Keeping tabs
A recent article by Rick Anderson about 1998 business travel and other expenses incurred by the Port of Seattle's Engineering Services department ("How to Blow Lots of Money," 4/22) cites a $700 hotel tab allegedly run up by department head Ray Rawe in Paris last fall. In fairness to Mr. Rawe, who is widely respected for his professional ethics and integrity, your readers should know that he never spent more than about $150 per hotel night in Paris, which is an expensive international city by anyone's standards. Mr. Anderson never double-checked the information with the Port, although his story may lead readers to believe otherwise.
The Port of Seattle prides itself on being a financially and professionally responsible organization that makes valuable investments on behalf of King County citizens so they have access to cutting-edge transportation facilities at the seaport and airport. The Port has a legal mandate to make these investments and to act as a catalyst for the creation of thousands of family-wage jobs. To ensure that its facilities meet the highest and most up-to-date standards in their respective industries, the Port believes it is necessary to continually enhance its employees' professional skills and knowledge. Not a penny of public tax revenues is spent on this training and travel, or on any other Port operating cost. These expenses are paid for by the revenues the Port receives from its business customers. That too is a matter of pride for the Port, whose commission has effectively lowered its tax levy rate for King County homeowners during the past six years.
Tom Tierney
Chief Administrative/ Chief Financial Officer
Port of Seattle
Rick Anderson responds: The Port of course knows I asked about the figure; they are correcting their mistaken response.
Net effect
Unfortunately, Chris Carrel's story regarding Initiative 696 ("Snow Job?") failed to give your readers an accurate assessment of our effort to save Washington state sea life.
Our goal is simple. Yes on I-696 will remove non-tribal, non-selective net fishing from all Washington waters so that the remaining salmon stock fishery doesn't collapse.
Harvest is not talked about much in this state. Why? Because the commercial fish industry's lobbyists have controlled the public policy debate in Olympia and at the National Marine Fishery Service.
This hasn't been the case elsewhere. Citizen groups in 14 states have banned this type of net fishing in their effort to save diminished fisheries.
As for the diversity of our supporters, we are gathering thousands of signatures a day throughout the state and have received contributions—ranging from $10 to $2,500— from more than 750 people in just two months. By any measure, I-696 is truly a broad-based, grassroots campaign.
Other than the overall unfair "spin" Carrel's article gave our campaign, I must also point out a few things that should not go unmentioned. Carrel quoted me, although I have never talked to him, and he failed to inform readers that his "expert" from the University of Washington is a licensed gillnetter.
As we continue this campaign through November 2, 1999, we look forward to fair and balanced reporting from the Weekly.
Tom Nelson
Ban All Nets
Chris Carrel responds: The quotation in question is Nelson's from an interview with Washington-Oregon Fish and Game.
Anyone who has spent any time in Olympia can tell you that there is no mighty local commercial fishing lobby keeping salmon harvest off the table. Harvest is least discussed because it is the least of the four H's (habitat degradation, hydropower dams, and hatcheries being the other three) killing wild salmon and it's adequately dealt with by current regulations. For instance, commercial fishing in Puget Sound has been scaled back tremendously to protect wild stocks.
The primary salmon killers, while receiving plenty of talk, get very little action. Witness this legislative session, where proposals to begin addressing water quantity and quality in rivers, and impose new logging restrictions were quashed.
In this political context, BAN is just another diversion from the hard work needed to save wild Northwest salmon.
Doggone OLAs
I was very disappointed to see that Geov Parrish's normally well-functioning mind apparently shuts down when the subject turns to dogs (Impolitics, "Dogging the City," 4/1).
The bottom line on the whole off-leash area debate is this: Dogs and densely populated areas don't mix!
It's really very simple. Apartment buildings are bad places to have band practice, elevators are bad places to fart, and crowded cities are bad places to own animals that require lots of space.
Dog owners want to be able to live in the city and still have it be convenient for them to exercise their beasts. What sucks is that they expect everyone else to give up large chunks of our limited park space, to be turned into big, muddy, feces-and-urine fields. If you don't believe me, just take a stroll over to Volunteer Park. What used to be a nice, green picnic area, next to the Asian Art Museum is now an ugly and depressing shit hole.
The conflict is not "between people who want to use the park and people who want it as a pretty thing to look at" as you say in your article, Geov. It's between people who want to share the park with their fellow citizens and people who would ruin it before questioning the impact of their impractical decisions.
