River­shore ar­ti­cle was dis­ap­point­ing

Tri-City Herald (Sunday) - - Opinion -

As a speaker at the Badger Club event, I was deeply dis­ap­pointed in your ar­ti­cle on Columbia River­shore Re­con­veyance. It ap­pears writ­ten from a pro­vided pro­mo­tional script, and in no way cap­tures the cir­cum­stances that prompted the event in the first place.

That fact is this: This most im­por­tant Tri-Cities land use ac­tion since the 1960s was sub­mit­ted this sum­mer as a rider to a must-pass con­gres­sional bill in the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives with­out ever go­ing through any of the ci­ti­zen in­volve­ment man­dated un­der Wash­ing­ton state law.

De­spite our spend­ing the last two years in re­quired 10-year re­vi­sions of the Com­pre­hen­sive Plans for Cities and Coun­ties, there was no ci­ti­zen in­put, no com­mis­sion ex­am­i­na­tions, and no coun­cil votes taken on the pro­posed land trans­fer. Most sig­nif­i­cantly, there was no con­sul­ta­tion with the Con­fed­er­ated Tribes, who as sovereign na­tions have guar­an­teed, cen­tury-old treaty rights to the use and preser­va­tion of this shore­line, their an­ces­tral home. Yet this trans­fer was pre­sented by our con­gress­man as be­ing solidly sup­ported by the Tri-Cities.

What’s wrong with that pic­ture?

The Badger Club event was about the way democ­racy is sup­posed to work in our com­mu­nity, and about how it should work now.

James A. Wise, Richland still on the fence. If he al­lows these Hon­durans to cross the bor­der, there will be the eco­nomic im­pact of un­em­ployed, il­le­gal, and prac­ti­cally pen­ni­less Hon­durans en­ter­ing the coun­try who will need sup­port.

The best choice for the free­dom of le­gal Amer­i­can cit­i­zens is to deny en­try of these Hon­durans into the U.S.

Caleb Beasley, Ken­newick

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.