Just a quick question....

The ads hit the radio today.

The ad claims that over 1000 policemen will be laid off if I-695 passes. What % of the total is that?

They say that cities and counties in eastern Washington will lose 40% of their revenue.

They missed the part about all the kids going hungry, but maybe they will catch that in the next ad.

Can someone tell me what it will do to law enforcement?

Maybe someone can find a part-time job for the cities and counties like the rest of us have to get to make ends meet.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 15, 1999

Answers

Well if it is going to cost 1000 cops their jobs do we get to choose which 1000 it is going to be?

How about if we decide that there are 1000 OTHER government employees who we would rather see lose their jobs?

Maybe Ron Sims? Or Gary Locke? Heck if we got rid of just those two we would probably have a surplus large enough to HIRE 6 or 7 thousand new cops and maybe buy new equipment for all the fire districts.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

This sounds like law enforcement statewide has 1000 too many police officers. When you figure each officer's total cost to the state is roughly $100,000 including salary, benefits and overtime, that's $100 million dollars. I don't recall private citizens enjoying guaranteed employment. Government workers must not have an advantage at our expense. Then we would have 1000 less overzealous cops on the streets manufacturing crime to sustain their outrageous cost to taxpayers. Why isn't the number 2000 or 5000 officers, or other unnecessary government workers. This is the only area that is now producing "a loss of revenue".

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

Oh no....you mean less police officers to give out tickets for people driving 61MPH!

-- caroline morgan (celtic266@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

You can start the lay-offs with the big brave WSP troopers that sit at the Bridgeport on-ramp to 16 near the Narrows Bridge in groups of four and five and ticket single drivers for using the ramp during HOV only hours. Like Tacoma has no more serious crimes they can be working on than driving a SOV during commuting hours.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

Mark writes:

"You can start the lay-offs with the big brave WSP troopers that sit at the Bridgeport on-ramp to 16 near the Narrows Bridge in groups of four and five and ticket single drivers for using the ramp during HOV only hours. Like Tacoma has no more serious crimes they can be working on than driving a SOV during commuting hours."

1. The WSP's job is to patrol state highways. By ticketing you, they're doing their job. They usually have nothing to do with law enforcement off state highways. If there's crime in Tacoma, that's the Tacoma Police Department's responsibility, not the State Patrol's.

2. That intersection is VERY well marked. If you chose to go in an HOV only lane, it's your own fault that you couldn't read.

3. Do you have any idea about the history of that intersection? Cars backed up for blocks and blocks on Jackson or whatever the street is that runs north from 16. There was MASSIVE citizen outcry over this problem; they couldn't get out of their driveways for hours each day. The HOV on ramp proposal was floated, and lo and behold the residents of that area liked it! So that's what was implemented. And it's worked well, decreasing the congestion in that area during rush hour.

4. The Tacoma News Tribune printed about 100 articles when the switch was made warning everybody that it would happen. It was VERY well publicized.

Bottom line, you break the law, you get a ticket. Don't blame the cops for enforcing the law. Especially if you choose not to read the nice big signs that are posted for everybody to see.

One more thing:

4. By giving you a ticket, they're generating revenue! So you should be happy about that, seeing how you want government to decrease spending and all.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

BB-

How about one (1) trooper at the top stopping people from going down the ramp? Call it crime prevention. At least they could be ticketed where they wouldn't be a distraction to the people going onto the bridge.

How about metered traffic flow like everyone else does? If you won't get on any faster than waiting your turn, there's no sense scooting through neighborhoods on low capacity streets to avoid the congestion on 16.

Explain to me the advantage to congestion/air pollution/fuel consumption to have all the HOV cars get off 16 at Union or 19th and use local streets to get to the Bridgeport on-ramp, while the SOV drivers backtrack from Bridgeport to the previous on-ramp before the bridge, and contribute to traffic there?

I sympathize with the driveway problem. It was (and still is) legitimate. But there are more rational ways to handle it. The whole corridor would do better with on-ramp metering. People using local roads to jump on to 16 just before the bridge on the other side are a similar problem, and cause frequent accidents. I have to throw in with Mark on this one. I don't know that we ought to fire the troopers, but their time certainly could be better spent elsewhere.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 17, 1999.

BB-

"By giving you a ticket, they're generating revenue! So you should be happy about that, seeing how you want government to decrease spending and all." You decrease government spending by giving the government less money to spend BB, not by giving them more. Some day you're going to make me believe Westin is right about the UW if you keep coming up with statements like this. Just kidding.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 17, 1999.

How about starting layoffs with all of those cops in Clinton Washington with nothing better to do than eat donuts and harrass people waiting in the ferry line.

-- Jill (harrywho@whidbey.com), October 08, 1999.