- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
Bainbridge Island Review Letters to the Editor | Aug. 2
Support candidates in August primary
The League of Women Voters believes that democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens. Therefore, we encourage all voters to become informed about the candidates running for office in the primary election on Tuesday, Aug. 19.
All non-partisan judicial positions, Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judge, and Kitsap Superior Court judge, could be elected in the primary if one candidate receives more than 50 percent of the votes. If one candidate in the non-partisan Superintendent of Public Instruction election receives over 50 percent, only that candidate will appear on the November ballot. In the 2004 primary election, only 52 percent of the registered voters in Kitsap County voted. We need to do better this year.
If more than two candidates are running for partisan positions, the two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, will proceed to the November general election. The contests where this will apply are Kitsap County Commissioner District 2, U.S. 6th Congressional District Representative, 35th Legislative District Representatives, and six state offices. This is the first time the “top two” primary election will be held in our state.
All registered voters should read the voter’s pamphlet, attend candidate forums and contact the candidates with your questions. Ballots will be mailed out July 30. Be informed, and then vote in the primary.
ELLEN FISHER, President
League of Women Voters of Kitsap County
Battle Point Drive NE
Paper should offer both sides of story
“Q&A on proposed CAO revisions” (Guest column, July 30) only tells half of the story. Yes, the city is not changing much with the CAO in making every shoreline property non-conforming and allowing non-conforming uses to continue.
But the city is also changing the regulations on non-conforming uses requiring that if they want to be rebuilt, they must be moved to the back of the lot. Plus if the home is non-conforming, any rebuild will be limited to the “reasonable use” exception of 1,200 feet footprint with no garage. Plus the rebuild will be required to plant trees where recreation uses and a view once were.
“Q&A on proposed CAO revisions” does not speak of the real impact. The paper should be fair and run a solo piece giving the other side.
Disappointed with one-sided column
I was disappointed to read the opinion piece entitled “Q&A on proposed CAO revisions” in today’s paper. I would think on such a vital issue that both sides (for and against) could have been presented especially given that the council meeting is tonight. I also question the wisdom of allowing someone who doesn’t publish any credentials giving legal responses. After reading the response prepared by Dennis Reynolds (yes, all 23 pages of it), I don’t think her information is accurate especially given that he cites numerous court cases to back up his data.
I hope you will consider exploring this issue on all sides. Thanks.
Enlarge the park, connect streets
Is there some reason we can’t have both a small city park and a road connecting Hildebrand and Ericksen?
There’s quite a bit of land between Ericksen to the highway (SR-305) to where the park is, including a nice pond. Could this land be cleared of overgrowth and debris to reveal the pretty little pond. Could the pond be defined by a path around it? Could the area be further enhanced by adding a few benches and tables? Could there even be a couple parking spaces? Do we have an opportunity here of creating a “real park,” rather than maintaining a symbolic spot of contention?
Could a simple road connection be made to unite the two streets? Just a simple connecting road, the scale of existing Hildebrand. It appears there’s not enough width to continue the “Grande Boulevard” from Ericksen, with its sidewalks and tree-planted center median — that especially wouldn’t be possible where Hildebrand intersects at High School Road.
Do we have an opportunity of creating a real park with real appeal, just by reworking existing resources that are already in place? This newly defined park could become a visual asset from the highway, become a green respite between the Village and Downtown, and could be enjoyed by more people.
And, at the same time, Ericksen and Hildebrand could be connected, which really needs to be done. Ericksen and Hildebrand are both commercial access streets. It’s stupid that they don’t connect. It’s doubtful that Ericksen would experience much increase in traffic. Ericksen is already the most direct route used to access Wyatt Way and the south end, bypassing the congestion of Winslow Way and Madison Avenue. Then traffic and congestion could return to normal on Wallace Way, Madison, at the roundabout on High School Road, and Hildebrand, reducing time, petrol, pollution, and sanity for people not having to drive four long blocks to reach a destination just 50 yards away.
Why isn’t this solution being discussed?
Perhaps those who drive slowly enough on Ericksen Avenue will have noticed the following:
Ericksen is a very narrow street with no possibility of widening from Knetchel Way to Winslow Way.
Ericksen is a major artery for pedestrians and bicyclists using the ferry and shopping at T & C. Ensuring the safety of these pedestrians and bicyclists is incompatible with large volumes of traffic.
The intersections at Ericksen and Winslow Way and Hildebrand Lane and High School Road are not configured to accept increased traffic without major backups.
It appears that the COBI has many more pressing needs for its tax dollars than elective surgery. Drivers, who are inconvenienced at having to spend three more minutes getting to the shopping center, instead of feeling frustrated could think, “I am saving a neighborhood.”