments are in favor of the lake.
We have found more discrepancies than I was provided room to elaborate on in this letter, but using even the most conservative numbers, it is clear the public overwhelmingly supports saving Capitol Lake.
SCOTT MCLAIN, Olympia