Monday, July 2, 2001 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Letters to the editor

	E-mail this article

	Print this article

Vesely's view

Don't overlookthe direct benefitof toll lanes

Editor, The Times:

James Vesely's column "Inching ahead on roads; not much before 2002" (Times, June 11) didn't mention one obvious remedy to our political gridlock over who should pay for regional transportation improvements. If it's so hard for people to grasp how improvements in one area benefit the whole region, then let's make the cost-benefit connection more direct by charging tolls on the new lanes we add.

Tolls use age-old economic principles to turn the demand for transit capacity into the means to pay for it. They should be used to finance new lanes on I-405, I-5 and other routes where new capacity is needed.

Crossing Lake Washington quickly also should not be free; a new Highway 520 bridge should be paid for by charging tolls on some lanes of both bridges. Tolls get around the resistance to paying for the "other side's" improvements. Don't use those roads? Fine. You'll pay nothing. Have more time than money? Keeping some lanes free will let you get around as fast as you can now.

But for those of us willing and able to pay to get out of gridlock, tolls let us fund improvements without trying to sell voters on new taxes.

-- Bob Gale, Seattle

The wrong problem

I'm really sorry that transportation discussion in Seattle does not touch on land-use issues. Seattle does not have a transportation problem. It has a land-use problem. No transportation problem is solved with any new transportation infrastructure (roadway or transit), without a concurrent commitment to address underlying land-use and development patterns that create an "impossible" level of travel demand.

I can easily afford the prognostication that every transportation project in the Seattle region will only make transportation problems worse.

Look at Boston's "Big Dig," the hugely expensive project touted to be an improvement by removing the "eyesore" of the elevated highway. What's rarely mentioned is the construction of a six-lane surface boulevard where there once was none below the freeway. Big Dig is turning out to be just another roadway expansion plan.

King County Executive Ron Sims favors a tunnel replacement for the viaduct. This line of thinking is sorely incomplete.

-- Art Lewellan, Portland, Ore.

Home-schooling

Learn quantum logic

My number one pet peeve these days isn't traffic gridlock, drivers who talk on cellular phones, or rising energy costs. What really gets my goat are people who make broad pronouncements, which they then back up with anecdotal evidence.

Froma Harrop, in "Questioning the motives of home-schooling parents" (Times, June 28), related four stories about dysfunctional families, some led by downright evil parents, who each happened to have something in common - they taught their children at home. She used these family histories to make a quantum leap in logic to the conclusion that all parents who educate their children at home are suspicious, and seems to imply that the state ought to be watching these people very closely.

Now, my wife and I don't home-school our son. I can understand that people have concerns about children developing social skills. But I don't think the public schools have a monopoly on social interaction. They certainly don't have a superior track record when it comes to providing quality education. Indeed, children educated in the public school system in the United States consistently score lower in all academic areas than children in other developed nations.

When a family decides they can do a better job of educating their children, why should they be subject to any greater scrutiny by the government? Harrop's answer to this question seems to be "Because some of them are weird." Wake up, Froma! Lots of families are weird; home-schoolers have not cornered the market.

-- Jim Travis, Bothell

One word

Froma Harrop's column attacking home-schoolers and suggesting that the children of Andrea Yates may have been "saved" by a school begs the obvious one-word response: Columbine.

-- Tim Saint, Kirkland

So they're different

Harrop is correct. Sadly, there are home-schooling parents who abuse their children or give them a poor upbringing. Some home-schooled students are socially inept. But questioning the motives of most home-schoolers based on a few random cases is just plain poor reasoning.

Does Harrop really believe that parents who pour so much time and energy and patience into their children do so simply out of selfishness? Or is she insinuating that "normal" parents are less apt to abuse or have nerdy kids just because their children attend school?

Parents' loving involvement in their kids' lives is a much bigger influence on our children's characters. We need to focus on this, not on making snide comments about those who make different choices than we would ourselves.

-- Nicole Wisler, Kirkland

Shining examples

I'm a home-school student and was shocked that someone would evaluate home-schoolers everywhere based on a single family. I attended public school through second grade and have been home-schooled since.

First, socialization: In public school, children are broken into three castes: cool kids, rejects and the untouchables. In home-school, everyone accepts each other as friends.

Home-schoolers receive some of the best scores in the nation in every subject. Remember, only a small percentage of children are home-schooled, so their ranking is significant.

Also, remember that many famous scientists were home-schooled, e.g., Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton and Samuel Morse.

The parent who locked the girl in the closet wasn't a product of home-schooling. The victim was. Was the girl to blame? Not all parents who home-school are like that.

Even though some think home-schooling is wrong, I thoroughly enjoy it, and have no desire to return to public school.

-- Alex Binz, 11 years old (fifth grade home-schooler), Everett

Over Hill

Not so fast

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman acts as if David Brock's belated claim that he lied about Anita Hill settles the matter once and for all: Hill was telling the truth, Clarence Thomas was lying, those who believed Thomas owe Hill an apology, case closed. ("Hill-bashing mea culpa comes a little bit late," Times, June 29.)

Unfortunately for Brock and Goodman, "The Real Anita Hill" contained far too much evidence from both the public record and attributed sources to be blown away by Brock's nebulous recantation. To my knowledge, none of the dozens of witnesses cited by Brock have come forward to claim that he fabricated evidence or misrepresented their testimony.

Contrary to Goodman, "The Real Anita Hill" is not out of print, and I encourage people to read it for themselves to see if it is any more "vitriolic" than the things that were said - and continue to be said - about Clarence Thomas.

Brock is clearly a troubled man whose motives are known only to himself, but until someone can specifically refute the mass of evidence he accumulated, I will continue to regard "The Real Anita Hill" as the definitive account of a sordid episode in American history.

-- Stephen Triesch, Shoreline