In "We're still too fractured for regional projects" (In Focus, Aug. 18), Kirk Williamson utterly fails to support this thesis. In fact, he advances no arguments whatsoever. Be that as it may, I have no idea if the Tri-Cities will support regional projects or not.
I do know that the aquatic center proposal was an insult to all sentient residents of the Tri-Cities. No analysis of support for regional projects can be valid without first considering what is being proposed. The aquatic center proposal came down to an in-perpetuity tax in exchange for a water slide and two woefully inadequate pools. If it hadn't actually shown up on the ballot, I'd have passed it off as a hoax started by bored third-grade students on summer break.
An in-perpetuity tax to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless? Who could argue against? An in-perpetuity tax for a water park that won't last quite that long? An in-perpetuity tax and I still have to shell out five bucks to gain admission? An in-perpetuity tax for two six-lane 25 meter pools? An in-perpetuity tax for what private industry should do? Ridiculous!
E.C. LUND, Pasco