Ingersoll subject to examiner's ruling
Jesse Stevick’s letter regarding uses of Ingersoll Stadium contains several significant inaccuracies.
Stevick states that current policy covering Ingersoll uses is a “legal contract with the city years ago” and that there are “approximately six (neighboring) houses resisting rewriting the contract.”
In fact, use of Ingersoll is governed by a finding of the city of Olympia hearing examiner issued in May 2004. Neighbors are not in a position to agree or disagree to rewriting the hearing examiner’s finding. Such a finding is subject to appeal within certain time frames, but the Olympia School District chose not to appeal.
The permitted groups specified in the current use policy were not dreamed up by the neighbors, the city or anyone else. They were specified by the Olympia School District itself in a filing supporting its permitting request in 2003-04. The school district’s filing listed these groups as the only non-district groups that would be using the enhanced Ingersoll Stadium. The hearing examiner took the list of permitted users verbatim from the school district’s own filing.
In regard to Stevick’s statement that no one over 18 may participate in stadium events: There is no mention in the policy of the permitted age of users.
In 2008, we asked the district for a copy of its use policy for Ingersoll. We were given a copy of the hearing examiner’s finding. I recommend Stervick ask the district for a copy, so he can read it for himself.
MARY WILKINSON; Olympia
Christians neither monolithic or mean-spirited
The title of Shawn Murinko’s column “Children pay the price when faith and politics are blurred,” seems reasonable. Children can pay the price when the line between faith and politics is blurred – at any extreme of the religious or political spectrum.
In fact, I share his disdain for those who bemoan the ills of the world around them, yet fail to (in his words) “translate these observations into tangible and sincere action.”
However, I take exception to his assertion that “no one group is guiltier of this than the people within today’s Christian church.”
While he makes a brief mention of those Christians “who work diligently at putting their faith into action by helping those in need,” he then goes on to make a number of broad statements that cast Christians as a group in a most disparaging light.
As is the case in any group as large and diverse as the Christian church throughout the world, there are going to be those that will fit into just about any description one can concoct. Using my denomination (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) as just an example of many Christian churches worldwide trying to address the needs of those around them, I would point out well-established programs like Lutheran Social Services and Lutheran World Relief as examples of how we do, in fact, put our beliefs into practice.
Murinko’s portrayal of most Christians as monolithic and mean-spirited is just as prejudicial as the injustice he decries.
MIKE OSHIKI; Olympia
Immigrants transform to new land
I don’t understand what the problem seems to be with the immigration law that Arizona has just recently passed and has been enforcing.
I am a second-generation American. My mother is the first generation born in this great country on her side of the family.
You see, my grandfather immigrated here from Sweden through Ellis Island steamer ship in 1908. He was seven years old when he arrived here, and placed into the second grade.
He was not given instructions in school that were printed in Swedish, nor taught a word of this new language that he was expected to learn how to speak.
Greatly ridiculed in those formative years due to his accent and the cruelty of other children, even after he grew up and settled down to have children, he never taught any of his children their nation’s language.
So, when his father moved here to start a new life for his children’s freedom, they willingly, happily and obediently signed every immigration paper that was required of them, and kept those papers with them just in case someone might question their citizenship – never arguing with the laws of this new land.
This was now their home, and they were required to obey and respect all of the laws set up by this country, which they did.
Why is this concept so hard to understand?
JULIE SCHULZ; Lacey