Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor for March 15

Proactive versus reactive when it comes to snow

As I walked through my neighborhood along the remains of the dirty white mountains of snow, I wonder about the difference between being proactive and reactive when it comes to a weather event.

As I went farther on my walk, through the city, passing several branches and rather large limbs broken down by the wet, heavy snow, I continued to wonder: Is it more beneficial for the city to begin to prune trees down, taking more time (but perhaps eliminating damage if they break, fall or hang heavy upon utility lines) or continue to trim them up from the bottom, being quicker (and if they break or fall, deal with the mess and restore the utilities)? The placing and planting of trees along utility lines is certainly an additional area of consideration.

I suppose we can only be so proactive as we never know exactly what will happen, especially when it comes to a weather event or natural disaster. Weighing the costs of being proactive i.e. reconsidering the planting/pruning vs. reactive i.e. cleaning up and restoration, seems worth a conversation.

As I continue to think on both concepts, it seems that one determiner would be the powerful gift of hindsight. When we look back at any experience, weather event, natural disaster or the like, we surely can learn many things which can be used in future Proactive vs. Reactive approaches.

So I offer, in hindsight, thoughts for community leaders regarding effects of this recent weather event.

Kristi Koeppen, Tumwater

Lacey’s growth means it needs parks

The Feb. 24 editorial about the growth of Lacey including some of its history and current status was very interesting. It reminded me once again about the proposal for a Parks District that was on the ballot and rejected last November.

Then, and even more so now, I think the case for a park district is strong and compelling if developed with a stronger eye toward cost and benefit to the greatest number of our diverse residents. I hope the Mayor and City Council address the problems with the prior proposal and resubmit one for approval. Lacey is grown up and we need to organize ourselves like we know it.

Dan Tufford, Lacey

Mistake by the Lake mitigation compensation

I wish to address the tall building currently being renovated by Capitol Lake, otherwise known as the Mistake by the Lake. Most people in this community want this thing to go away, but the developer who owns the place may have the legal right to proceed. If so, I offer here an appropriate mitigation compensation for the impacts this structure will perpetuate upon us.

Require that the roof of the structure be dedicated as a public park accessible by stairs and an elevator. This will afford the public elevated, breath-taking views of a 360-degree panorama that would include Mount Rainier, the Olympics, Budd Inlet, Capitol Lake and the Capitol Dome. This would compensate for the impact the structure has at blocking or impeding these same views from ground level at any location.

Now I know that the defenders of our downtown integrity won’t want to give up the fight. And if they think there is even an inch of chance that they might prevail at bringing the Mistake down in height, I support them all the way. But if not, consider maximizing your success in the loss.

The developer will undoubtedly strongly oppose this action because of the cost and infringement upon the building occupants. But he needs to understand what an intrusion the sight of the building is to the visual landscape.

So, while everything should be done to get this building removed or reduced, if these attempts are unsuccessful, demand a free, rooftop, public park for us all.

Steve Shanewise, Olympia
  Comments