Editor’s Note: Election letters in the October 31 issue will only be published online as it’s the last issue before the November 5 general election.
The Editor:
Well, here we go again. Another $70 million capital levy proposed by our scandal-plagued Blaine school district.
I think the last capital bond measure for the same amount failed just last February in part because the school district made no effort to justify such a huge amount of money, did not really tell us what they wanted to spend it on or provide any supportable evidence of how much everything on their wish list would cost. The voters thought that number was too high.
I also understand that no one investigated qualification under the multiple federal trillion-dollar infrastructure programs that made money available for some of the things the school district wants you to pay for a second time.
Between January and August, the district did not have a chief financial officer. It is no wonder they have presented no cost projections, no budget information – again – just another wish list sharing few details and little financial analysis in its mailer, handouts and website.
It won’t be hard for the district to avoid accountability to the voters with this lack of transparency.
A $14 million (20 percent) buffer for labor and materials escalation? Hard to believe we will not be paying for inefficiencies and absence of leadership.
And don’t forget that this identical massive demand is trotted out again at a time of lower enrollment (30 staff cut in May) and at a time when they are not fully utilizing their existing facilities (e.g.: school cafeteria).
I will be voting “No” on this capital levy measure. Please join me in demanding that the school district make an effort to be transparent and accountable to us.
Jack H. Grant
Blaine
The Editor:
The amount of dollars being spent on pleas both for and against the initiatives on the ballot is astonishing. That is to be expected with so much at stake here – the future direction of many of our policies.
Initiative 2117 is an important one. We have ignored global warming for far too long and are late in addressing ways to combat it. Our emissions have ben increasing, not decreasing, despite the fact that we have made plenty of pledges to change our profligate ways.
This initiative (I-2117) not only would repeal the latest effort – the Climate Commitment Act – that has brought us $2 billion to spend on climate projects, but it also calls for stopping anything like this for the future.
This is incredibly short-sighted. Do not repeal this law supported by our community. Please vote “No” on I-2117.
Elsie Heinrick
Bellingham
The Editor:
Voting “Yes” on Initiative 2066 to repeal strong energy efficient policies makes no sense. Over the last 20 years improvements to building energy codes have reduced energy use of buildings by a whopping 30-40 percent across the U.S.
Why take codes back to the 1980s? Energy efficiency makes economic sense and ensures houses and buildings are more comfortable, saves money and with less waste.
If you vote “Yes,” I-2066 will roll back progress. A “Yes” vote will allow builders to cut corners on energy efficiency because they can. This leaves homeowners with a lifetime of footing the bill if this initiative passes.
If you vote “Yes,” I-2066 will take away local governments’ ability to modify energy building codes for their location. Repealing I-2066 will eliminate one of the ways available to them to meet their climate goals.
Builders have many choices to meet energy standards. They can install more efficient windows and insulation, and still use gas appliances. They already do have energy choices. There are no bans on natural gas in any laws in the state, nor are there any plans to do so.
A “Yes” vote for I-2066 is against good policy. Organizations who are asking you to vote “Yes” on I-2066 are misleading you and are trying to scare you into voting “Yes.”
For all these reasons, do not vote “Yes.” Do not vote for the repeal of energy efficiency progress. Vote “No” on I-2066.
Allison Roberts
Bellingham
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here