Harrison Medical Center

Would Poulsbo campus serve

the people?

I’m writing concerning the story abut Harrison Hospital which is considering the purchase of the city of Poulsbo-owned property at 10th Avenue. If purchased, Harrison Hospital would then build a new state-of-the-art cancer treatment facility at the site.

If the mayor and city council are going to engage in real estate speculation as a way to cover cost overruns and financial miscalculations for building a new downtown city hall, I believe a couple of things should be kept in mind.

The common good of Poulsbo’s citizens should be the primary focus in using retail tax-generated dollars which go to the city of Poulsbo. These city-held dollars should be used so Poulsbo’s citizens primarily benefit from them.

For the 40 percent of citizens who don’t have health insurance, a couple of trips to the proposed Harrison facility could mean goodbye life savings and hello medicare and medicaid.

The way the Harrison story was reported, their facility at 10th Avenue would be designed to serve cancer care patients from a large geographical area outside of Poulsbo. Does Harrison Hospital have a good track record for adequate billing? How is Harrison Hospital rated by national health care consumer groups?

Also, I believe that if the mayor and city council want to sell that 10th Avenue property, they should put it on the Internet and get the widest market exposure possible. Or how about going down the road to Gig Harbor where the Multi Care Health Clinic System just built a beautiful new health care campus.

Get lots of potential buyers involved so the citizens of Poulsbo benefit the most for their money which the city has collected from them.

There are many potential uses for the 10th Avenue property that would be a good fit for the citizens of Poulsbo and their common good.

Responsible financial stewardship calls for getting the highest bid possible for the 10th Avenue property, with a fit that best addresses the common good of Poulsbo’s citizens.

John Eastman

Poulsbo

Decision 2008

The Danielson smear backfired

on the leaker

I read in the Aug. 6 (Herald) that an anonymous critic had revealed “terrible information” about Superior Court candidate Bruce Danielson (“Anonymous critic targets Danielson”).

Apparently he was sanctioned and fined for bringing a case accusing a judge of lying when he said he was a resident of Pierce County even though he had actually recently married and bought a home in Kitsap County for his new wife and himself.

Danielson was representing a person who had run for the judicial position in question and lost.

The person who sent this information could not keep his facts in order when he claimed the fine had not been paid — a false statement.

The other two candidates, Greg Wall and Jeanette Dalton, sounded as though they wished it was something important but couldn’t figure out how to make something of it.

The important part, however, is the statement by the anonymous tipster that “the case brought by Danielson lacked any understanding of the principles that any first-year law student should know.”

I’m sure all us red-blooded American males would agree it was a frivolous case.

Can you believe anyone could be so frivolous as to actually believe that a newly married man with a new home bought for the newlyweds would actually be living in it with his new bride?

Why heavens to Elizabeth no.

We all know he would be spending his nights on a boat in a marina miles away from his new bride, being rocked to sleep by the great Pacific instead of his new wife, as any sensible person would be doing.

Sure we would.

A thought for the anonymous critic: Stay anonymous.

We all know what we’re laughing about. No need to know who we are laughing at.

Bob Lamb

Manchester

Texting while driving

It’s a feel-good law

The recent law passed making it illegal to talk on the phone or text message while driving feels really good, doesn’t it? And that’s about all it will accomplish: a feel-good law. It’s nothing more than nanny-statism at its finest.

The fact is that some drivers out there can handle talking on the phone and some can’t. There are also those that can drive while drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette, changing the radio station, applying makeup, carrying on a conversation with the passengers, and having a dog in their lap. But some can’t. Should we therefore make all those activities illegal as well? Your editorial page did not bother to mention it, but prior to this law passing it was already illegal to drive while “distracted.” This legislation does nothing more than create a new source of revenue while making our politicians look as if they’re “doing” something about the scourge that is today’s yapping drivers.

Take note, coffee drinkers. Tomorrow it could be you that’s the new danger on our state’s roads.

John Bradford

Poulsbo