Where’s outrage over incinerator?
Based on Adage’s figures in their permit application the incinerator planned for Shelton the incinerator will send a lot of pollution into the air for about a 50 mile range from the burner. That’s bad but it’s not the reason for this letter.
The reason — taxes. Where are the tea party supporters on this one? This operation is subsidized by the taxpayers. It is corporate welfare to a multi-national corporation. None of the power generated will be used locally and none of the profits will be spent locally.
The people of this state like to say our forest products pay for our schools. The forest products burned in this incinerator will light the schools in California and pay for the schools in France. One more tidbit from the permit. They don’t burn slash and brush. They burn clean wet wood. That’s round logs in case you are confused.
CLINTON FERRARA, Shelton
Restore the Deschutes River estuary
A while back I was seeing signs that advocated saving Capitol Lake, that compared a potentially restored estuary to a swamp. I think those signs were either misinformed or disingenuous.
For one, the estuary would be far much less like a swamp than the present day lake. Two, the estuary would be less prone to breeding insects. And three, an estuary might be considered better for purposes of kayaking (kayakers could have a direct shot from the bay to the falls.)
Controversial signage aside, I want to focus on positive aspects of estuary restoration. I believe that to restore the estuary would be correct. Compared with the lake, estuary restoration is the path of altruism — a path this society would do well to get on.
The waters of the Salish Sea (aka Puget Sound) have suffered severe damages by industrial activities. The Salish Sea, an ecological system, has a right to exist, to be healthy, and to flourish robustly. It is wrong, morally and ecologically incorrect, for our society to harm the health of the waters. It is wrong to harm the health of the creatures therein and thereupon. That includes you and me.
Restoring the estuary would be a significant and meaningful step in the right direction. It would be a step toward restoring the balance necessary to ensure the mutual health of everyone, human beings and other creatures alike, as well as the health of the waters. A healthy waterway would also have real economic benefits.
ROBERT F. W. WHITLOCK, Olympia
We can’t afford to curb auto sales
I am an automotive dealer in Olympia who continues to feel the crunch of the financial crisis.
I welcome financial reform legislation as a safeguard for consumers and businesses alike who simply can’t afford to weather another meltdown, but I am troubled by Wall Street reform legislation that could limit dealers’ ability to offer affordable auto financing for our customers.
Auto dealers are already effectively regulated by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission and are subject to extensive federal regulation, including the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Credit reporting Act. Unlike banks we don’t loan our own money and we are also subject to the myriad of state laws and regulations that govern operations in addition to state consumer fraud statutes.
Yet language in the financial regulation bill includes dealer-assisted financing as one area that will be regulated and potentially eliminated under the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection — a move that will limit access to loans while driving up costs in the process. Including dealers in the bill will do nothing to address the causes of the financial crisis — unlike subprime loans that assume collateral will appreciate, ours are based on the ability to repay the original financial obligation, period. I urge our senators to support Sen. Sam Brownback’s amendment to eliminate dealers from the Senate language. We can’t afford to curb auto sales at a time when our economy is just starting to recover.
VINCE HANSON, Olympia