Letters to the editor

July 1, 2011

By Contributor

Don’t let strip mall development replace pedestrian friendly downtown

In last month’s Newcastle News, City Councilwoman Carol Simpson announced her desire to be re-elected.

In that article, she expressed her concern that Newcastle was becoming too pedestrian oriented. Her solution to the problem is to modify the downtown plan and allow more drive-thru businesses, which, I believe, agrees with the goal of the current City Council.

So, if everything works for Ms. Simpson, we could be blessed with a drive-thru pharmacy on the corner where the fruit stand now sits. If you think this will improve the quality of our city, the city’s economics or your property values, relax, your interests are well represented.

However, if want to prevent strip-mall development in Newcastle and enhance our downtown with pedestrian-friendly commercial and residential buildings like those found in Mercer Island or Bellevue, then we need to get organized and make our opinions known. If you can help, please email me at will-winslow@comcast.net.

Will Winslow

Newcastle

 

Vote for Gordon Bisset, the most qualified candidate for Position 4

Gordon Bisset made my day when he filed for the open seat to return to the Newcastle City Council.

Beginning in 2001, I served with Gordon both on the Planning Commission, where he was chairman, and later on the City Council, where we were both members of the Finance Committee. Without question, Gordon has demonstrated the intelligence, integrity and financial acumen to serve the city well again.

Of all the candidates running for Position 4, Gordon is by far the best qualified, and I strongly urge you to vote for him. We live in troubled economic times where experience and proven performance really count in our elected representatives.

Bill Erxleben

Newcastle City Council Chairman,

Finance Committee

 

City should ban solicitation

In my opinion, I think Newcastle should prohibit all door-to-door solicitation. Soliciting is not always what it appears to be. It could be someone checking to see if anyone is home during the day, or if a car is locked, or if the house windows or doors are left unlocked.

Many small and large cities have “no solicitation” bans as an ordinance. I think it would be a great idea for our city as well to ban all solicitation. My suggestion would be to ban the selling of any product or service, fundraising of any kind, and religious and political solicitation.

There are various other outlets and venues for these activities to be “successful” without soliciting door to door. It would also keep our neighborhoods safer by allowing our neighbors to more easily recognize those individuals who do not live here.

I am tired of fast-talking, clipboard-holding, badge-wearing solicitors coming to my door when a simple city ordinance would prevent it and give our police “leverage” to stop and talk with these individuals.

Jeff Skocelas

Newcastle

Bookmark and Share
Other Stories of Interest: , ,

Comments

2 Responses to “Letters to the editor”

  1. Gary Adams on July 16th, 2011 1:06 pm

    I disagree with Bill Erxleben’s endorsement of Gordon Bissett in position 4. I understand it, of course. It would be another automatic vote for whatever he wanted to push. But now is the time for fresh ideas. It’s the old, “experienced”, ideas that have the City in the position it is now. It’s also not the time for current Councilmembers to utilize their official positions (like Finance Committee Chair) to endorse particular candidates. Every one has the right to endorse who they want as an individual. Using big titles to imply that your endorsement carries more weight or is somehow reflecting a council position is simply inappropriate. Let’s get some independent voices back on the Council so Newcastle can move forward.

  2. Adrienne Anderson Smith on July 25th, 2011 9:59 pm

    I find retaining Carol Simpson one of the more logical choices for our City Council.
    I am a pedestrian, have been all of my life. I have expressed my opinions to her more often than I probably should. She is very patient, logical, and practical.
    Removing the drive-thru is a form of discrimination against customers with illness, injury, disabilities and children in the car, to say the least.
    After attending the City Hall meeting when they voted to remove them – where I did speak out – I questioned everybody that I came across who had assisted transportation, such as a “scooter.” When I explained the philosophy of our Council Members on removing drive-thru access they laughed & LAUGHED, saying that it was preposterous. Drive-thru access is far more logical for disabled people than being demanded to struggle their equipment out of the vehicle for a quick errand.
    Remove the drive through – remove the revenue – they will go elsewhere. Having a few of them would increase property value.
    The thought of losing the the fruit stand in that way is impractical poppycock! It has to great a following.
    By the by, they use a great deal of drive-thru in Mercer Island & Bellevue – and still prosper. Imagine that!

Got something to say?

Before you comment, please note:

  • These comments are moderated.
  • Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
  • Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
  • This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.