Letters - Dec. 9, 2010

Unproven data

Whitman County residents have a chance to promote positive economic development in our region. We are faced with a unique opportunity to provide supportive comments to the Planner regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Palouse Wind project.

After reviewing the DEIS from Whitman County’s website, I submitted a letter to the county planner that focuses on facilitating the approval of the statement.

My comments focused on the fact that the Draft EIS for Palouse Wind is a systematic and impartial analysis of potential impacts to the region.

I encourage everyone to visit the Whitman County website to view the Palouse Wind DEIS. Of particular interest to me as a tax payer was the economic assessment provided in the Statement.

The Palouse Wind project will add substantial tax revenue to the County coffers, and will create employment.

Over 160 construction jobs and 18 operations jobs will positively boost the local economy without adversely affecting housing, recreation and public resources.

And much to the dismay of perpetual Gazette contributor, Roger Whitten, these economic benefits do not come at the expense of the public health.

I had the pleasure of coming across a recent Editorial in the Oregonian written by some of the most respected scientists in the field of wind energy science, Robert J. McCunney, Robert Dobie and David M. Lipscomb.

In the editorial the scientists state, “While there are legitimate issues worth debating with regard to wind energy development, public health impacts are not among them.” According to the same editorial, American and Canadian independent scientists have concluded, “There is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects.” Seems to me, Whitten’s claims are based upon unproven data.

In these tough economic times let’s foster economic growth, not hamper it.

The public comment period is open until December 20th.

Bill Evans, LaCrosse

Palouse land use

Over the past 5 years, land acquisition by the government of Palouse has grown at a rapid pace.

The Palouse Planning Commission, whose membership has been cherry-picked by the mayor, seems to be at the hub of this controversy. It appears that Echanove has a 10-step land plan directly linked to the Flood Hazard Management Program.

The Plan:

1. Get Planning Commission approval of whatever project can be used in the endless hunt for more and more government money.

2. Apply for and receive as many grants as possible from whatever vanishing government sources are still available—before Little Washington and Big Washington both go bankrupt.

3. Acquire private land in the Palouse River flood plain.

4. Through eminent domain and other heavy-handed government ploys, evict those powerless occupants living in the project areas.

5. Use as little city money as possible for the projects. Remember, the city is in the red and can only support its voracious spending habit by sucking other government entities dry.

6. Divert as much grant money as possible into untraceable city slush funds.

7. Dump fill material in the 100-year flood plain which will raise the overall water level.

8. Build foot bridges across the river that will act like giant beaver dams to raise the water level even more.

9. Then wait. Wait for the perfect storm to flood downtown away so that it can be rebuilt with truckloads of FEMA flood insurance money.

10. And, of course, get re-elected over and over as King of Palouse.

Well, Mr. Mayor, that is taxpayer money you are boondoggling. Whether the check comes from Olympia or D.C., it is ultimately the taxpayers who bear the cost of your visions of grandeur, which appears to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Jim Farr, Palouse

Inconsistent

I have been closely following the eligibility case of Jamie Bledsoe and the rulings made by the WIAA. According to comments from Mike Morgan, athletic director, the case lacked intent to get around the residency rule. He further commented that “the rule is enforced by the WIAA to prevent athletes from jumping to neighboring sports programs.”

Last fall I was involved in a case which involved a girl desiring to play softball for Oakesdale High School. She had previously been home-schooled and was attending Oakesdale her senior year. Since she lived in Garfield, the WIAA ruled that she was ineligible to play sports for Oakesdale. There were many reasons for attending Oakesdale rather than Gar-Pal, one of which was the credit system. She would not have been able to graduate her senior year if attending Gar-Pal.

The coaches and athletic directors from both schools were in agreement that she should be allowed to play softball. WIAA disagreed, so an average player was denied her dream to play varsity softball her senior year.

The ruling was solely based on the fact that she could not prove that she would have suffered a physical or mental hardship by attending Gar-Pal. I did not see any reference to the hardship qualification in the Bledsoe ruling. This case, like the Bledsoe case, lacked any real intent to get around the residency rule. Also, her intent was not to jump to a neighboring sports program.

The WIAA has become too powerful and is abusing the original intent of the residency rule. Many future students will wrongly be denied participation unless the rule is changed, or a more fair system is put in place. It is also obvious that the WIAA is not consistent in their rulings.

Steve Jones, Garfield