City

Fiscal practices need an overhaul

The economic downturn that is presently engulfing us was brought on subtly by two basic events. First, the rules of finance began to weaken and to crumble. Hard and fast regulations for institutions lending money to individuals for the purchase of cars, homes, second mortgages began to change, to allow less responsibility from the borrower and less and less responsibility from the lenders. The combined attitude of both parties seemed to be – “we’ll get it for you.”

The second event began many years ago. It’s an attitude that grew stronger and stronger over the years, a belief that we don’t have to wait for things we want. We borrow to get them. We use plastic cards to buy things, sometimes forgetting that those plastic cards come with a caveat – they have to be paid. So when the car payment came due, or the orthodontist’s bill or the water-sewer bill had to be paid, so did the bill for the credit card

So people – countries and cities, too – mortgaged their homes or their future revenues or their future citizens’ incomes to raise taxes to pay the credit card bill. Then the bills on those mortgages, or revenue bonds or whatever, had to be paid. That’s why we’re where we are today – very simplistically told. And why the city is financially where it is today. In order to dig the city out of the financial crisis it is in, borrowing against uncertain revenues or futures is not the solution. The only thing that will help is discipline and the return to a common sense monetary structure. If you don’t have the money to pay for it out of pocket, you can’t have it until you save up for it. This was the way life was prior to about 40 years ago.

The city may have to deeply cut expenses. It may have to rethink priorities of what is absolutely needed to keep the island a safe and sane environment. And only those things should be considered in this financial situation. Going further in debt, which is what happened on Aug. 27, is neither safe or very sane.

ELIZABETH MURRAY

Little Manzanita

Environment

Bulkheads don’t threaten Sound

On Aug. 9, your paper included an opinion piece (“Sacrifice is key to Earth’s well-being,”) authored by Bainbridge resident Jennifer Merrill. In it, she spoke of the moral dilemma she faced after signing a neighbor’s petition in support of a bulkhead application. Her conscience asked, “But what about the environmental impact of bulkheads?” She answered, “I think these bulkheads threaten the health of Puget Sound.”

I, too, am concerned by this question and have spent a great deal of time in the last few weeks attempting to find a credible answer. I emailed Doug Meyers, director of science at People for Puget Sound, to see if he could recommend any peer-reviewed scholarly research that would answer this question. He directed me to two documents as outlined on the Best Available Science pages of the Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners’ blog.

In reading the documents he cited, I found concern but no proof that bulkheads harm the environment. In the absence of proof, the authors speculate that there might be negative consequences but, in a legal disclaimer, Battelle Memorial Institute warned the reader: “Neither client nor Battelle nor any person acting on behalf of either, makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report.”

Moving on, I reviewed the documents referenced on COBI’s website in reference to the city’s Marine Critical Areas project. The proposed Marine Critical Areas ordinance refers to and depends on a lengthy “nearshore report” prepared in 2004 by Battelle?s Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim. In its summary, the report said: “Bainbridge Island’s shoreline represents a microcosm of what is generally found in Puget Sound, with moderate levels of impacts to nearshore resources, but extreme examples of high and low impacts as well. Most management areas were considered moderately impacted by human activities.”

Moderate levels of impacts shouldn’t cause much concern. Extreme impacts (the creosote clean-up site in Eagle Harbor) are being addressed, but have nothing to do with bulkheads.

I am not a scientist, my degree is in engineering. My research has not been exhaustive, but in it I have read what the activist group recommended and our city staff relied on. I find no reason to think that bulkheads threaten the health of Puget Sound, but I do hope Ms. Merrill can rest a little easier that she helped her neighbor in her efforts to protect her home.

KEN SETHNEY

Bainbridge Island

Community

Phone booth makes a surprise return

A while back you printed our plaintive complaint that someone had removed the old relatively rate telephone booth from our Old Mill Road driveway. On Monday, I spotted a familiar shape in the driveway, battered but unbowed.

The phone booth had been returned.

I cannot say exactly when it was returned nor can Jan, who was equally amazed by its reappearance. We, however, are very pleased. The return was a generous and unexpected act.

On our part, we promised to wash the phone booth and repaint it. It has been moved to a prominent spot in our almost brand-spanking-new driveway and the booth can once more be a landmark for directions in Eagledale.

We do not plan to provide a phone.

Clark Kent, arrested for indecent exposure because of the absence of the phone booth, has in his other persona jumped bail and proved once again that he is faster than a speeding bullet. We are warning all editors of our acquaintance to be wary of any mild-mannered bespectacled reporters who apply for work because the Daily Planet was down-sided to the Weekly Meteor.

GIL and JAN BAILEY

Old Mill Road