Letters to the Editor - 9/4/17

  • Written by Readers


We were lucky enough to attend the  Chicago concert at Chateau Ste Michelle (CSM) on Sunday, August 27th.  What an amazing venue, and we could only think how lucky Woodinville is to have this gem.

We arrived at 3 p.m. to wait in line to be one of the first through the gates – the gates were to open at 5 p.m. and there were about 70 people in front of us.  We were in the “first” line according to security.  Just before 5 p.m. a new “first” line seem to form with people that had just arrived, and they were allowed to enter before the rest of us.  We thought maybe they paid for the right to enter early but found out that they were granted access due to their ADA (American Disabilities Act) status.  By the time we got in to set our blankets and chairs down, the ADA group was three deep in the center stage area with blankets strewn about and saving as many as eight spots for friends.  In checking the CSM website, one person with ADA status and a companion can go in early and “additional space cannot be held in the general admission section for more than the individual with a disability and the companion.”  A true bummer that the ADA group read the information about going in early but ignored the “one person and a companion” part of that same note on the website.

The gal in front of me informed me that her friend that she joined at 6:30 p.m. on the saved blanket had an ADA pass due to a "bad back" – ironically her friend danced great all night with that "bad back."  There was also an older couple, that was in the first row directly in the center with their chairs spread on a much bigger blanket than needed already enjoying their picnic as the rest of us were vying for a place to sit.  When a woman by herself asked if she could occupy the two foot space to the left of them, the woman said “no” and it would block her view – it wouldn’t have in the least and she was frankly just rude.  BTW this couple that of course must have had an ADA card because they got in early, had no trouble hopping the fence between reserved and general seating with their chairs and picnic basket when they decided they didn’t want to stay for the encore.   These are only a couple of the numerous examples of people that clearly took advantage of the situation.

Please know this.  I truly am a supporter of the American Disabilities Act.  It was and is a great step forward for people with true challenges.  It seems, however, to have become warped and used in ways not intended by the law's authors.

Lastly – there was a crazy amount of trash people just left in the areas that they sat in – really?  Do you do this at home?

Margaret Brady, Seattle


After reading the Police Beat about Man’s Best Friend being locked in a hot car and near death, I cried.  Then I read Letters to Editor and could only shake my head what is wrong with people? 

Per Washington State Law:
RCW 16.52.340
Leave or confine any animal in unattended motor vehicle or enclosed space—Class 2 civil infraction—Officers’ authority to reasonably remove animal.
(1) It is a class 2 civil infraction under RCW 7.80.120 to leave or confine any animal unattended in a motor vehicle or enclosed space if the animal could be harmed or killed by exposure to excessive heat, cold, lack of ventilation, or lack of necessary water.
(2) To protect the health and safety of an animal, an animal control officer or law enforcement officer who reasonably believes that an animal is suffering or is likely to suffer harm from exposure to excessive heat, cold, lack of ventilation, or lack of necessary water is authorized to enter a vehicle or enclosed space to remove an animal by any means reasonable under the circumstances if no other person is present in the immediate area who has access to the vehicle or enclosed space and who will immediately remove the animal. An animal control officer, law enforcement officer, or the department or agency employing such an officer is not liable for any damage to property resulting from actions taken under this section.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents the person who has confined the animal in the vehicle or enclosed space from being convicted of separate offenses for animal cruelty under RCW 16.52.205 or 16.52.207.
[ 2015 c 235 § 1.]

I would never consider the owner responsible enough to take it to a vet and he should never be allowed to own another pet but obviously not my call.  This is happening more and more, not just with pets but also with young defenseless children.  What does this say about our society and where it is headed?  People are too involved in their social lives and phones to let anything at all interfere. We must stop this senseless abuse in any way possible.  I will not hesitate to break any window of a car if a child or pet is in danger.  I will explain it all to a judge rather than risk any life or their health.  This is the only way to combat these senseless acts.

Shawnee McCartor, Woodinville

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter