Letter to the Editor | Responses to graffiti and I-976

 

Last updated 1/15/2020 at 1:20pm



A Mukilteo resident was quoted in a Beacon article as saying that graffiti is not art. Well, it depends. The article was accompanied by a photograph of graffiti in, I believe, the Japanese Gulch. The graffiti was, indeed, defacement of property, illegal, and socially unacceptable. It was also pleasing to my eye, appeared drawn freehand, and creative. Thus, it is also art. Unfortunately, our society seems to give more opportunity for keen minds to rig the financial system against working people than there are opportunities for creative expression.

A letter writer expressed his frustrations with I-976 being challenged in court. He seemed to be saying that because the people approved the initiative at the ballot, it is constitutional. Not so fast. How would local residents feel about the citizens of Seattle being empowered to overrule a Mukilteo vote to tax themselves for, say, a park? That is essentially part of what I-976 is attempting to do. I-976 would invalidate the taxes Seattle voters levied upon themselves for transportation projects. Pray tell, how is this constitutional? Simply put, voters of any city/county should not be able to interfere in the revenue policies of another city/county. Period.


Tim Eyman, once again, appears to be trying to put more than one subject in an initiative. This, in itself, is unconstitutional. Will he ever learn? I am hoping the court will sink this one so quick that Mr. Eyman will have to start swimming very fast.

Arnie Knudson

Lynnwood

 

Reader Comments
(0)

 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2020

Rendered 08/05/2020 00:02