Letters to the Editor

Following are Letters to the Edtior as published in the Peninsula Gateway, March 26, 2008

Arguments on both sides are sound, but it’s an added expense

Lights on the bridge would cost money for someone, and it is an additional unnecessary expense.

Some argue that it would help marine navigation pilots, but I occasionally pilot a boat beneath the bridge at night and have never had a problem seeing the bridge.

Some people state that it would be attractive when crossing the bridge at night, but if you live near the bridge, the lighting would get a little old in a hurry.

The letters to the editor have good arguments for and against the lighting. I can understand those people who live four-plus miles away from it saying the bridge does not affect their night sky, and I can understand those people who live closer to the bridge saying the lights would limit viewing the sky, plus lighting up their house and yard.

I vote against the lights due to one more unnecessary expense and potential light pollution. We should appreciate the beauty of the structure as it is.

Loren Lindell, Fox Island

LED lighting doesn’t act like street lights, so light the Narrows bridge

LED lighting does not ruin the night sky. We live within a few miles of downtown Tacoma, where there are lights abound. Also, the economic boom to the area would be measurable!

On a personal note, I would like to mention that I think the lights would be beautiful and act as a gateway to the Peninsula, thus inviting people to come across the bridge.

Light tends to bring goodness with it, and darkness tends to bring trouble. I vote for light!

Ruthmarie Zimmerman, Tacoma

Environmental, economic impact far too great to light the bridge

It seems like a harmless thing, to light up the Narrows bridge at night, but please consider the unintended consequences and financial requirements.

One of the consequences is that all the night illumination of American cities is destroying our dark skies. An unknown consequence is whether or not the absence of dark skies is contributing to global climate change.

In addition, the light from the Narrows bridge would flood the homes of many people on the water and disrupt the sleep patterns of those residents who must endure such a nighttime invasion.

The group of 12 who are behind the movement to light up the bridge claim to have grant money to fund the project. But most grants come from the government, which is we, the taxpayers. This is a poor use of our tax money, especially when governments are strapped for money to cover basic services.

The cost of maintaining the lights would ultimately fall back to the taxpayers, regardless of who foots the bill at the start of the project.

This idea of lighting up the bridge at night is a frivolous pursuit that has no good consequences except that a dozen people think it would look “way cool.”

The negative consequences are that such a project further deteriorates the quality of life for most in the Northwest.

Carol Davis, Gig Harbor

Proposed lights are meant to be seen only in the vicinity of bridge

I, for one, am disappointed to read that the proposed lights on the Narrows bridge have been painted as offensive and a blight.

The proposed lights, to my knowledge, will only have limited visibility from a distance and are meant only to be seen from the local vicinity of the bridge.

I enjoyed the lights during the bridge construction and the colored lamps used during the Christmas season and Fourth of July.

I encourage you to join in support of permanent lights. The technology and software used to power and control the lights will make them colorful and energy-efficient.

Bert Magnuson, Longbranch

Outside of safety lights, taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with cost

I am opposed to the decorative lighting for the new (Bob Oke) Narrows bridge.

Beyond lighting necessary for safety, the seasonal and decorative lighting is a lagniappe the state can ill-afford, and one for which taxpayers should not be burdened.

Frederick Conard, Fox Island

Project could be viewed as a blueprint for ‘green energy’

It is unfortunate when exaggerations, under the guise of fact, are interjected into an issue to inflame opinion. No one is suggesting dazzling, neon, Las Vegas-style lights on the new Narrows bridge.

What’s proposed are the most energy-efficient bulbs available — LED — that would not shine skyward and would be a subtle outline of the graceful cables, computer-controlled to be dimmable in the late overnight hours when few people are out and skies are darkest for star gazing.

LED lights use only a small fraction of the power of other lights and, because they are inherently less bright, they do not contribute to “light pollution” the way incandescent, fluorescent or sodium vapor light sources do.

In fact, various LED light fixtures have been field-tested to ensure they won’t affect the night skies. These LED lights are not to be confused with the previous, fluorescent construction lights along the cables that were intended to be as bright as possible to illuminate work areas and promote safety.

Furthermore, the use of solar panels — photovoltaic cells — to power the lights is projected to create a net income: Averaged over a year, more energy will be generated than is needed to power the lights, with the excess energy sold to the electric grid and the proceeds used for operations and maintenance. This project has the potential to be a nationally recognized model for “green energy.”

The grassroots group that is working to light the new bridge is acutely mindful of concerns about cost and light pollution and is looking at innovative strategies and technologies that will minimize both. I strongly support the idea of lights on the bridge and wish they’d light both bridges.

Kristin Tow, Gig Harbor

Citizens voted against ‘toll’ bridge, but Oke got the job done

I’m so tired of reading that we had this bridge “crammed down our throats” and that the late Sen. Bob Oke is to blame for the whole debacle.

I blame Mr. Boss and his Citizens Against Tolls for precious hours of my life lost while sitting in traffic on the old bridge driving to and from my job in Tacoma.

The fact that these folks delayed the building of a much-needed second bridge by several years, during which the construction costs climbed higher and higher, is the real debacle. Both times peninsula residents were surveyed, they answered no to a bridge that would have to be paid for at least partially by tolls — they overwhelmingly objected to a toll bridge, not a bridge.

Mr. Boss repeatedly spoke out of both sides of his mouth by demanding that state taxes pay for the bridge, while decrying any proposal to allow outlying Pierce County communities to weigh in on the building/tolling of the bridge, as if they shouldn’t have a say as to how their state tax dollars were going to be spent.

I believe in personal responsibility — by individuals and communities — and one tenet of personal responsibility is “user pays.”

I’m happy to be a user of this splendiferous structure and to pay as I go; and I’m thankful to Bob Oke for getting the job done instead of sitting around pouting.

You can’t put a price on lost hours of one’s life.

Linda Siegel, Fox Island

Let’s call egg hunt what it’s always been called

What is a Spring Egg Hunt? I know what a Easter Egg Hunt is, but I have never heard of a Spring Egg hunt.

What do Spring Eggs look like? Are they baby spring rolls, all wrapped up in their wontons just waiting to be deep fried? Or are they baby slinkys, anxiously awaiting the day when they are big enough to be sold on toy store shelves?

Anyway, enough tongue-in-cheek. Come on! Culture has called this an Easter Egg Hunt for a long time, so let’s stick with that.

This has nothing to do with offending other religions. In fact, an Easter Egg Hunt really has nothing to do with the religious day of Easter.

So let’s go look for Easter eggs, eat our Easter candy and visit the Easter bunny.

Roger Gruener, Gig Harbor

Public input is nice when it’s accepted

Not long ago, I attended my first and only Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on tolls at the Point Fosdick Library.

There were no more than 15 plus in attendance. I couldn’t stay for the whole meeting, but I did get a feeling that the state Department of Transportation spokesperson had a prearranged agenda, and regardless of input, it wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome, which should have been stabilizing the toll structure.

Making the CAC “advisory only” makes it a “toothless tiger,” which puts the DOT in the dictitorial driver’s seat.

We are now witnessing a “perfect storm” — escalating energy and toll prices. I suspect the public is apathetic, lazy and distrustful of government in general, so they don’t participate.

It really is a catch 22, isn’t it? We all need to step up to plate, or we will get steamrolled.

Just remember, the “state” never met a tax it didn’t like!

John Wollenweber, Gig Harbor

Our opinions don’t count like they should

As a resident of Gig Harbor for almost 30 years, I’ve seen many changes, not all of them good.

I was a member of the PNA and went to many meetings to try and put some common sense in some of the projects. Needless to say, to no avail.

Organizations such as this, an advisory committee, seemed not to hold much water with the Hearing Examiner or other branches.

My last meeting I went to was with the DOT, when they were trying to figure out how much the toll should be on the bridge. There were several people there who spoke, including myself.

The consensus from the public was $1.50 for Good to Go! and at $2.50 for the toll booth. Yet it was what it is today ($1.75 and $3, respectively.)

The DOT already had their minds set on the price and just was going through the motion of trying to be fair and have the public’s input. These so-called “public processes” look good, as if the public does have a say in what’s going on, but, in fact, it doesn't.

Now we are stuck with the tolls, which may never come off because of other projects the public may not know anything about.

I feel we should be involved in public process, but it should mean something.

Our opinions are just water under the bridge; the current is strong, and we’re drowning.

Judy Vasconcelos, Gig Harbor

MultiCare not the only facility to offer services

In a story on March 12 regarding MultiCare bringing new cancer studies, trials and experts to south King County, we noted that it states that MultiCare is the only health system offering many of the new and innovative methods.

We at Tacoma Radiation Oncology would like to applaud MultiCare for finally bringing their radiation oncology practice up to date.

Tacoma Radiation Oncology has been offering Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for many years now, and we have long offered image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), High and Dose Brachytherapy (HDR), prostate seed implants, and stereotactic radiosurgery.

We also participate in the use of the Gamma Knife at St. Joseph Hospital, and we do participate in many clinical studies.

It is nice to know that MultiCare, with the assistance of the Seattle Cancer Care alliance, will now be doing the same.

Stephen M. Bader, CPA, MBA Tacoma Radiation Oncology, Tacoma

On-street parking could revitalize downtown GH

In the 14 years that I’ve lived here, I’ve seen big changes in the retail of Gig Harbor. There has been lots of new growth away from downtown, but it would benefit our community to find a way to attract more people back to Harborview Drive. This can be achieved by attracting the right kind of consumer.

In my opinion, the people the city should be trying to attract to the downtown are walkers and joggers. After all, Harborview Drive is currently one the most pedestrian-friendly streets in the whole city.

I propose that on-street parking on Harborview between Dorotich Street and Pioneer Way be removed in favor of wider sidewalks. This is an advantage only Harborview has, as most other areas of the city are not pedestrian-friendly at all.

This simple change could revitalize the economy by reintroducing citizens to downtown businesses.

People that used to park on the street will still be able to park in one of the many small parking lots between the road and water, and casual visitors can park by the QFC or on Rosedale Street.

Steven Spurling, Peninsula High School senior, Gig Harbor