Letters for the week of Jan. 23
No plastic bag ban for me
Editor, The Beacon:
Well, I see the asinine ban on plastic bags has become the law of the land in Mukilteo.
It’s another ill-conceived "monkey see, monkey do" knee jerk proposition by a city council that can never seem to get its priorities in order. This idiotic measure is now (as predicted) having a negative impact on stores that have to buy paper bags.
Guess who will end up paying for that? We will. And why? More junk science and the "save the whales" mentality completely unsupported by any credible facts and data.
The good news? As soon as I realized this ban might become a reality, I started stockpiling plastic bags. I now have more than 10,000 of them and have access to plenty more.
So I will continue to use plastic bags for years to come with no pangs of guilt that I am somehow harming the environment. Touché.
Voters need facts about the gulch
I have to start by saying that I agree with Mr. Courtmanche in his letter to the Beacon that the Save the Gulch group didn’t do a good job of stating the facts of what property is actually at risk in the gulch for development [“Voters were ignorant of levy details,” Letters, page 4, Jan. 9].
Maybe the group should put more actual information on their website; it would probably be more valuable than a link to “Like” them on Facebook.
My problem is that a lot of people who are against us paying to acquire the gulch property are using the argument that many non-residents use the gulch. The fact is that we have no facts on gulch usage.
Even if we did, they wouldn't mean anything because the number of people who use it (from Mukilteo and not) would probably change if the gulch was actually acquired and set up as parkland.
Remember, most of it right now is private property and that keeps a lot of people from using it.
And, yes, it would be great if Everett jumped in to help with the costs to save the gulch, but I don't know how to make that happen.
In the end, much of the gulch may be in Everett, but it is really closer to the heart of Mukilteo than to the center of Everett, so I don't think the bulk of Everett's population knows the issue very well.
Maybe the Save the Gulch group could concentrate on changing that. How you would get both cities to work together on a purchase of the property is beyond my knowledge, but maybe someone smarter than me can figure that out.
Another letter to the Beacon stated that the Save the Gulch project benefits a handful of "save the trees" advocates [“Vote ‘no’ on Save the Gulch 2.0,” Letters, page 4, Jan. 9].
More than half the people who voted in November's election voted for Prop. 1; in my book, that is more than a “handful.”
As Mr. Courtmanche pointed out in his letter, that number may have been smaller if people knew the actual facts of Prop. 1 but, regardless, it does tell me that more than half the population who took the time to vote at least has some interest in saving the gulch.
Look, let's get the facts and vote on this again. If you use the gulch and want to see it protected, vote for the next proposition. If you don't want to pay to purchase the gulch, vote against it.
All I ask is that those of you who have never been in the gulch and are undecided, please get all the facts you can and consider the benefit to the whole community before you decide whether it is worth the cost.
Because the only fact that matters is that once its gone, we can't get it back.