No on 933 could use some letter writing help

[eridani]

Sent to the Seattle Times:

I wonder why Dan Wood in his plea for "property rights" never mentioned his own 2005 campaign for odor regulation in Hoquiam because odor from the Ocean Protein fish processing plant made it impossible for him to rent a house that he owned. Such a law would be struck down under his Initiative 933, unless the local government wrote Ocean Protein a big fat check to make them stop stinking up his property. Gee Dan--it sure looks like things that other property owners do affect the value of your property, doesn't it? The bottom line here is that people who expect others to obey laws that protect the value of their property must reciprocate by obeying laws that protect the property of others and the general public. Mr Wood, like far too many other "in 'duh' vidualists," thinks that land use regulations are only for others to obey, not him.


Katie McClendon <[e-mail]> wrote:
Farmers aren't the only ones hurt by land-use restrictions
By Dan Wood http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003325112_danwood27.html

Dan Wood, the author of Initiative 933, had this printed in the Seattle Times recently and we would love it, if in these last days before the election, you could submit letters in response.

Here is what our side had printed:

Beware the consequences of this costly proposal
By Hugh Spitzer http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003325104_spitzer27.html

Thanks everyone!

Katie McClendon
King County Field Organizer
NO on 933
[phone]
[e-mail]


Pledge to vote NO on 933 at http://NOon933.org/get_involved/pledge.php

[merwin]

1. I was wondering about 933... I (sadly) haven't been keeping up on the

initiatives this time around. From my very short look at it, it seems like a bad idea. Can anyone here fill me in on the details?

[eridani]

2. Any whackjob will be able to shit in the reservoir--

--unless you write him a big fat check.

[merwin]

3. That's a very blunt (and seemingly accurate) description.

Thanks!