Educating the poor is a priority
Service for the homeless is alive in Olympia. The network of Family Support Center, Interfaith Works and several faith communities provides shelter for neighbors in need. We link into the prosperity and security of the rest of the world.
While listening to President Barack Obama speak of issues before the world community, I celebrated school graduations knowing our children have educational opportunities regardless of their socio-economic status.
Although the financial situation is difficult in towns across the United States, we are not too poor or too unstable to provide educational opportunities.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Yet across our world, 75 million primary-aged children in poor countries not in school, and many poor and vulnerable children in school but living on the brink, find the global downturn tragic. Education is out of reach for their communities.
Both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have committed to launching a Global Fund for Education. As this global financial crisis disproportionately impacts the poorest people in the poorest nations, we need the administration to follow through on its promise of this Global Fund for Education.
Enabling low-income countries to provide at least a basic education for all of their children would have enormous benefits in breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty, promoting health, prosperity, peace and stability.
Now is not the time to scale back on our commitments to reaching education for all. Nor is this the time to scale back on serving our neighbors in need of shelter here in Olympia.
San Francisco Avenue project is flawed
Who designed the remarking of the lanes on San Francisco hill after the installation of the new sidewalk?
I see many mistakes and/or lack of understanding about all that was just done.
The pavement was not resurfaced. There are potholes, ruts, and seams from the construction that added up to an unsafe situation even before the new marks were put in place.
Why was the bike path on the steepest part moved from the north side to the south side of the street? Riding up the hill is not something one does routinely. The usual method for going up this hill is to walk up pushing the bicycle. Therefore there is really no need for a bike lane on the south side.
As a result, one runs out of bike lane on the steepest part of the hill. You either merge with the traffic or become a pedestrian at that point. I am aware that there are nonbikers who think that you should ride on the sidewalk when there is no bike lane. Not only is this unsafe for any pedestrians on the sidewalk but actually illegal in some jurisdictions. It is better that there be safe bike lanes in most places.
Drivers are now subjected to a slalom course in going up or down the hill. In addition to this the lanes seem to have become narrower.
I think these current marks need to be removed and the entire project be subjected to greater scrutiny in regard to safety.
ROBERT L. SMITH
Petition campaign goes too far
Where is the petition for Referendum 71?
I want to sign it, please!
I think everyone else should sign it proudly too. This goes way beyond the issue of gay rights now with me. Threats to publish the names and addresses of signers is nothing more than a bully tactic to intimidate voters from expressing their feelings through signing a petition.
RCW29A.84.250 states that intimidation tactics concerning petitions is illegal. These yahoos say that it is not their intention. I feel that it absolutely is.
They have admitted publicly that their intention is to have gay rights activists contact the signers and try to sway them.
Why are they not being arrested?
Please, to all registered voters, sign the petition for Ref. 71, no matter what your feelings are about gay marriage. It is they who have taken this to a different level and there must be some public outcry.
Urban density efficiently uses resources
Never has a controversy raged so long as with the proposed high-density development on the isthmus. Those against the development say it’s about protecting the great view for generations to come.
Ironic, as the view in question includes an artificial lake filling with pollution and a ragtag collection of boathouses that looks like a tin shantytown.
On good days you can see the Olympic Mountains.
Sadly, downtown density is not just a developer’s move to make money. It’s what we need to do to protect rural and pristine areas from development – an example of what we all need to do to save the planet. Urban density efficiently uses resources, minimizing those notorious carbon footprints.
When opponents talk protection of certain natural resources, they’re dooming others.
If you’re truly intent on preserving the heritage of our area for future generations, reducing global warming could help.
Don’t Wall off the Waterfolks say the Washington Heritage Center would lose its view. Sadly, the center recently lost its funding.
When you break eggs, make lemonade. Remodel the existing nine-story building on the isthmus into a new Heritage Center.
Build a free observation dome on top, featuring a killer view of the Olympics and the Washington Capitol Campus in all its glory. Then build the other proposed planet-saving buildings around it.
Generations of people could ascend to the top of the new Heritage Center and get a panoramic view like never before.
And the planet will stay cooler.
So there will actually be a heritage.