Menu

Letters to the Editor - March 10, 2014

  • Written by Readers

It is unfortunate that the government official, Parks Director Tom Teigen, continues to make many misleading and false statements about his plans and actions.

I feel it is essential to continue to call him on that. Ms. Stewart was generous when she said Teigen makes “a lot of statements that are only half true.”

Mr Teigen says he’s met with the community repeatedly and has responded to their concerns. In truth, he had the entire complex designed before ever meeting openly with residents. At the first actual public meeting his message was that it’s a “done deal.”

Teigen has said he’s being open with residents. In truth, during the recent “public comment period” for his permit application, the plans residents were supposed to comment on simply weren’t available.

Teigen said critics of his plans make up a small percentage of the community.

In truth, at the recent Woodinville Council meeting over 25 residents spoke out in firm opposition to Teigen’s sports complex. Residents in favor: Zero.

Yet Mr Teigen, as quoted in your article, dismisses the residents who have expressed an opinion and arrogantly claims those who haven’t spoken up are on his side. (Support from zero people?)

Teigen claims only 25 acres will be developed. In truth, his application asks permission to clear nearly twice that amount.

Teigen’s traffic study describes Woodinville-Snohomish Road as being a “five-lane” road. In truth, it has five lanes ONLY from the exit from Costco to the 522 on ramp. A distance not even half the length of Costco’s parking lot.

The one accurate thing he said is that the Wellington area is a buffer between the commercial and industrial area and the residential area. A buffer which Teigen wants to eliminate by filling the area with a commercial complex.

“They say we’re ruining the rural character, but we’re actually preserving it,” he said.
No doubt Mr Teigen also believes he has to destroy the village to save it.
Sean Martin, Woodinville


I think that Linda Gray and Carol Welch have it right (Letters to the Editor 3/3/14) with their concerns regarding Snohomish County’s proposed plan for Wellington Park.

Their factual letters describe issues that raise difficult questions for Parks Director Teigen. For example, as he has variously described it, the park is a “Regional Sports Complex” and “an amazing buffer that insulates you from any development.”

Further, it will only “host lacrosse/soccer tournaments once a year, if we`re lucky” and “draw regional and national tournaments on a regular basis.”

Director Teigen might be math challenged as well. He claims only 25 acres will be developed but 47 acres will be cleared.

What? Finally, somehow we get “an economic driver of the region” from low usage and minimal traffic. How does this happen?

Friends and neighbors, haven`t we seen all of this before.

Another slick politician with an agenda tailoring his message to his audience, back and forth, spinning and weaving the story as he goes along.

What`s wrong with just telling the truth for a change? Personally, I love the idea of a community park and so do most of my neighbors, however a park that remains true to the nature of the local community with the emphasis on nature, as in NATURAL.
Jim Willett, Woodinville


I am responding to Patty Franklin’s letter, regarding the unanswered question she recently posed to U.S. Rep. Suzan Delbene, concerning executive orders.

Do you know every president from Washington to Obama, has used executive orders (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php)?

Do you know more than 13,000, in one form or another, have been issued since 1789?
While there is no specific provision in the Constitution that permits them, there is a “grant of executive power” given in Article II of the Constitution (hltp:llwww.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitutiontranscript.html).

Presidents have used that language, along with their constitutional powers as commander and chief over the nation’s military, to issue executive orders — whether it be to change domestic policy or to go to war.

And they are legally binding – the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld all but two legal challenges to them.

I guess the question is, were you railing against President Bush and his “lawless behavior” when he was issuing executive orders? President Bush used them 291 times and President Obama, to date, has used them 168 times.

The debate over executive orders usually comes down to political squabbling.
The party that’s out of the White House rails against them, but orders are suddenly OK when it gets back in.
M. Wallace, Woodinville

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter